Jump to content

User talk:NeilN/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45

List of unsolved problems in physics (Talkpage)

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

Why NeilN as well as Oshwah should not be an admin

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

@Born2cycle: He has responded. Multiple times. Just because you don't like an editor's answers doesn't mean you get to keep on bludgeoning them. The avenue you should take was pointed out to you but I suspect you already know how that will turn out. --NeilN talk to me 22:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea how it might turn out. Thankfully I've largely been able to avoid the workings of Arbcom. I guess I'll find out. Thanks. But behavior like your closing that discussion only persuades me more that we have a serious problem with authoritarian syndrome among the admins here. I wasn't really aware of it until this incident, which at first I thought was an anomaly. --В²C ☎ 22:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Why do people keep reverting your edits? Hmmm... maybe because you're rude, inflammatory, and over-the-top, and everyone else is fed up. Lepricavark (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Floquenbeam, Neil has responded, and I appreciate it.
Lepricavark, I don't mean to be rude, but please remember that I was responding to Neil closing a section I started on another user's talk page. But I'll tone it down. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 22:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Basically I was going to let В²C have the last word. --NeilN talk to me 22:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Ikbda97

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

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

@Pi.1415926535: I needs diffs that show similar editing, please. --NeilN talk to me 03:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Both accounts are single-purpose accounts that edit the same three articles - two of which are rather obscure. Account was created barely a day after Olsen24 was blocked; within four edits, they are already reverting a user Olsen24 had been arguing with (what brand-new user understands the revert button?) - an edit that re-added one of Olsen24's images. This series of edits by Ikbda97 demonstrates several typical behaviors of Olsen24: adding excessive sig figs to the convert template (again, what brand-new user is going to do that?), adding Olsen24's images to the article, adding and changing uncited numbers of buses in service, and a general lack of edit summaries. There's also some circumstantial evidence which wags a finger in the direction of socking. The names are alarmingly similar - 5 letters and 2 numbers, and even adjacent letter keys on the keyboard. And Ikbda97 somehow replied here within 4 minutes of me posting this, even though {{userlinks}} does not produce a ping. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: Sock blocked, master's block extended one month. --NeilN talk to me 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Michael Young (basketball, born 1994)

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

I did not know whether it was too early to open an ANI or 3RR about this and I felt there wasn't enough recent vandalism to warrant page protection, however, I am beginning to become annoyed at constantly reverting these IPs edits. Young's height was changed to 6'8 on January 13 that went unnoticed until I popped by doing recent changes patrolling.[1] I reverted and sourced two reliable sources (espn and basketball ref) in my edit summary [2]. Despite my encouragement [3] [4] to discuss this matter on the talk page these IPs seem to prefer to revert and ignore me. I told them I had sources to explain the change in height and even posted it on the article's talk page [5] which fell on deaf ears.

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

Hi HickoryOughtShirt?4. You're always welcome here. The IPs may be trying to match what is listed (and sourced) as his college prep height of 6'8". To make it really clear, how about adding the ESPN reference beside the current height? I will also keep an eye on the article. --NeilN talk to me 04:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh thank you. I just had no idea where they were getting this source from. Thank you, I will go ahead and add it. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Another IP edited his height and deleted the citation I posted. I sent them a message encouraging them to take it to the talk page. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Semied a month. --NeilN talk to me 19:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT

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

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

[6] --NeilN talk to me 06:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Mehmet Oz

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

@Athene cunicularia: Are you contending the material is poorly sourced? I see another editor disputing that. --NeilN talk to me 14:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Authors who want to make sure a defamatory claim stays in the lede are saying "No," while putting the onus on me to explain myself. This is the exact opposite of what WP:BLP says.
"Many people agree including a Senator" doesn't prove the claim, full stop. Many people agree God exists, including Senators.
I'm not disputing the body of evidence or that the allegations belong prominently in the article. But it's an allegation, not a fact. And once you add "alleged" it's very clear it doesn't belong in the lede.
It's disappointing that as an admin you wouldn't immediately see this. This is exactly why I gave up on Wikipedia a few years ago. The voices in favor of POV are much louder than those in favor of neutrality and there's really no point in even trying. Athene cunicularia (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Athene cunicularia: BLP is not there to be a shield against negative material. If properly sourced, editors must decide, by looking at the sources, if the negative allegations are one of the things the subject is best known for. --NeilN talk to me 15:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Not negative material, but defamatory claims, yes. As I said, I have no issue with its inclusion in the article. It just doesn't belong on the lede, or without qualification. This is a mob's opinion masquerading as fact. A widely held allegation is still an allegation. Athene cunicularia (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Athene cunicularia: I suggest you be careful tossing around the phrase, "defamatory claims" as you are invoking a policy with legal considerations. And you need to convince other editors the sources presented constitute a "mob". --NeilN talk to me 15:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Except that's exactly what I'm saying, and why I'm surprised as an admin, you don't see that right away. The portrayal of the allegation as fact, and its location, are a clear attempt to defame. The mob I'm referring to is the editors who are quick to revert in order to preserve the POV. BLP clearly says the onus is on them to prove it's not defamatory, and all they've said so far is "No." Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Admins don't override what reliable published sources say. You are accusing these sources of publishing defamatory statements? --NeilN talk to me 16:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
As I said, I have no issue with inclusion of the allegations in the article, even prominently. My issue is with portraying those allegations as fact in the lede of the Wikipedia article. The lede says he is a pseudoscience promoter without qualification. It does this in his list of provable professional qualifications, randomly sandwiched between "cardiothoracic surgeon, Columbia University professor" and "author, and television personality". It is also a direct quote from an opinion piece, yet it is unquoted in the lede. This is a clear attempt by some Wikipedia editors to defame the subject of the article. It should be moved to the third paragraph with the other criticism, and it should be qualified with a word like "alleged." Otherwise it is defamatory. Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker)@Athene cunicularia: I have responded to your assertions at the talk page. In short, a study was published in a highly respected, peer-reviewed journal of medicine that unequivocally supports the claim that Oz is a promoter of pseudoscience. Given the additional fact that there are no reliable sources disputing this; it is our policy to state the assertion that Oz promotes pseudoscience as a fact, and not to characterize it as being doubtful in any way.
I would also advise you to heed NeilN's warnings about the use of legal threats, such as by labeling these statements "defamatory" and stating that they were intentionally inserted by editors for that purpose. If you continue to make these allegations, Neil will be well within his rights (and indeed, even fully expected to by many editors) to block you indefinitely, until such time as you retract them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Describing something as legally dubious does not constitute a legal threat. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, but your descriptions both here and at the Oz talk, would be described by some as personal attacks. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't I have to attack someone personally in order for it to be a personal attack? Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Athene cunicularia: Saying experienced editors are committing libel is never a good idea. You can email info-en-q@wikipedia.org and see what the WMF thinks of the content. --NeilN talk to me 17:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm an experienced editor too. I don't see how that's relevant. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Athene cunicularia: Because it is the inexperienced editors who say things like, "X is a fraud who helps murder people" without any sources (libel) while experienced editors make sure that negative statements are properly backed up by quality sources (not libel). --NeilN talk to me 17:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Blacklist removal for Susan Collett - thank you

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

NeilN, side question, if you are the victim of a 3RR dispute, do you have to post a request on the noticeboard and have another admin answer it or can you resolve the dispute yourself, i.e. blocking/protecting pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ-Joker16 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Lord David, Duke of Glencoe, see WP:INVOLVED: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." So if I'm working on an article as an editor, I cannot use my admin tools to help keep the article the way I want it to be. For edit warring, I need to post on the noticeboard like anyone else. --NeilN talk to me 21:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Abusive behavior

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

Well, thanks for sparing me the effort of watching for your return ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ScrapIronIV, don't think you'll have to worry about this "admin" any more. --NeilN talk to me 21:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
You really have to wonder what, exactly, she expected to accomplish by threatening to block an admin. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The silly message is one thing, this, after being warned to stop playing games, is another. I'm also wondering what's up with TrainsOnTime and Damotclese. --NeilN talk to me 21:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I was actually looking for that diff on her TP history (to be sure you saw it) when I noticed her last edit was to remove the block notice. I've already restored it, so you don't need to. Given the way those two seemed to look up to this one, I suspect someone might be trying to play off different characters. A CU might shed some light on that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
LOL nevermind: Ponyo was blocking them per a CU as I was writing that... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The pejorative

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

Hi Atsme. No speedy delete conditions apply to that article so it will have to go to AFD. Twinkle should be able to do the nomination properly (when you did it, you didn't create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libtard (2nd nomination)). If you can't get it to work, let me know and I will do it for you. --NeilN talk to me 16:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Poopers, NeilN - it did the same thing using Twinkle. I used the TW dashboard, but it isn't creating the 2nd nom. It simply adds to the bottom of the 1st AfD. See the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Libtard - and please delete that notice. I deleted on the blocked user's page already. Are you saying I have to create the 2nd nom page 1st? Never had to do that before... Atsme📞📧 23:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • While I think an admin might want to take a good long look at the contribs of the editor who wrote the initial version of that page, I personally don't think the page needs to go. It's been covered in the RSes, and while it's offensive, WP is not censored. I've already spot checked this editor's contribs. Every single one I checked was either blatant vandalism or agenda-driven OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Atsme: The nomination has been successfully created, I see. @MjolnirPants: I wish more editors active in this area would help out by putting {{subst:alert|ap}} on problematic editors' talk pages (yes, eyeroll to "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date."). Notification really does help curb and control future disruption. --NeilN talk to me 03:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll make a point of keeping an eye out for editors who haven't gotten one recently. It never even occurred to me when I took a look into this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, indeed it was, NeilN. Thank you for keeping this issue in your sights. I'm still trying to digest the steps Malcolmxl5 had to take because I prefer to not disturb others with issues I should be able to resolve. I don't think the curation tool is the issue. It appears that the old AfD was not closed properly and that a page move was involved but I'm not sure of the why or how. This happened to me once before but did not involve a pejorative - especially one that may negatively effect my position as a NPOV editor m(. I do find it problematic that WP:NOTDICTIONARY #3, tends to be overridden from time to time when "the sum of all knowledge" is misconstrued. Wikipedia actually defines why such words are not acceptable: Wikipedia:Encyclopedic#Content policies and guidelines which links to the definition of encyclopedic - #2. (lexicography) Relating to or containing descriptive information rather than only linguistic or lexical information; about facts and concepts, and not only a word or term; including proper names, biographical and geographical information and illustrations. I also noticed that attempts to keep antonyms of that term have failed at AfD as well they should. Atsme📞📧 14:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened

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

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

February 2018

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

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

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

@ScrapIronIV: The editor gets the same basic treatment as anyone stopping short of saying, "I will sue you" - a NLT template and a strict warning not to do it again. --NeilN talk to me 16:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I saw some ambiguity there; wasn't sure if they were threatening or just aggressively "informing" if you catch my drift. Scr★pIronIV 17:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Heads up

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

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

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

Block or topic ban?

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

(talk page stalker)Uh oh. Dem's fightin words. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Bishonen: I was going to add an edit summary something like, "Hear Bish roar! Discretionary sanctions? No more!" --NeilN talk to me 21:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

(talk page stalker) See WP:NOTWEBHOST. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Shearonink: WP:NOTWEBHOST and a warning not to create inappropriate pages. --NeilN talk to me 13:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in NeilN & MPants at work, I knew there was something - just couldn't remember what the page/guideline/policy was. I am not sure what is going on with this page and this editor. I became aware of this editor when they were actively editing other areas in WP back in 2013 & came across this content as an AfC submission (which was subsequently abandoned in its AfC state). If anyone wants to take a look at the page in question it's User:Vidal101/sandbox & it's gotten fairly massive. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) This looks like the sort of data that the sockmaster User:Weathertrustchannel and his socks used to put up on geographical articles, but it can be found in legitimate use as well. If this is not a sockpuppet, and there are articles for the locations specified in the sandbox, then it may be a legitimate set of climate data intended to be integrated to articles. Just my 2¢... Scr★pIronIV 16:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
ScrapIronIV Yeah, that could have been the case but after just now doing some further research...it isn't. All the places I checked that are mentioned in this sandbox are fictional, the only reference I was able to find to the place "Mamalojo" is on a city-data.com forum thread called "Rate this fictional climate" (see this), which, in turn, leads to all these other city-date forum threads. City-data is the only place I found on the internet that has this content (though there is an identically-named Reddit community with no posts). Shearonink (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I found it there, too. I agree that it needs to be nuked. Maybe take it to MfD or some such. Scr★pIronIV 18:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Page deleted. Left a note for the editor. --NeilN talk to me 18:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing articles

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

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

B. R. Ambedkar edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rouge IP address

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

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

Adi Agashe

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

@Sitush: I've deleted the article. The recreation was substantially the same and did not address issues raised at the AFD. The AFD ran for more than seven days and would have closed as delete had it been closed independently from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheetal Agashe. --NeilN talk to me 04:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - that's a good rationale, whether it in strictly in policy or IAR. The anons seemed to be making a phenomenal number of edits to get, well, nowhere in particular but I do sometimes wonder whether I have remembered the original article correctly or whether the new one is substantially different. He'll be back. - Sitush (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

SPI

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

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

Singh family

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

Ameeta Singh semied and I'll keep an eye on Garima Singh. --NeilN talk to me 21:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrestlemania 35

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

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

Request for assessment

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

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

Observation

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

Guess so. In case anyone was wondering, emergency has already been informed about the threats to the WMF. --NeilN talk to me 17:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Wow, and I thought some of my attackers were scabrous! --Orange Mike | Talk 02:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Manoj Ranjan Yadav

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

Yeah. Why muck about with SPA caste warriors? I've banned them from caste-related pages. On past form, they'll probably ignore it, but then I'll just have to explain. [Bishonen realises what she's in for. Weeps.] Bishonen | talk 15:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC).
OK, thanks, Bish. The Yadav article could probably use a couple of revdels. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I got one. What's the other? --NeilN talk to me 15:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Identifying info, eg: here. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah, you found it. All done, folks. I will leave Bish to deal with the almost inevitable next step. Counting down from now ... 3, 2, 1 ... - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Edit summaries, article edits, topic ban, logging of topic ban... Dude has like twenty edits. --NeilN talk to me 15:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually not me, Sitush; RegentsPark has already blocked them for 48 hours for violating the ban. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

I want to be an wiki editor

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

Editors are unpaid volunteers so you can jump in right away and contribute and get the same salary as the rest of us. --NeilN talk to me 18:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Can I get a raise? :p --Church Talk 22:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
How long do I have to work here before I get a reserved parking space? General Ization Talk 22:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Church: Yes, the cabal has authorized me to give you a 50% pay raise. @General Ization: Here you go: User:NeilN/General Ization's reserved parking space. --NeilN talk to me 22:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Somebody has already parked there. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 05:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete my Sandbox?????

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

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

The Cabal

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

@MjolnirPants: Despite what you may have heard, there are no reserved parking spaces. Ignore anyone who tells you otherwise. --NeilN talk to me 00:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Uh huh, now you've made me suspicious. Next, you'll be offering to take me Snipe hunting. I'M WISE TO YOUR GAMES!! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Well I do parking enforcement and write tickets for people parked in handicapped and in non-allowed spaces. I just park wherever I want to, write myself a ticket and put it on my own windshield so another enforcement patroller doesn't write me one, and just rip up my copy of it. I actually knew people in college who did this... friggin' genius... LOL ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I used to know a head shop where -if you asked just right- they'd sell you forged blank parking ticket for just that purpose. There was other stuff they sold out of the back, too. They didn't last long, unsurprisingly, but I was sad to see them go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah: On an unrelated note: I actually read about half of your response in the thread below this one, thinking it was your response to me. Confused the hell out of me for a few seconds, because it was just similar enough to something a completely humorless (and clueless) admin might say to me. I was reading it thinking "Who the hell hacked Oshwah's account?!?!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I can say that it would probably confuse the hell out of me, too :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Kratom

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

(talk page watcher) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is your only account. The article's talk page is here - this is where you need to go in order to discuss the dispute. Following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and coming to a consensus with others is how this is going to get resolved; leaving a message here and toward the user who fully protected the page to put an end to the disruptive editing over the content dispute is not the way to properly resolve your concerns. Read the guidelines I've linked you and follow them in order to properly work things out. Message me on my talk page if you have any questions - Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ave.Maria: What Oshwah said is correct but please use Talk:Mitragyna speciosa. --NeilN talk to me 00:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Did I link to the wrong talk page originally? Sorry... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I accidentally blocked your alt account

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

@Oshwah: No worries. I "blocked" Wikipedia twice yesterday because of similar tomfoolery. --NeilN talk to me 15:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
NICE! :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, Wikipedia is known for it's frequent vandalism... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

Khattar copyvio and SPS

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

@Sitush: Editor indeffed and copyvios revdelled. --NeilN talk to me 21:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Bloody good service round these parts! Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

If I have to I will

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

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

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

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

Neil, can you look into this user’s edits again? Not only has he violated 1RR again (his two reverts have reverted this and this edit), this user makes highly disruptive edits like this and edit-wars it back into the article. The user also uses highly questionable sources throughout the project like in this edit. The user was warned several times for disruption and I think it has become more problematic than their obvious 1RR violations. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@EtienneDolet: Blocked 48 hours. Next step is a topic ban. --NeilN talk to me 13:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The View Page

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

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

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

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

Wow. Any faster at deleting copyvios as you just did and you will be a mind-reader. Still, it would save a lot of electrons if you were. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sitush: Usual indef block with instructions on how to get unblocked. [7] --NeilN talk to me 00:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Page hoax

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

Hi HickoryOughtShirt?4. Twinkle puts a "csd" tab at the top of your screen. Click that and choose the proper speedy delete criteria. In this case, I agree it's likely a hoax, but it's not an obvious hoax (WP:G3). I have asked the creator to explain their editing, though. [8] --NeilN talk to me 02:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. So because it is not an obvious hoax, and to give the editor a chance to explain, I'll just leave it be until the PROD times out. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
So. This person does appear in at least 10 other articles so I was thinking this could be legitimate info but then User:Mark Rafael Castro, who created the Bringas article? Take a look at his user page... He has also changed the name of this person in various links from Mark Rafael Castro/(maybe even Mark Castro) or Mark Bringas to Mark Rafael Bringas. At one point they've also submitted two empty requests in July 2017 to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects in what I think is an apparent attempt] to create a named-article... I was unable to find any decent WP:IRS references or sources for this person. I suppose if there are Filipino WP-editors who could check out the various claims associated with this name that would be helpful, since there seem to be several associated articles. Shearonink (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Shearonink: The editor has been going around adding links to this article. If I don't get a good answer to my question then I'll delete the article and block the editor for hoaxing. --NeilN talk to me 03:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Shearonink and HickoryOughtShirt?4: To close this off, as the editor continued to edit ignoring my question, I've deleted the article and blocked them indefinitely. --NeilN talk to me 15:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Unlocking Medri Bahri

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

@LeGabrie: Left a note here. --NeilN talk to me 13:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Unlock is still coming today? LeGabrie (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@LeGabrie: Unprotected. --NeilN talk to me 13:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:Ey yo, he changed the "successor" and the end date yet again. His logic, which was already proven wrong during the third-opinion debatte: "There was some resistance by a relative of the last Bahr Negash several years after the latter was imprisoned, so Medri Bahri as a political entity continued to exist." The source he now quotes is just more of the same. LeGabrie (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No it is not More of the same, Between the Jaws of Hyenas is much more detailed then your Dan Connell source. Don't try to use the Third Opinion as your shield against reliable sources. I provided a much more detailed source. You are straight up lying at this point. The source I provided [9] goes into so Much Detail that it throws out your Synthesised conclusion of 1879 as the "end date " of Medri Bahri. I am following wikipedia guidelines and providing sources that show that 1890 is the end of Medri Bahri and the start of Italian Eritrea, infact Italian Eritrea was forming during the so-called Ras Alula governorship. Uknowofwiki (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The last Bahr Negash was Woldemichael. He was imprisoned in 1879. He had no heir. Ras Alula became the de facto sovereign of the Eritrean highlands. Käffäl was a mere brigand that didn't become relevant years later. LeGabrie (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Also per WP:BRD, I have placed a talkpage discussion about this topic [10] so lets discuss there LeGabrie, Third Opinion logic can be used to also say Ras Alula was a continuation of Emperor Appointed governors, Ras Woldemichael was appointed as Co-Governor alongside Ras Alula of Medri Bahri by Yohannes IV in 1879 (see Page 143 of the chapter Loss of Marab Mellash) [11] How is it the end of Medri Bahri if Ras Woldemichael(walda mikael) is also giving governorship of MedriBahri in 1879. The source I provided is a reliable source per wikipedia is MUCH MORE Detailed then your Dan Connell source. Uknowofwiki (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

As for Ras Woldemichael's heirs, he had two, one of was named Masfen(Mesfin) [12] page 149 who allied himself with the Italians which as history shows led to the formation of Italian Eritrea from Medri Bahri. Your synthesised source Dan Connell is less detailed then Between the Jaws of Hyenas which is a historical account of Diplomatic relations between Abyssinia(Ethiopia), Italy, Egypt, Britain, MedriBahri(Merab Mellash). The way you present Medri Bahri, you make the article read as if the Medri Bahri people were just Spectators in their own country. I've shown the source and have used it appropriately throughout the article. I am following wikipedia guidelines. And the logic of the Third Opinion was wrong and now I have shown through this source exactly Why! Uknowofwiki (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Ras Woldemichael was appointed as Co-Governor alongside Ras Alula of Medri Bahri by Yohannes IV in 1879" He was appointed as one BEFORE he was imprisoned. Read your own damn sources. Furthermore, your source then proceeds: "For a time all of Mareb Mellash was put under Alula". So the de jure and de facto successor was Ethiopia, even according to your own source. LeGabrie (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I read the source you "FUCKING" refuse to use logic correctly. If the appointment of Governorship comes from the Emperor and at that point in history, the governorship was given to Ras Alula, that did not end the Medri Bahri as its own entity even within the Tribute-system empire of Ethiopia. Use logic correctly, both Ras Alula and Ras Woldemichael were appointed governourship of MedriBahri(Merab Mellash) by the Emperor, even if one is removed, the governourship remains until the Italians came and completely removed that System of Government ie Medri Bahri ended in 1890 with the formal removal of any Heirs to the Governourship and no longer that system of government existed in Medri Bahri which was incorporated into Italian Eritrea. The fact the Emperor, not Ras Alula, but the "FUCKING" Emperor appointed Ras Woldemichael, it Does mean that Medri Bahri as a Political Entity existed at that point. The True End of its Existence as a Political Entity was the Completion of the Italian Eritrea. We can argue semantics here, but Ras Woldemichael was not the "Last Bahre Negash", nor was "Ras Alula", as they both ended up losing Medri Bahri to the Italians. Case in point, Continue reading my Source and you will be Better Educated then you are right now about Medri Bahri. Uknowofwiki (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Simply put, if the appointment of Bahrnegash(Governour) of Medri Bahri was at some points done by the Ethiopian Emperor and other times by Heavily Armed Warlords(Ras Woldemichael), the logic means that Medri Bahri as an entity existed as an entity so long as a Governour ruled it within the boundaries of its territories. If you agree that this is the case, then to state that it ended with Ras Alula arresting his Co-Governour(Bahrenagash) Ras Woldemichael, while Alula remained "Governour" of Medri Bahri, Medri Bahri did Not CEase to Exist, only that Ras Woldemichael's official capacity was removed. Medri Bahri continued to exist even with the CIVIL WAR raging in its territories of which Ras Alula as Governour FAILED to Contain and eventually lost the Merab Mellash(Medri Bahri) as my source states to the Italians by 1889. Ras Alula did not rename Merab Mellash(Medri Bahri) nor did he change anything about its political structure and he being Tigrayan or Ethiopia versus "Medr Bahrian" doesn't change the fact that BahrNegash's at points in Medri Bahri's history were NON_MedriBahrians. Your ethnic differences mean the state ended would be equivalent to how RACISTS in the US believed that PresidentObama represented the end of the US as a country, that was n't so. Nor was Ras Alula's governourship of Medri Bahri, the end of Medri Bahri as a POLITICAL Entity. The Italian Eritrea was the end of the Medri Bahri as a Political Entity. Uknowofwiki (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

NO CANVASSING FOR THIRD OPINION NeilN, please be aware that LeGabrie canvassed against WP:Canvass by directly contacting Francois Robere who had agreed with him in the Third Opinion which I disagreed with for being BIased from the get go. [13] where LeGabrie and FrancoisRobere (both French sounding names) are talking as if friends. I asked that FrancoisRobere recuse himself in [14]. If FrancoisRobere is any way involved in any other Third Opinion, then I will definitely NOT ACCEPT any Result from LeGabrie/FrancoisRobere Circular Discussion-Opinion. Per WP:Canvass, LeGabrie specifically contacted Francois because Francois agreed with him. This is a violation and I have asked RobereFrancois to Recuse himself. "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it.From WP Canvas "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it."Uknowofwiki (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Uknowofwiki and LeGabrie: First, please don't have a debate about content here. I'm not mediating this content dispute so most of the posts above belong on the article's talk page. Second, Francois Robere participated in the discussion so approaching him is not canvassing. However, his involvement is now just as a regular editor, not as a neutral third opinion. As there is now three of you discussing, a WP:3O is not applicable any more. --NeilN talk to me 23:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Neil. Exactly my thinking on this. François Robere (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I created Talkpage discussions as linked. Neither LeGabrie nor Francois Robere have even shown the interest to discuss in the Talkpage of the Medri Bahri article After the Third Opinion. I am willing to discuss the content there, I do not understand why LeGabrie is not willing to even discuss? Only Edit without Discussion...accept his changes without consensus? I disagree and I have already warned LeGabrie about Canvassing which he did do especially in asking for a Third Opinion, a second time from a Francois Robere, that is the definition of Canvassing, seeking a someone who previously agreed with you(not arguing with you) but Stating the Facts of the Guidelines. NeilN, you read the diff I showed where LeGabrie and Francois are talking about the Medri Bahri article, LeGabrie did CANVASS and I have warned him about it. Uknowofwiki (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Uknowofwiki: As I said above, Francois was already involved in the discussion. --NeilN talk to me 00:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
From WP:Canvassing"The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." Francois prior to being contacted by LeGabrie, agreed(supported) LeGabrie's point of view. LeGabrie knowing this contacted Francois in the [15] (should I paste what they both said?)...that is the definition of Canvassing right there. I've warned LeGabrie already about it. Uknowofwiki (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Uknowofwiki: LeGabrie post to the talk page of the only other editor participating in the discussion. I've indicated they can ignore your warning. --NeilN talk to me 00:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
That is your choice to indicate that they can ignore my warning. However, I showed per the Wikipedia guidelines that LeGabrie did Canvass, I clearly stated and showed the evidence regarding LeGabrie Canvassing. Either way, I am open to discussion regarding the content dispute, but I am definitely maintaining my position that LeGabrie Canvassed! Uknowofwiki (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Sorry for being such a nuisance, but what now? Do I have to get yet another third opinion? Because Uknow sure as hell won't change his opinion by rational discussions on the Talk page. LeGabrie (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@LeGabrie: As I mentioned above, WP:3O is no longer applicable as there are more than two editors involved in the discussion. Using WP:DRN is probably the next option if the current discussion stalls. --NeilN talk to me 12:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN:Understood. Assuming that the duspute resolution goes in my and Francois' favor, can I put a warning on Uknows account to not touch the Medri Bahri entry again when he has no sources backing the changes up? Especially the end date and the successor? LeGabrie (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@LeGabrie: You can warn them. They are free to disregard it, though. --NeilN talk to me 13:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Strictly speaking: What would get him banned from editing the entry? Can you give some fitting scenarios? LeGabrie (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@LeGabrie: Probably not a good idea to have a goal of banning your opponent from an article. Go through the dispute resolution processes and see what other editors have to say and go from there. --NeilN talk to me 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have provided a source, a much more detailed one LeGabrie. But you aren't really interested in Content though as you are more interested in getting me Banned.Uknowofwiki (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


@NeilN: Edit-Warring: [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] LeGabrie (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Medri Bahri Medri Bahri article talkpage regarding the dates [19], I sent you a message on your talkpage LeGabrie about it, [20], why aren't you willing to discuss in the RfC instead of just making changes ? Please respect the RfC process. I made no changes to the date and have only reverted your changes to the last version with regards to the date. If need be, NeilN please lock the Medri Bahri article until the RfC comes to some consensus? Uknowofwiki (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You reverted the change because you want to see your version displayed alone. The reader shall not see that the date is disputed, and thus thinks that your version is the correct, definite one. To ensure that it stays that way as long as possible you are edit-warring. LeGabrie (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Again you are more than welcome to discuss in the RfC. I even alerted you about the RfC. The "1890" was the date for a long time. The edit you did "1879/1890" is after the RfC. I don't think the last version , that I reverted will convince any editor to agree with that date. In fact, the RfC will possibly bring new Data that you or I have available. I wait for the RfC. Again you can discuss in the RfC why you believe that "1879" is the end of the political entity called "Medri Bahri(Merab Mellash)", provide a credible source and not just Dan Connell stating it as "fact" without any other sources to make it a "fact". Uknowofwiki (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@LeGabrie and Uknowofwiki: Both of you are edit warring. And LeGabrie, condescending edit summaries like this are not necessary. --NeilN talk to me 15:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: So you agree that only his version (1890) should be displayed until the dispute resolution? LeGabrie (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@LeGabrie: It doesn't matter what is the current version. No experienced editor will add a !vote to that RFC saying, "well, that's the current version so that's the right version." --NeilN talk to me 15:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: It isn't about the editors and other insiders, it is about the average visitor, numbering more than hundred individuals every single day. They need to see that the enddate is disputed. LeGabrie (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC's are not based on a voting system, it's based on consensus. Also, a reliable source must be provided to answer the questions asked in the RfC. I kept the questions as neutral as possible and did not steer the user to agree with 1890 nor go against 1879. Personally from the sources I read, I would say Medri Bahri (with it's most Notable Political/Military defenders or protagonists) ended with Bahta Hagos and his rebellion against the Italians after 1890. As suggestion to you(LeGabrie) maybe you should see Medri Bahri not in the strict definition that Francois Robere/LeGabrie have defined doing Original Research. For example, Medri Bahri Bahrenagash was not a Hereditary title, therefore "king" does not apply. "Governour" applies more. Additionally, since the Title seemed to originate with the Ethiopian Emperor Sarsa Dengel, the question to be asked is, why is Medri Bahri still a political entity during that period but not when Ethiopian Emperor Yohannes appointed the "Governour"(Bahrenagash) in 1879 for both Ras Alula and Woldemichael Solomon? Also, the Bahrenagash of Medri Bahri has also at times not been of the ethnicities of the Medri Bahri population, namely, the Emperor's own Uncle in one case? I think as Wikipedia goes, I think we first need to define what "Medri Bahri" means and then we can proceed about dates and all? I extend a an Olive Branch of Cooperation in this effort...Would you like to work on the article with me and whomever would like to make it a more accurate article based on reliable sources and not only one-liners in one book with no reference to that "one liner"? To me 1879 is Original Research, 1890 is somewhat backed by the Treaty of Wuchale and the actual documented existence of Italian Eritrea after Medri Bahri. Uknowofwiki (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Transistor-transistor logic

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

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

Sexism

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

@MPants at work: Censorship!!1!! Vandalism!!!1! --NeilN talk to me 16:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It's my recent induction into The Cabal™ (There is no cabal). It's made me quite censorious and prone to vandalism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.
@MPants at work: It's too bad Flyer22 is less active than they once were on this article. They don't suffer editors like this gladly and I bet their comments would have been interesting to read. --NeilN talk to me 20:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I seem to recall a few good reads of the "this is why your suggestion is so unbelievably moronic" variety on that talk page in the past. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Per your comment

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

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

Fire Emblem vandal

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

@EvergreenFir: Already done. 110.54.128.0/17, one month. --NeilN talk to me 06:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Awesome sauce. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
And talk page revoked across the range. Had to delete about five "unblock me" appeals from different IP addresses, all made within a couple minutes. --NeilN talk to me 06:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI

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

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

A little education required

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

@ScrapIronIV: You're talking to the wrong person. Save for WP:BLPCAT violations, I stay away from categories as I think the way we do categories is downright weird, archaic, and cumbersome. I'd much prefer a tagging system but I'm probably in the small minority. --NeilN talk to me 20:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for responding anyway - I'll check with @Dennis Brown: if he's around. I am sure it's not a violation, as it's been around so long. Just a question of me trying to understand better. Scr★pIronIV 20:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Neil, it's a minority of at least two, I'll tell you that. And I'd bet money I know of at least 3 others who'd get behind that idea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Not sure about the category, I haven't really thought about it long enough, although my first instinct is to repel a bit. Honestly, I don't use the cat system here or dabble in it. If I was going to ask an editor around here, I would ask BrownHairedGirl, who I think does a great deal with categories and can probably offer more insight here. Additionally, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is a good way to find out what consensus is on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, @Dennis Brown.
There are 2 issues here:
  1. whether we should categorise people who convicted of indecent assault. I haven't formed a view on that, but I can see a good argument that it is WP:DEFINING, and if pushed at this point I'd probably say we should keep it: a conviction on this charge is a v big issue for anyone's public standing. That's only my initial take, and debate might sway me.
  2. whether there should be an Irish subcat. Category:Irish people convicted of indecent assault had only 1 page when I looked at a few minutes ago, but I diffused a few pages into it from Category:People convicted of indecent assault. So now it has 7 pages, which seems to me to justify @Tim!'s creation of Category:Irish people convicted of indecent assault.
If anyone believes that we should not have categories of people convicted of indecent assault, then feel free to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Nomination_procedure, and open a group discussion on Category:Irish people convicted of indecent assault and all its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
PS If the concern is not about categorising people who convicted of indecent assault, but about sub-categorising them by nationality, then the remedy would be to nominate the three by-nationality subcats for merger to Category:People convicted of indecent assault and Category:Foian sex offenders (where "Fooian" is the nationality). I'm less clear about why grouping them by nationality would be problematic, but anyone is free to make the case. Note, however, that Category:Criminals by crime and nationality is a well-developed category tree, so you'd need to make a case why indecent assault is an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Hello NeilN,

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

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

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

@Uknowofwiki: First, editors swear on Wikipedia. People may not like it but the community has not banned the use of profanities. Second, LeGabrie did what he was supposed to do to solve a content dispute - he asked for the opinion of a neutral third party. You obviously disagree with the opinion but do not edit war. I don't know what you mean by "appropriate Authorities on Wikipedia" but I pointed out further options available to you. I suggest you use one of them. --NeilN talk to me 04:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Really the F-word is fine when used in a Hostile combative manner like LeGabrie did in this diffs I showed you, but using the word "Kangaroo Court" is not acceptabale to you? I can tell you don't like me and thats fine with me. But constitency in Wikipedia guidelines being applied would be helpful for editors. According to you, its against wikipedia rules for me to call the bias in Third Opionion I noted as a "Kangaroo court"..but its ok for LeGabrie to be completely UnCivil in responding to me. I kept as neutral as possible. I think you are a Biased Moderator by the way, thats my opinion. And you showed you are biased by using Wikipedia to keep me from even editting but its ok According to YOU that LeGabrie can say "Fuck" and "Hypocrite" and "Eritrean nationalist" editors but I can't call THird Opinion a "Kangaroo Court". Uknowofwiki (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Uknowofwiki: You need to carefully read what I actually wrote: More comments like the "kangaroo court" one may convince the community that you are not interested in achieving consensus, but rather only in seeing your preferred version of the article put in place no matter what. That is, people understand when two editors with opposing viewpoints go at each other. However they start to wonder about POV-editing when a third-party opinion is contemptuously dismissed. You need to stop harping on the supposed biases of everyone else and start focusing on content. Also, I went back to the edit warring noticeboard, the article talk page, and this page and I cannot find any post from me about potentially blocking you or otherwise stopping you from editing - just a statement to stop edit warring. Do you have a diff that says differently? --NeilN talk to me 06:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
[25] where you say "I do not expect edit warring to occur after protection is lifted. Uknowofwiki, I'm looking specifically at you." As if I alone was involved in a an edit war and as for acting civilly you completely ignored LeGabrie's conduct, the community would ignore his conduct and "specifically" "look" at me like you stated...You are a moderator and your tone has made me feel as if you will block or ban me if I even continue editting honestly any article that the LeGabrie editor (who has some kind of prejudice against Eritrean editors) is on. I see that LeGabrie is bent on being the Sole Editor owner of the Medri Bahri article by asking to see how he can get me Banned or blocked in the talk section on your talkpage. Uknowofwiki (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
LeGabrie took the first step by asking for the WP:3O. You didn't agree with the third editor. Instead of edit warring, I am expecting you to take the next step by using one of the other dispute resolution mechanisms I pointed out. Why is this so hard to understand? --NeilN talk to me 07:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not hard to understand, that isn't my issue at this point. My issue is what this talksection is that you made a comment. I responded to your comment, as a moderator, I wanted you to know exactly what was the case. By the way, you have not acknowledged what I stated there, you did clearly state as a moderator that you will specifically be looking at me(punitive) in any edit war as if I am solely the "guilty one". That is what the tone you communicated to me is and as for "edit warring", I already stated that I just won't edit the Medri Bahri article. The problem here is that you are specifically only looking at me and completely ignoring or excusing LeGabrie's behavior. How can I go to the next level of "dispute resolution" when I will be accused and or treated as if I am guilty of "edit warring" solely? Edit wars are a two-way transaction. Uknowofwiki (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Uknowofwiki: Given your poor reaction to the 3O, the note was meant to keep you out of trouble. Question: Have you actually looked at the other dispute resolution options or are you just complaining? --NeilN talk to me 15:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I've looked at the other dispute resolution paths.Uknowofwiki (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Uknowofwiki: So you've seen options like RFC and WP:DRN focus on content only, not editor behavior. --NeilN talk to me 13:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Read the statement:

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

Then read the article that he sourced

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

@Dr.Greyhawk: There was no WP:3RR violation. I'm also leaning towards blocking you as a sock and have asked another admin to look at your editing. --NeilN talk to me 01:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh okay, so WP:3RR is the only thing that constitutes as a violation on Wikipedia now? But intentionally introducing false information into articles multiple times even after being warned is totally fine apparently. Does this mean that we can stay in an edit war forever as long as we wait 24 hours in between reverts? This is what you are setting it up to be. I already showed you how his contribution and reverts were erroneous even according to his own source that he cited. Also, how will you block me for being a "sock" when this is the first account I've ever had? Just a few days here and I'm already getting a taste of the hypocrisy and bias in the moderation. Going through their history, the users you are protecting seem to have free reign in violating the integrity of information in multiple articles on this site since 2011 and you want to ban me for being objective and rectifying some of their erroneous and misleading contributions? How does that make sense? Even another user is now discussing the same problem in the same article. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Please see WP:WTAF. We need evidence of his notability and sources for his ethnicity per our policy on living people. --NeilN talk to me 01:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
He Was Advisor of three Macedonian Presidents: K. Gligorov, B. Trajkovski, and G. Ivanov. He wrote Macedonian Constitution and He was expert on Name Issue with Greece. What more you need?178.222.98.212 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
An article which conforms to WP:BIO with reliable sources. I suggest you use WP:AFC to create a draft. --NeilN talk to me 01:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Its impossible to create a draft. It is limited for confirm users. As for ethnicity look at mk.wiki stating that he was or is Macedonian professor, in first sentence, here https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%88%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2 .178.222.98.212 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
IP blocked per this and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Operahome --NeilN talk to me 01:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

WP:NOTHERE editing by "Prototypehumanoid"

Hi NeilN,

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

Hi LouisAragon. As the edit was not outright vandalism I cannot take admin action as I was directly involved in a content dispute with them. Your best bet is ANI or another admin. --NeilN talk to me 01:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Aight. Problem with such "editors", other than the malicious nature of their edits, is that they edit quite irregularly as well. So I guess we have to wait for him to make another edit before reporting. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Replacing deleted PROD tags, and likely associated shenanigans

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

@Julietdeltalima: I've opened a SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RomanskiRUS --NeilN talk to me 01:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Wow, thank you! My colleagues and I didn't accomplish anything nearly as useful or satisfying in that hour. Have a great weekend! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Julietdeltalima: Good instincts. Both blocked as socks of another editor. --NeilN talk to me 04:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
You have my thanks as well. It looked fishy to me, too, but I didn't have the experience to know how to follow up. --Mark viking (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
BTW, I deleted two AFDs. The third one has to continue because of outside participation but I've struck the sock !votes. You may have seen the articles created by the socks - those are gone too. --NeilN talk to me 04:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

And semi-protected. The sock/meat puppets may have a point, but the way they're going about editing is disruptive. Editors should be discussing and looking for replacements first, rather than playing the "editors are autistic and racist!" card. [29] --NeilN talk to me 18:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
May? considering WP:DAILYMAIL. Wikipedia has a clear written policy against using the Daily Mail as a source, in light of their history of fabrication. Since they are simply removing that information sourced by it they are actually improving the article within the guidelines, unfortunately as an administrator you are unfamiliar with this.139.5.177.69 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Cool story. "They" should be discussing whether to remove or replace and "they" should explain why they're removing other sources [30] and "they" should be requesting an unblock from their original account, instead of canvassing offsite. --NeilN talk to me 19:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
So you acknowledge your reverts were incorrect? gottit, it's not policy to discuss whether it should be removed, WP:DAILYMAIL explains clearly it shouldn't be used as a source, period. Whether it is "replaced" should be up to the next editor to find a better source, simply restoring the article does not improve it.139.5.177.69 (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't. Editors in good standing can decide what to do. Go away now, thank you. --NeilN talk to me 19:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks by Wickfox

Hi Neil,

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

Please elaborate the harsh comments. You wrote to my talk page and I responded. Stop reporting everyone who makes reverts on your false statements. I am just trying to keep Wikipedia neutral. Be civil.Wickfox (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
You claiming that "I hate Turkey" or that "I hate Erdogan" is a personal attack. See WP:PA. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, looking at your talk page; that is a fact yourself mentioned a few times. I am just saying that you are provocatively editing articles and constantly giving trouble to people who are trying to prevent this. Looking your contribution history and the sources you are constantly adding to the articles; this is very clear. Stop being provocative. Again, Wikipedia is not a propaganda portal, it is an information portal. We are not running a propaganda war here.Wickfox (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Wickfox: You've already skated on a WP:1RR violation so I'm not minded to give you much more leeway. Comment on the content, not the contributor. If you think EtienneDolet consistently edits Turkey-related articles in a non-neutral way then present solid evidence to an admin or admin board and ask for sanctions. If you cannot or will not do this, then stop with the accusations. --NeilN talk to me 14:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi @NeilN, first of all, I only have a single violation which is already not an indication of being right or wrong in this situation. I am sorry about that WP:1RR, didn't really knew about it. Will make sure not to do it again. I will post my findings about his non-neutrality to the board soon. Just a latest example here: [33]. While the reliability of certain resources is being discussed in the talk page, he makes edits in the article because he -doesn't feel like it-. EtienneDolet is already reported here by another user. In addition to this, he started making personal accusations on my talk page here. Without any evidence, he is saying that I have created sock accounts (despite I have a single account which is connected to Global and Turkish wikipedia). Please warn this user; so it won't happen again.Wickfox (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@EtienneDolet: I don't quite understand the socking allegation. --NeilN talk to me 15:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I’ll have to explain that to you privately. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:DAILYMAIL WP:RS

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

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

nazi party page

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

@Dsteakley: Thank you for stopping reverting and posting on the talk page. Others will respond and make their arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please do not re-revert until this discussion is concluded. --NeilN talk to me 20:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
well, my interlocutors on the talk page basically told me to fuck off. does that conclude the process? can i resume reverting? Dsteakley (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dsteakley: Only if you want to be blocked for violating WP:3RR. The process doesn't conclude in a couple hours. Give it a couple days so that all interested editors have a chance to comment. In the mean time, look through the archives for past discussions. If you can't find what you're looking for, WP:DRR has other options. --NeilN talk to me 22:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
ok, thanks. I thought statenments on wikipedia have to be factual, and have to be substantiated. This "nazis are right wing" is inherently opinion, and cannot be substantiated as fact, QED. Dsteakley (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dsteakley: I believe the editors there are probably using WP:ASSERT. --NeilN talk to me 22:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
ok, but the article doesn't attribute this opinion to anyone, and doesn't give any source for the opinion. certainly this opinion is widely disputed. it is equally dumb to say the nazis are a party of the left. this just doesn't belong in this article. Dsteakley (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dsteakley: it is definitely sourced, throughout the article. In the lede, common knowledge facts aren't usually sourced. More sources are in the Nazism article. Dave Dial (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
no source is EVER given for the claim that the Nazis were a far right party. If you can escape the duty to treat opinions as opinions by claiming that your opinion is common knowledge, then i don't think this policy of Wikipedia has much effect. Dsteakley (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Trying to correct misleading information

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

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

User:Perky28 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Being worked out on talk page)

Hi NeilN,

About a month ago, I was shocked to see the total disappearance of S. L. Thaler’s research from the WP page on near-death experience, along with all its supporting references. Knowing that for years this article has included his work, and then reading the personal attacks on the talk page, I was especially motivated to reintroduce his work. Then, after two reversions, I attempted a compromise, simply adding references to the article so that readers would have the option to dig deeper into this highly relevant research. However, even that minor addition was rejected by Jytdog, who seems steadfastly resistant to any mention whatsoever of Thaler in this article.

In defense of Thaler, please allow me to elaborate on what I believe to be the valid references that have been removed:

Secondary references:

1. Young-Mason, J. Patient's Voice: Experiences of Illness, F. A. Davis. Dr. Young-Mason is a Distinguished Professor from the University of Massachusetts, publishing with F. A. Davis. From what I can tell, WP has not challenged her reputation or that of her publisher. I would think this to be a reliable secondary source.

2. Högl, S., Near-Death Experiences, Religions and the World Beyond, Tectum Verlag, 1996.

3. Yam, P., "Daisy, Daisy" Do computers have near-death experience, Scientific American, May 1993. I believe this article to be on par with the SciAm article by Charles Choi that is currently listed as a reference in the WP article, "Peace of mind: nde now found to have a scientific explanation." (Note – Yam, the SciAm writer did connect the artificial neural network's death with that of the brain. So, it's not computers that are dying, but the neural simulations that are running on them.)

4. Ricciardiello L, Fornaro P. Beyond the Cliff of Creativity: a novel key to bipolar disorder and creativity. Med. Hypotheses 2013;2012(80). 534–453. This is a pubmed article that discusses the link between near-death experience and creativity. This journal’s advisory board includes such notables as neurobiologist V. S. Ramachandran and behavioral neurologist Antonio Damasio, so I wouldn’t discount the journal as Jytdog has.

I would also recommend the addition of the secondary source, Gunn, S., Can Artificial Intelligence Have a Near-Death Experience? A Critical Look at the Ultimate Text, March 1998 Journal of Near-Death Studies 17(1), DOI10.1023/A:1022938101875? In all fairness, this paper should also be mentioned because it is a rebuttal to his work and adds balance.

Primary references include these peer-reviewed articles from Journal of Near-Death Experience and are cited by the secondary sources:

1. Thaler, S. L., Death of a gedanken creature, Journal of Near-Death Studies, 13(3), Spring 1995.

2. Thaler, S. L., The death dream and near-death darwinism, Journal of Near-Death Studies, 15(1), Fall 1996.

3. Thaler, S. L., The emerging intelligence and its critical look at us, Journal of Near-Death Studies, 17(21), 1998.

I see three references to Journal of Near-Death Studies in the WP article as it now stands, so I would assume this journal to be a reliable source, especially since its editor-in-chief is Bruce Grayson, an NDE notable.

Another primary source is:

Thaler, S. L. (1995) "Virtual Input Phenomena" Within the Death of a Simple Pattern Associator, Neural Networks, 8(1), 55–65. Note that this is the official journal of the International Neural Network Society, published by Elsevier. This is the reference that one editor described as “weird” but the connection to near-death experience is clear since it describes the destruction of artificial neural nets to simulate the effect of neuron death within the brain. The conclusion of this research is that cell apoptosis and synaptic disconnection in the brain generates hallucination.

And yet another important reference is:

Thaler, S. L. (1993) 4-2-4 Encoder Death, WCNN'93, Portland: World Congress on Neural Networks, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, July 11–15. Volume 1. Note - This is the primary source that Young-Mason (above) drew upon.

In my honest opinion, the total removal of Thaler’s labors from this page is excessive and I respectfully recommend that his contribution be restored under the Computational Psychology section where it has existed for years.

Thanks!Perky28 (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Perky28. Administrators don't decide what goes in or out of an article. You need to engage other editors working on article content using the article's talk page. If you're stuck there, see WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN talk to me 22:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
They didn't have a barnstar for patience, so I picked this one for you. © SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks

The IP you blocked (209.93.13.37) did not learn anything from the block for personal attacks and now he is touting his ability to WP:SOCK. See Talk:Timeline of Romanian history#Original research?. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Blocked two weeks now. --NeilN talk to me 05:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

When can I become like you

When can I become like you and get more credits Roshani kulal (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Roshani kulal: Wikipedia does not have the concepts of seniority or "credits". If you're asking how you can become an administrator, stick around a couple years, make thousands of productive edits, participate in discussions, and gain the trust of the community that you know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and won't abuse the administrator tools. --NeilN talk to me 15:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
And stop doing stuff like this before you are topic banned or blocked. --NeilN talk to me 15:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Kulala page

Dear Sir/Man,

The first person who created the page was the original one.But after several edits it has become a false page. source citations is also false. Kindly consider my suggestion or please revert the page back to original ,the way original author has written. Roshani kulal (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Roshani kulal: The original version had zero reliable sources. Please read our verifiability policy which all content needs to adhere to. If you have an issue with the current source use the article talk page to explain why with details. Posts saying "it's wrong" will simply be ignored. --NeilN talk to me 16:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sir madam can I use website as reliable sources.can u helps me Roshani kulal (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Roshani kulal: Please use the article's talk page to discuss sources. You have an answer to your previous question there. --NeilN talk to me 16:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank u Roshani kulal (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

But there is none except slush in articles webpages.talking to that person is vain Roshani kulal (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Roshani kulal: First, please learn how to use talk pages (stop creating new sections every time you post). See Help:Talk pages for more help. Second, if no one else is participating you can ask for a third opinion by going to WP:3O and following the instructions. --NeilN talk to me 17:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sir can u become Wp:30for the page.I would be pleased if you help me.Thank you sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshani kulal (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Roshani kulal: No, sorry. Given that I use my admin tools in the area it would not be appropriate for me to weigh in on content disputes. See WP:INVOLVED for more info. --NeilN talk to me 15:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@nine do you invest all your time in Wikipedia.you earn from this page??.what is the easiest way of learning Wikipeding.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshani kulal (talk • contribs) 16:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC) @Neill can I become admin for this page instead of some other person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshani kulal (talk • contribs) 16:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Roshani kulal: We don't get paid for editing Wikipedia. There's a welcome message on your talk page with links you can go to for learning about Wikipedia. See also Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia. I've answered your question about administrators in the above section. Stop asking about it - you'll never get "control" of that page. Stop looking for workarounds to presenting reliable sources. You've been told multiple times what you need to do. If you can't follow this advice then I will topic ban you. Enough with the WP:IDONTHEARTHAT please. --NeilN talk to me 16:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@ nine please don't be angry .currently I am into Wikimedia to support our culture.can you support me for Wikimedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshani kulal (talk • contribs) 17:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Question.

There is a talk page thread here (or possibly here if the edit warring has not stopped) in which MrX has chosen to assign a motivation to my position which I find rather offensive, and we've gotten into a brief edit war over it. I'm done reverting because it's not really worth it, but as I said, I find this gross mischaracterization of my motivations offensive and I'm wondering whether you think it's acceptable to misrepresent another editor's motivations in a thread title, even on user talk like that. Thanks. For the record, I denounced that motivation explicitly here in an edit that I know MrX saw, and I've explicitly spelled out my motivations here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: I saw the back-and-forth reverting and was really hoping the issue would die down. You are not specifically named in the title so I would leave it alone and make your rebuttal in a post as you have. For the record, there have been threads opened with titles like "NeilN is censoring x" or "NeilN is a shill for y". Obviously not my motivation but it's easier to point out the (sometimes deliberate) mischaracterization than to go back and forth over the title. --NeilN talk to me 17:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm done there. It was pretty obviously referring to me (there's literally no-one else it could have been referring to), but the gaslighting-like behavior and numerous false statements of the two opposing me just scream "there's no point to engaging these two any more!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Note

in regards to what did i get a discretionary sanctions note? עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@AmYisroelChai: You have edited in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. The note is designed to make you aware of that and provides links to more information. --NeilN talk to me 19:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks just noticed it was from feb 5 עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Question

I have a question regarding the user you just blocked, "Pam-javelin". There has been an ongoing issue with respect to their editing out female pronouns on ship articles, contrary to SHE4SHIP. I know I've notified them about this several times, and have tried to engage them on talk pages about it, but they refuse. Looking at their history, this has been an ongoing issue for some time, and other editors have also notified, warned and tried to engage them on this. It's now at the point where "Pam-javelin" tries to hide the changes with deceptive edit-summaries, or as part of some other innocuous or unnecessary minor edit. Other editors have raised this issue about the abuse of edit summaries well.

Now, to be fair to this editor, it appears that for the most part, they seem to make worthwhile contributions and I'm not aware of any other conflicts with editors or disruptive editing. So with that in mind, I'm just looking to address this disruption on various ship articles (and perhaps the abuse of edit summaries as well). Once their block expires, would it possible to enact some type of restriction against this editing behaviour? I'm not at all familiar with the various types of bans here on the project, how they're proposed or imposed, so any information you could provide would be appreciated, and any action you could take toward this end would be greatly appreciated. Thank you & Cheers - theWOLFchild 21:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Ship articles are not under discretionary sanctions so a single admin cannot unilaterally topic ban an editor from them. The ban has to be proposed at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and gain consensus. However before it comes to that let me see if I can get some sort of reply on their talk page. --Neiln't N talk to me 23:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I looked at their previous account. Seems this behavior is not new. --NeilN talk to me 23:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Really? I didn't know they had a previous account. I just know of the on-going issues with this one. Anyway, if you want to try talking to them and see if you can get them to commit to more engagement and less disruption, I'll leave that to you. If you think this should go another route and you need anything from me, just let me know. Oh, that you were damn fast with that last block, thanks for that by the way. - theWOLFchild 23:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Follow up - just had a quick look at this previous account, and I'm not surprised they changed. The tp history is full of notices and warnings about edit-warring,
disrupting articles, refusal to engage in discussions, policy & guidelines violations, and... multiple complaints of abusing edit summaries. Where on their current account they dismissed an admin's warning as "rubbish", on this other account they dismissed another admin's warning as "pointless drivel". Also, the persistent disruption of ship articles goes as far back as 2011. I really hope you can get this editor to have some meaningful dialogue with you (if you still intend to go that route) and there is some changes made to their editing and attitude. I have thousands of ships articles on my watchlist and don't relish the thought of having to deal with anymore of this behaviour. I noted a lot of familiar names in that history that are regular editors on ship articles and I'm sure many of them feel the same way, judging from some of the comments. Anyway, thanks again - theWOLFchild 00:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: I posted on their talk page a while ago. As an aside, is there any reason why your signature has a space between "[[User:" and "Thewolfchild"? --NeilN talk to me 00:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
About the post; thanks again, I'll guess we'll wait and see what happens.
About my signature; Ah, it's never come up. It links right where it's where it's supposed to. (how did it come to your attention? is it a bad thing? do I need to change it?) I just never noticed it. Don't know what to say... - theWOLFchild 01:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: I have a script that autocompletes the name of any editor participating in a thread when I type the first letter and hit Tab (handy for pings and mentions). The space makes it not work with your name. Not a big deal. --NeilN talk to me 01:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No big deal for me either, 2 clicks, 2 seconds... should be good now. I didn't know it was there, and didn't realize it affected any auto-fill codes. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers - theWOLFchild 01:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: Thank you! --NeilN talk to me 01:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Rome Viharo WWHP

If you want to collect those socks at an SPI, I believe the master is Rome Viharo WWHP, blocked last June. General Ization Talk 02:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@General Ization: All blocked so there's not much point as it's obvious. --NeilN talk to me 02:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Rome Viharo 2018 is only temporarily. Sro23 (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sro23: Thanks. Don't think I've blocked so many accounts so quickly before. --NeilN talk to me 02:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI

This [34]. ??!!?? Wow! Someone must be bored. Jbh Talk 14:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Saw that. It's a copy of a previous "complaint". Guess she has nothing better to do with her life. --NeilN talk to me 15:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
If you annoy the trolls that much you must be doing something right Jbh Talk 15:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Asdisis

Remember indef blocked Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He seems to be back. Same pattern of thinking his nationalistic opinion is what matters diff, walls of text without sources Talk:Chetniks#Chetniks_displayed_as_Nazi_Collaborators, followed by immediate attack of me when reverted Talk:Chetniks#User_FkpCascais_can_Not_be_allowed_to_edit/review_articles_relating_to_Serb_fascists. He is simply unable to hide his hateriot of Serbs and bias. FkpCascais (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: I see the IP has been blocked. Let me know if they return. --NeilN talk to me 14:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes it was solved. Thank you very much. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

FkpCascais, you are obsessed with Asdisis. This ip shares no similarity with Asdisis, but whatever. 89.164.229.100 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

PROD of Goss.ie

Hey Neil, I stumbled upon this article, Goss.ie, while doing recent patrolling and proposed it for speedy deletion under A7. The creator Gossgal (talk · contribs) has a pretty obvious COI and another editor Goss ie (talk · contribs) is also an obvious COI. These two users have made no contributions to Wikipedia besides this article, which they have each edited once. Before a new user edited it today the article was very promotional with no sources [35]. I have since removed my deletion tag as I believe I added some content showing noteworthiness but it would be helpful if you could double check to see if it still qualifies. Thanks, HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: The two accounts have been blocked by another admin for COI/UPE issues. The website might meet WP:WEB if you squint and so the article should be taken to AFD if you still think it should be deleted. --NeilN talk to me 14:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

PAKHIGHWAY

Who predicted that? NOT ALL AT ONCE! Aaaargh! (dies in stampede) Guy (Help!) 19:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: It's quite a surprise to me. I thought everyone respects their blocks and only start editing again when their block expires or is lifted. --NeilN talk to me 19:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Inorite? Guy (Help!) 20:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Raifujimaru

New sock is User:MenWhoCries (please see "contributions" here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MenWhoCries, continues to write "fixed typo" in summaries 99,99999999999999999999% of the time to mask their vandalism, which consists mainly of inflating the Spain national youth football team statistics in various players' infoboxes. Well, i have now reverted EVERYTHING in what concerns those actions/areas (maybe everything could/should be reverted?)!

You have been "heads upped", cheers --Quite A Character (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Quite A Character: Sock blocked indefinitely, master blocked a month. I don't know if the remaining edits are "good" or not. --NeilN talk to me 21:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

From what i have seen in past accounts, most are not. Thanks for the block (but of course, another sock is afoot i fear) --Quite A Character (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Steven Damelin's Wikipedia page

Thank you for the changes you made to the Wikipedia page of Steven Benjamin Damelin.

The page has been edited and proof that Doron Lubinsky was Steven Damelin's PhD advisor was inserted. Stevenbdamelin (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Niel

There is nothing on this page which is not accurate. Every statement is validated by links to pertinent proof. If further links are required then we would be happy to provide them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenbdamelin (talk • contribs) 02:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Stevenbdamelin: The person using the IP address is not me. You should be making your points on User talk:2601:188:180:11F0:9003:D040:24F8:507F. By the way, who's "we"? --NeilN talk to me 02:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Caste General Sanctions Question

It appears that there are some sort of community general sanctions having to do with South Asian social groups, which includes caste. My question is what the effect of these sanctions is, since this is also covered by India and Pakistan ArbCom discretionary sanctions. If I encounter disruptive editing in an area that is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, I generally find that Arbitration Enforcement is quicker and more effective than trying to mess around at WP:ANI. In the past, it has been my experience that community general sanctions regimes usually did not work quite as harshly and effectively as ArbCom sanctions (which is why, for instance, GamerGate was upgraded from community sanctions to ArbCom sanctions). So, if I encounter disruptive editing about caste, am I better off to use the community regime, or to take note of India being the government (and culture) of most of the geographic region of South Asia, and the part of it with which caste is associated? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert. That's an interesting question. One could also argue that that AP2 DS is largely superfluous as most of the editing falls under BLP DS. I think the narrower focus makes it clearer for new editors that we won't tolerate any disruption in a specific area and makes admins more comfortable when levying sanctions. I would feel silly invoking DS if an edit war broke out on Curry. Yes, it's technically covered by ARBIPA but really? However if an edit war broke out on a caste article then I would have no problem reaching for sanctions as that specific area is plagued by disruptive editing. Most of the sanctions in this area are levied by three admins - SpacemanSpiff, Bishonen, and myself. Approach any one of us and you'll usually get a quicker response than going the ARBPIA-AE request route. --NeilN talk to me 02:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, not all of AP2 has to do with specific living people with names, and BLP only kicks in when the people have names. It is true that most of AP2 involves politicians. However, the other tragic divisive area in American politics is, tragically, the same as the tragic divisive area in Indian politics, the original sin of a nation, in each case involving hereditary injustice. In both nations there are efforts to correct the injustice and efforts to retain the injustice. In the United States, where it is called race, there was a complex history, in which some people were treated less well than animals. In India, where it is called caste, the rules have been even more complicated, and some people were treated less well than animals. An American should understand that caste is India's race problem. An Indian should understand that race (and the history of slavery) is America's caste problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
There is also sometimes disruptive editing about Indian languages, and caste sanctions do not apply, but one should not hesitate to use India ArbCom sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I find WP:GS/Caste easier to enforce than WP:ARBIPA as there's a lot less paperwork. Besides, we did add GS/Caste elements to ARBIPA a couple of years back when we experimented with the 500/30 rule, way before it became an accepted practice. I use GS/caste when the disruption is only around castes while I prefer ARBIPA when there's broader disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 03:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
User:NeilN, User:SpacemanSpiff - Is there a required warning for WP:GS/Caste to be imposed? I know how to give the warning for ArbCom general sanctions, which makes them easy enough as an editor.
There is sockpuppetry in the Kulala dispute. I always half-expect sockpuppetry in any warzone, and so does the community and the ArbCom, so that Extended Confirmed Protection is the usual defense against areas where there is sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: "Prior to being sanctioned, editors can be notified of these sanctions with the {{subst:Uw-castewarning}} template." Note it's can be not are required to be, although I will rarely impose sanctions if the editor hasn't been notified in some shape or form. --NeilN talk to me 17:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • {{subst:Uw-castewarning}} can also be added to twinkle as a custom warning, unlike the DS-Alert (which was on the list of things to do for MusikAnimal sometime back). I don't take actions on editors unless the warning has been given in some form, not necessarily the template but even a written note is fine in my book. Also note that the geographical scope of the two is different, GS/Caste includes Nepal/Bangladesh/Sri Lanka too while ARBIPA doesn't (except pre independence Bangladesh). A classic example would be Chhetri. —SpacemanSpiff 17:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Sri Lanka. Yes. Sri Lanka. An odd historical tragedy. The tragedy of Sri Lanka is not simply that it was colonized by the British, which was on three continents a mixed blessing. It is that it was a crown colony of Great Britain, as opposed to part of Imperial India, also known as the British Raj. As a result, when it was decolonized, it became a nation, and then was torn apart by the civil war between the Sinhalese and the Tamils. If it had been part of Imperial India, it would then have become a state of the Republic of India on decolonization. If so, the disorder would have been dealt with by the Indian Army under President's Rule. But Sri Lanka is a nation, and has an odd historical tragedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Steven Damelin's Wikipedia page

The new Steven Damelin's Wikipedia page reflects according to Wikipedia policies. All content is further validated by proofs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenbdamelin (talk • contribs) 03:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Steven Benjamin Damelin requested this article re him be removed.

Hi Niel Steven Benjamin Damelin has requested this article re him be removed. His many accomplishments are well documented but this editing war from an unscrupulous anonymous source is neither appropriate or ethical.Stevenbdamelin (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why are you referring to yourself in the third person? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: I've softblocked. Never got an answer to "who's we?" up above? --NeilN talk to me 04:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. In both cases it's most likely just stilted wording but it needs to be clarified per Wikipedia:Username policy. Sorry it had to come to a block -- we could use more math folks. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

IndyCar page

I am genuinely begging you to take mercy on me just once and let us handle this internally, without dispute resolution. Just let us change the page back to the way it was, with colors, and open a discussion on the talk page to form consensus. I am not demanding that I am right, I just want to hold a discussion before changes are made. If consensus is "no colors at all," fine. I would obviously accept that. I just want to have what should be a reasonable discussion without the confines of dispute resolution. I want to set the standards for how major changes should be handled in the future.

I cannot edit on this site if editors like Tvx1 continue to get their way. They will always win. They know how to game the system. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: Why does it matter if the current version of the article has the colors or not? Forget about the current version. Argue what the "permanent" version of the article should look like. --NeilN talk to me 19:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Because arguing that the current version should be changed is a heck of a lot harder than arguing that the current version should be kept. He knows this, and that's why when he made this change, he instantly made it across every season article. One of his common retorts is "are you going to re-add colors on every page?" which is obviously something I can't do while I'm out here getting reverted every time. In short, if we don't revert to the version prior to his changes, we are tilting the discussion in his favor and rewarding him for his behavior.
I know you probably don't edit the racing articles a lot, and thus have no way of knowing this, but this guy has driven away countless editors from these articles. There used to be so many more people around, and they all left, because you can't do anything unless Tvx1 approves it. He knows every detail of Wikipedia bureaucracy, he knows how to navigate ANI and RFCs, he knows how to rile people up and then pounce on them for getting angry, and he knows how to smile and turn polite the instant admins are involved. He knows how to quote Wiki policy at a drop of a hat, even when it's totally irrelevant or actually works against him, because he knows it intimidates newer and less experienced editors into giving up the fight. If these behaviors sound familiar, it's because they are the exact commonly documented reasons for Wikipedia shedding editors left and right. All of this is enabled by admins who refuse to see these editors for what they really are, and refuse to directly hold them accountable for what they're doing.
This doesn't get fixed if it goes to ANI or RFC; that's exactly what he wants, because he knows how to win those, even if he's wrong. This gets fixed if you fix it, period.
And let me be clear, yet again, that I am not simply asking for my version of the page to permanently stay. I just want to have a FAIR discussion around how the page should be organized, and I want to set the standard for how those discussions should occur in the future. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I think your confusing me with someone else. I never even wrote the comment "are you going to re-add colors on every page?". I don't edit articles on American open wheel racing that frequently either, so I don't know how I would have driven anyone away from here. You really have a wrong impression of me.Tvx1 00:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

IP Edit warring on Joseph Kahn

Hey Neil,

I see you blocked this IP 2600:6C56:7180:1A85:F9B8:1F2E:5186:38AE (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Well this IP 2600:100C:B204:FDFE:E0BA:7E1A:346:8081 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just added back the same (unsourced) content. Block evasion? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Different ISP but no new editor is going to make that unsourced "anti-pitbull activist" edit. So either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. IP blocked, article semied. --NeilN talk to me 01:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick work! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for being a fair Admin, while you did block me you were fair in your decision. Thanks for being a great Admin. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 09:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Homosexual behavior in animals article

Neil, will you have a look at Homosexual behavior in animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? The article usually is not actively edited, but there has been a recent influx of editors at the article, and Путеец and Миша Карелин are edit warring there. A note about the article was left at WP:LGBT, and I know that editors have been concerned about it. When it comes to Путеец, he has been involved with homosexuality topics before, particularly in relation to medical issues, and Jytdog, Doc James and myself have been concerned about his editing at times. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Do not worry. As you can see, I avoid war, and I conduct a constructive dialogue. To assess the quality of my contribution and the war of canceling an opponent, consider the dialogue and editing. I can not express my thoughts in English, but I quote the exact quotes. Путеец (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Added article to watchlist. Путеец, I recommend stopping reverting until you gain consensus for your edits. --NeilN talk to me 15:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Neil. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn I will avoid changing the article until you are convinced of my rightness. Путеец (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Please take a look here the articles in question are still continuing vandalized by an IP that probably its the same User wich was blocked from User:Oshwah. (Bes-ARTTalk' 21:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC))

@Bes-ART: Latest IP blocked, articles semi-protected for two weeks. --NeilN talk to me 15:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Your comment at Darouet's talk

As long as you've chosen to get involved with this, I'd hope you would also consider reminding this editor to cut out the ad hominem and irrelevant disparagement of me all over the place. Substantive discussions of content or editing style are always welcome on my talk page or (when appropriate) on article talk pages. But the fact is this person has been gratuitously smearing me with personal comments for quite some time now, and it would really be best to concentrate on the substance of their concerns. Ultimately, their personal disparagement is going to do nothing to help improve articles. I presume that is their ultimate purpose here. As you may have seen, this out-of-context dredging up of other editors' long-past personal histories got a couple of editors sanctioned recently at AE and it's just about the ultimate degree of foolish behavior. Moreover, in the present case of Darouet -- Darouet goes on an article talk page to falsely accuse me [36] and ping you to an article talk page!

And Darouet knows that I welcome visits from everyone on my talk page and that there would never be any problem bringing a concern there. In fact, Darouet popped in at my talk page for a guest appearance on an unrelated thread from another editor here [37]. Daouret's complaint there was quickly refuted by an talk-page observer. NeilN, we're all volunteers here, and I know you are tireless and volunteer plenty of your time and attention to Wikipedia. It's really unfortunate to see Darouet make unfounded allegations instead of looking up the facts and then notifying you to see whether you'll come in -- either expecting you to take the time and effort to research all the context and detail, or perhaps figuring that you might not -- so as to enable Darouet's harassment and disparagement of me. I've told Darouet many times before not to make these personal attacks against me and look at the result -- this time there's even some sort of detail Darouet must have taken the time to research, while at the same time not taking the time to research details actually relevant to the current situation. Bad behavior from Darouet.

I'm not asking you to do anything about this or to reply. I just find it offensive that Darouet would rely on half-truth and personal disparagement and drag an Admin into a trivial edit dispute. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The problem is that you do much the same thing as what you're taking issue with, with making "unfounded" accusations of bad behavior without providing diffs to back up your claims. Look at what you wrote above: "ad hominem and irrelevant disparagement of me all over the place" with no diffs. If this continues to be a problem then I might consider putting a restriction on various editors - "no accusations of bad behavior without providing diffs that back up the accusations". You also really do need to stay off of Darouet's talk page and both of you need to give each other more space. --NeilN talk to me 17:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi NeilN.-- Darouet knows very well what I was referring to and did not ask for diffs, NeilN, and of course you yourself are "doing the same thing" here if you mean to be making a statement about anything more general than Darouet's recent complaint. Once again, I was/am not asking you to do anything or to spend any more of your time and attention to this. I just think it's a sad spectacle to see Darouet drag you into something where Darouet and I know the facts, you don't know all the facts, and you should not be expected to research them in order to give a fully-reasoned response. So your concern that I didn't provide diffs is actually a situation Darouet created when he involved a third party who did not know the diffs. Darouet knows the diffs and didn't ask for them. And I did provide Darouet a diff of when he smeared Volunteer Marek for something from the distant past. However I acknowledge your request that if I ever need to give Darouet a warning I will ask an Admin to mediate that notice so as to avoid Darouet's charges of talk-page trespass and subsequent pinging of Admnins who do not have all the facts and circumstances at their fingertips. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Honestly, Darouet's not the only one who could use some space from SPECIFICO's gaslighting (and here's the dif: [38] in which you can see what it was in response to directly above the added text. Also there's this pointless insult going on there, and of course the way they're trying to turn it around on you just above.) Expand the collapse below if you want to see a timeline of the whole interaction that led to those two diffs, which is far more bizarre and disturbing than what I've mentioned here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Wanna read a really WEIRD story?
For what it's worth, SPECIFICO spent several comments trying different, blatantly false claims of fact on that page in order to oppose an edit of mine making a conspiracy theories section, only to turn around and support it as soon as the consensus became obvious. Here's the brief timeline:
  1. SPEC reverts my edit with an edit summary calling Business Insider a "weak source" and making false statements about the contents of the source.
  2. In response, I ask SPEC to explain.
  3. SPEC responds with a gaslighting statement accusing me of insulting them.
  4. I point out that gaslighting is not going to work on me, and ask SPEC to answer my questions.
  5. Instead of answering, SPEC goes to ANI to ask about a DS notice on the page...
  6. And whines on my page about me being "so rude lately".
  7. Finally, SPEC returns to repeat their false claim about the source and complain about a bit of wording I'd already agreed not to include.
  8. In response to SPEC's false claim that the words "left-wing" are "mentioned in passing in one person's words, not the journalist's even," I point out that the point is made explicitly or implied at least five times in the article, three times by the author, and twice by qualified experts quoted by the author.
  9. In response, SPEC posted the insult I linked above; an insult that has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of either of our previous comments.
  10. SPEC then edits the insulting comment to repeat their earlier false claim, now made ridiculous by being explicitly disproven.
  11. I point out how pointless the insult is, and attempt to get SPEC to state clearly that they disagree with my reading of the source.
  12. SPEC then changes tact, and bizarrely insists that "left-wing" is a pejorative term.
  13. Nagualdesign demonstrates that I am not the only one to find this claim outlandish.
  14. I ask SPEC for clarification.
  15. SPEC then tries to make the (implied) argument that "left-wing" is inaccurate, unsourced or controversial by claiming we need it to be used by the "bulk of mainstream RS".
  16. I point out that the description is not even remotely controversial, and cite several mainstream RS sources to prove it.
  17. SPEC then switches gears, supporting the addition of a section, while continuing to insist that "left-wing" is a pejorative or controversial term. Also drawing a false dichotomy between the way "left-wing" and "liberal" are used in the US, which is a basic competency issue for editors in American Politics.
All in all, the whole situation was so bizarrely personalized and childish that I really would prefer a one-way IBAN be put in place. I understand that's not likely based on a single interaction (even if I brought up their argumentation at another page, that's only twice they've been demonstrably opposing anything I said to the point of ridiculousness where they deny the existence of any definition of the word "patriotism".

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thank you for your input over at ANI, I have taken your comments on board. I'm done replying to the ANI now, I can already see how it's going to play out. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Terri Dotti

As you've already stepped into this, I thought it would be best to see if you have any ideas. The ANI report seems to include clear outing of the two editors - links to Twitter accounts and the repeated use of their real names. Is it worth an attempt to reboot? I'm especially uncomfortable with claims that they were intending to dox Mizuka, while at the same time Mizuka is publishing off-wiki details about them. The problems being raised need addressing, but perhaps without the outing. - Bilby (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bilby: The report really doesn't work without referencing the Twitter thread (which one of the problem editors linked to). Remove, revdel, and toss it via email to Arbcom? --NeilN talk to me 05:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I've emailed the Arbcom list. --NeilN talk to me 05:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this - I've used revdel and emailed a summary as well. I figure that it isn't hard to reverse my actions if I stuffed up, and it is better to be overly cautious. - Bilby (talk)
The article talk page also needs revdel. The COI template contains the same OUTING Twitter links. Jbh Talk 06:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Done, thank you. --NeilN talk to me 06:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how this needed revdel. Oshwah, care to weigh in? Killiondude (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll email you privately. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Problematic user #2

I see that one of the problematic users has been dealt with, but what about the other one? Once the protection expires, I'm sure that user will keep smearing the article in accordance to the subject's wishes. I'm not exactly sure what all this "Arbcom" business is, but I'm wondering if any action will be taken against the other problematic user. MizukaS (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

MizukaS, the issue is being looked into. In the meanwhile, please try to discuss off wiki information privately. Thanks, Alex Shih (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I only contact other users on site, so I think I am going to abstain from discussing off wiki info and let the staff handle the situation from here on out. MizukaS (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Sport and politics

User:Sport and politics came back and responded to our only warning. The response she gave was not in keeping with the warning and I was left with no choice but to block her. Canterbury Tail talk 14:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Good block. --NeilN talk to me 14:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Hated to do it, but she really left us no choice. Completely unapologetic for her comments and stood by them. Not acceptable. Canterbury Tail talk 14:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
And now she's asking for an unblock and doesn't get why she was blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 14:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

My IP edits

Dear Neil. I'm not going to make any more edits from 78.16.237.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but can you please explain to me why you blocked my old IP? I'm really upset about this as I made all of my edits in good faith, and I have never been banned before. The reason you gave for the block was "Block evasion", which completely stumped me as I've never been blocked before. If I create an account, can I restore my edits, which were made entirely in good faith? Thanks and I'm sorry if I did anything wrong. 78.17.145.72 (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why the diff you provided includes a photo constantly added by a blocked editor and his many sockpuppets. Also pinging Chrissymad. --NeilN talk to me 21:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't add any photos, I only changed the captions of the thumbnails on the page. I had no idea that photo shouldn't have been there. Here's the diff between the edit before mine and my last edit. I did not add that photo back, here is the diff that last added the image. 78.17.145.72 (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I've provisionally unblocked you subject to Chrissymad's input. --NeilN talk to me 21:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
NeilN I have no objection to their unblock or restoration of *other* edits but I fail to see why they all needed to be re-added especially given that the socks added the Karia picture (so that needs to be removed.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Chrissymad: I believe what the IP is saying is that they didn't notice the picture was in their diff. I still have some doubts as they were able to change IPs pretty quickly. --NeilN talk to me 22:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I have my doubts too as that same range was on simple (if I am remember correctly at the moment) doing similar stuff as the named accounts. In any case, could we please remove the Karia photo? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Chrissymad: Was it re-added? If so, yes (I can't see it). --NeilN talk to me 22:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit

Hi there! I'm going to edit the page that was plagiarized.:)

A goat for you!

Thank you for your help!!!

Higginsal (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Stonewalling

What does one do with stonewalling like this? Talk:Tourism in India. It is quite clear that this is a throwaway sleeper that someone just reactivated. Elektricity (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

How about we topic ban this very new user Elektricity who has been an overall disruptive account, warnings all over his talk page and surprisingly sharing traits of disruptive editors who call others a "throwaway sleeper" for evading their own problems? He wikihounded me to that article, failed to understand copyvio and now he is exhibiting failure to understand many things but most striking is that he is not willing to agree that Gyan Publishers is an unreliable self publishing source, it is because he is very rigid with POV agenda driven editing and not going to give up unless forced. — MapSGV (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed a very strange reactivated account. Js82 (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes can people leave Wikipedia and come back. Unlike you who create socks for avoiding "reactivation" or I guess you never had that opportunity since your own account was blocked. — MapSGV (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • We are fighting over a sock who succeeded in his mission to waste others time. NeilN can you check the SPI? OP has mentioned you there as well. This account has been abused on numerous on going Afd and other types of temporary discussions that are about to get closed. — MapSGV (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Abhinav686

Abhinav686 (talk · contribs) needs blocking for disruption. Just come off a block and they're even worse than they were previously. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed by Waggers, looking to see what else needs revdels. --NeilN talk to me 13:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Birth as an American Rite of Passage

Hi NeilN. I see you have in the past edited Birth as an American Rite of Passage. Looking at its history I'm surprised by the number of vandalistic or stupid educationally creative and experimental edits it attracts ... what do you think is going on? Is it on a list for newbies to go and play with, or something? I don't think I've seen such an unimportant article get so many less-than-helpful edits! Any ideas, please? Thanks DBaK (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

PS I should perhaps add that I have nothing invested in this and wasn't planning to start a crusade for the article to be "right" ... just that I am a touch gobsmacked and/or suspicious about its recent history. If it gets too crazy I will just unwatch it! Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: I found indications it's been used as a school assignment in the past. Probably the same course/teacher keeps assigning it. --NeilN talk to me 20:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah, right, thanks. Gosh. Rather them than me! Thanks for the thought. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Editor9392

Neil, I'm sorry to bother you again but could you please have a quick look at, or keep a friendly eye on, Editor9392. They have been editing at a surprising speed with many bits of overlinking and some annoying instances of carelessness. I've left them a welcome and a couple of pointers but I cannot keep up with their work rate if they continue to edit like this! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN/Archive_42&oldid=1141079393"