User talk:Samsara/Archive15

POTD notification

Hi Samsara,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:James's Flamingo mating ritual.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 19, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-10-19. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

Regarding this. Thanks for catching that. I'm pretty sure when I went to search for "animal reproduction science" , I forgot to hit Ctrl-F first. I had no idea it actually entered something in the edit box. :S clpo13_(talk) 07:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The article is clearly in need of a good scrub, being relatively unstructured at several levels and having the feel of a loose collection of a bag of things that happen to fall under one heading rather than a coherent rigorous treatment of a notable topic. So if you want to chip away at it, it's probably a really good candidate. Samsara 08:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"meaning it"

Hi Samsara. I do mean it genuinely. If there was a chance that I could not nominate candidates as a crat, then I'd hand in my crat bit immediately. I am firmly of the belief that there are not enough administrators and that nomination is the best way to increase them - therefore that role is far more important to me than flagging / deflagging admins (which is pretty much all I do as a crat). Worm^TT(talk) 10:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oly EPL7

I switched from Canon to Olympus last year, and although my main camera is the EM1, the EPL7 is such a sweetie that I often put it in a belt pouch as a walk-around camera. Can't say as I use the 14-42 much, but I love the Panasonic 20mm ƒ1.7. I might hunt up some more material. Olympus was promoting it as a blogger's camera, and I'll see if I can find a good shot of it with the "selfie-screen" showing. --Pete (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Indian vulture nest

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:Vultures in the nest, Orchha, MP, India edit.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo finish

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Thanks for your contributions in the recent close race. You did well to get multiple entries in the final shot. Andrew D. (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For almost making 5 millionth article. It shouldn't really matter who "won", but somehow, apparently, it does... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that you were one of the contributors to the 5 million mark so you deserve one too haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camera lens stubs

happy for anyone to come to my talk page with a collaborative spirit Hey Samsara—I'm sorry if I missed something, but I came here "with a collaborative spirit". My question was whether you have additional sources for the camera lenses that we can use to expand the article, and if not, if you have any suggestions for perhaps a list where the lens topics could be merged. czar 17:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you want to help, you can find sources using Google. Additionally, photographic gear is covered in considerable depth in photography magazines. I may eventually try to draft a guide on what sources are generally reliable as this is now the second time that this question has come up. Online sources generally fall into two categories - hard technical test data (e.g. slrgear, photozone, lenstip, dxomark) and more subjective "user experience" reviews. An ideal article would draw on both of these - magazine articles usually cover that breadth. The real gems are the articles that discuss the fine points of optical design and other engineering aspects - FA material if we can get it. Have fun! :) Samsara 18:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And feel free to express a preference for which article you'd like to work on, then I'll focus my attention elsewhere in the lot. Samsara 18:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Half of the battle is matching the sources with the articles, I find. I don't want to trouble you with making a source guide (though it sounds like a good idea and I don't see one at WP:FOTO), but it'd be helpful if you could point me towards the magazines and sites you normally use to expand a lens article. (Or even an existing lens article that I could use as a model.) czar 18:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for examples, Panasonic Lumix 20mm lens and Pentax FA 31mm Limited lens are nicely developed stubs. The general structure puts technical details at the beginning, followed by anything that can be said about reception (reviews, popularity). The target market is usually indicated by a short remark in the lede (e.g. "is a pro-level wide-angle lens" or some such). I don't have strong views on including such remarks - it's much better imo than giving lengthy price histories, but not really necessary either (we don't want to overly reproduce the manufacturer's voice, and product classification can be a contentious issue between different editors). Popular Photography is a magazine that may be available through Google Books, while my personal favourite is ColorFoto, which may not have an English edition. Printed magazines are better in that they generally review each lens as it comes out, whereas online publications are more resource-strapped and will focus on a few that they find interesting. So using online sources, one has to shop around more than if one had a magazine subscription. I may have more thoughts on this later. Samsara 19:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to reports at RFPP

Hello! Not sure how often you work at RFPP, but in order for the bot process the page we have to use notation templates when responding to reports. See the edit notice for instructions. It can kind of be a pain the ass the have to remember and copy/paste the code, so I made a script that assists with this: User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper. Perhaps you'll find that useful. Cheers! — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see that I left a few cases open deliberately. Cheers. Samsara 20:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry! That was not clear to me. I closed at least two of them in agreeance with your assessment. Hope that was OK — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - you saved me coming back later and doing it myself. :) Samsara 22:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani

I note that you have been an active participant in discussions on Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani about changes to be made to the article, and as such, I deem that you are WP:INVOLVED, and should not take any admin actions in connection with the article. Please consider this to be a formal warning. BMK (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Helmut Schmidt may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

(26 June 1944 – February 1945, died of meningitis), and Susanne (b. 1947), who works in London for [[Bloomberg Television

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Samsara 00:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of selfie-related injuries and deaths

Hello Samsara. Regarding the use of the word "subsequently" is the above article, I think you are confused as to the issue. The corrected version which I twice added, and the version to which you reverted on grounds of "accurate content", both had exactly the same content. I'm not sure why you thought the timeline was somehow altered by the grammatically correct version, but it wasn't. They both said exactly the same thing - it's just that your version was not in accurate English syntax. In alternative wording, both versions said "A person was taken to hospital, and was later reported to be in a serious condition". There is nothing in the article to say whether the casualty's condition improved or worsened - the fact is that his condition (i.e. "serious") was reported later. Therefore the word "subsequently" (here used as a conjunctive adverb) is related to the verb "to report", and must be located with that verb within the sentence. You were moving it to associate it with the word "was", which didn't make sense. There was no disagreement over what happened in this incident, and I'm sorry that you somehow seem to have got the wrong impression about that. I'm not sure exactly where the confusion was arising, unless you were confusing the words "subsequently" and "consequently", which might explain your comments. I see that you have now further revised the entry, by stating the precise date of the subsequent report. I'm quite happy with your latest revision, which has the accurate facts, and maintains the grammar. Best wishes, Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 10:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New User

User:Jarret66 seems to be playing here. I found him adding and removing text from today's featured article Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence. His other edits are only adding and removing text from Wikipedia sandbox. --Galaxy Kid (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following that self-revert, (s)he seems to be painting within the lines for now. Samsara 16:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP

Please check the pending reports. --Galaxy Kid (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Sheen

Hey there. I've added in the HIV diagnosis from a source in the Guardian. I'll leave it up to you when to unprotect it, but I suspect it's fine now. Ged UK 13:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ged UK, have done so, back to the original indefinite semi-protection (by Acalamari). Samsara 17:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

plese see this other talk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeilN#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations.2FSpliff_Joint_Blunt.2FArchive subsection: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spliff Joint Blunt/Archive --68.231.26.111 (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know once you have something conclusive - I just stopped the flood per request. Thanks. Samsara 18:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

Thank you for stopping the edit war at the November 17th current events page. Eteethan (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Eteethan - much appreciated! *slurp* Samsara 19:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skyfall

Hi. I see you recently protected the Skyfall article after a request to do so that complained of "vandalism" by "socks". That is not the case. In the infobox on that page, the box office has been noted in an unusual manner that has become quite problematic. There is a discussion about this currently taking place on the WikiProject Film talk page. What you are seeing is not "vandalism", but rather what I believe to be honest attempts by numerous well-intentioned people to fix what they perceive to be an error or typo. Every page on Wikipedia that uses any number in the range 1,000,000,000 to 999,999,999,999 denotes it in the billion form as "billion". Every article that is, except for Skyfall, where it is denoted as "1,000 million". Even though wiki-policy states that the short form is to be used, there is a couple of editors who insist on using "1,000 million" instead and constantly revert any attempt to change it (this has been going on for over a year). It's important for people to know the confusion this is causing and therefore you should immediately remove the template. It is not "protecting" the article, it is serving a POV agenda. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 14:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you also have editors who take this opportunity to "get it wrong" as well as previous protection for disruptive editing, which suggests that this is not an isolated incident for this article. There also seems to be a classic case here of meta:The Wrong Version.[1] I can't in good conscience unprotect when strong emotions are still flying over this issue. In fact, full protection may be required if this keeps going the way it seems to be. The point to unprotect is when there's a clear consensus and a certain amount of calm over this issue. That point clearly has not been reached. Samsara 15:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you seem to be missing the point. Any time the page has been edited from "million" to "billion", it is not only correct, but conforms to wiki-policy, so it cannot, by definition, be "the wrong version". I invite you to read the discussion mentioned above on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film talk page, ("Billion vs 1,000 million"). The fact that the page is constantly being edited to read "billion" is evidence that the current term is problematic and confusing. By protecting the page, you are basically hiding that fact - a fact that is important to the current debate. - ^theWOLFchild 20:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samsara, regarding your warning to Steelpillow at [2]: please note the diff you link was in fact restoring the same content as this edit, which could not be made after semi-protection. Your accusation is the opposite of the truth. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was innappropriate of me to post on Steelpillow's talk page given the circumstances, but for the record I wasn't trying to usurp your authority because I did not actually realize you had already issued him with a warning. I simply pressed the "new section" button at the top of his page. However, I will refrain from posting on the talk pages of editors involved in the dispute from now on to keep the peace. Betty Logan (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request I notice you have placed a request to have the discusion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Billion_vs_1.2C000_million formally closed. While I appreciate the efforts of an admin to bring some resolution to the dispute I was wondering if you could amend your request to include the discussion at Talk:Skyfall#Box_Office too. The reason for this is because the discussion at the actual article talk page is the more extensive one with the more thorough arguments. It was improperly closed by an editor involved in the dispute who subsequently started the same discussion at the Film project in an extremely non-neutral way. Quite a few editors did not bother to post at the Film project discussion because we didn't want to retread the same ground. Therefore I don't feel the discussion at the Film project conveys all the arguments put forward in the debate nor does it reflect all the sentiments of the editors involved either. Therefore I am asking a favor of you: i) to reopen the improperly "closed" debate at Talk:Skyfall#Box_Office; ii) to amend your request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film.23Billion_vs_1.2C000_million so that both discussions are considered in conjunction and then closed together. I feel this would be fairest outcome to both sides of the debate. In return for this I give you my word I will not make any million/billion alterations until the formal closure. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC) ps. That last sentence maybe sounds like I am threatening edit-war. I didn't mean it like that, I was just trying to express my commitment to the proper process. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[3] As for re-opening the earlier debate, I don't see the need for that - it can be continued in the new venue and the closure can be a joint (re-)closure. Samsara 18:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, can we keep all discussion related to this dispute at one place? Namely the current discussion at the WikiProject Film talk page. I am only now, by happenstance, finding out about all the requests and exchanges taking place on other various user talk and project pages. Second, we are no where near the point of closing the current discussion. The comments behind the request are somewhat disingenuous. The opposing editors have all but refused to engage in any discussion and there has been clear gaming of the system. There is also wide-spread consensus that the current term needs to be changed. And lastly, that pesky little thing called wiki-policy needs to be followed. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 21:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the person responsible for creating multiple venues is you, Wolf - nobody else. Samsara 22:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what I can expect from you going forward? Little snipes at minor matters and no real guidance on the issues at hand? Again, if you actually bothered to read the discussions, you would be making better-informed comments. Something a capable and impartial admin should be doing. - ^theWOLFchild 23:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On another note

Samsara, would you mind adding a {{discuss}} notice to the infobox next to $1,109 million? A link there to the talk page discussion might be helpful. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done [4] Samsara 22:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor moved the straw poll discussion back to its original page at Talk:Skyfall#Straw_poll: billion vs millions yesterday. Could you amend the discussion link accordingly? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent and suspicious editing on Skyfall

Hi Samsara, I think it's fairly obvious to most that there has been some IP-hopping sock that has been involved in the recent disturbances on the page. These have been very frequent in the last couple of weeks, with new SPA accounts and IP-hopping going on. Is there anything that can be done to,track down who is behind the disruption? I strongly suspect it may be a more established editor that has been at work (I have no idea who and I apportion no.blame to anyone at all), but the coincidence of the disruption coinciding with the discussions are deeply into WP:DUCK territory. Thanks. – SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for sock puppet investigations are this way --> WP:SPI. - ^theWOLFchild 22:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd endorse the suggestion to raise it at SPI if you are concerned. However you will need to have some carefully gathered evidence to back up your claim, such as diffs showing specific coincidences of timing and/or editing style. (Apart from anything else, discovering only weak evidence should help allay your concerns in the first place). I'd also suggest you select the CheckUser option to try and identify any "master" user account. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPA tagging

Would you be able to take a look at this restoration of an SPA tag against an editor whose history shows they have made occasional edits to assorted articles? As I understand WP:SPATG, this tag is unwarranted. So I deleted it with an appropriately informative edit comment but that was reverted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steelpillow. Sorry - I got a bit behind with replies on various issues the last few days. I see that two accounts were marked, one of which is clearly justified. PZ is a tough call. They have so little activity that they could easily be a sock without this being easily detectable. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to cast aspersions on an account that hasn't done any obvious wrong (which is also why I'm not going to ping them). Since I've said that previous parts of the discussion should not be weighed for consensus-finding, it's probably fair to just leave that there and remove it in two weeks' time when hopefully there won't be animosity about any of this any more. I hope that makes sense. Regards, Samsara 16:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for remembering, that is good of you. If you think that SPA tagging an account who has made six harmless edits to date elsewhere and only one in the putative debate is not intended to cast aspersions, then I'll accept that. I am old and ugly enough to deal with the animosity, it's just that I didn't see why PZ should be caught in the crossfire. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI and EW

It has all boiled over to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Multiple_warriors_at_Talk:Skyfall and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Thewolfchild_reported_by_User:Cassianto_.28Result:_.29. You might want to contribute. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please hold off on unprotecting Skyfall for half an hour? I have some new evidence regarding Steelpillow's involvement in the dispute and was in the middle of typing it up as I got pinged. I would like you to read it before taking any decision. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi Betty, thanks for your message. There's no rush. If you have evidence, I will look at it. Samsara 17:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been suspicious of Steelpillow's involvement in the dispute since that start. He turned up at the Film project and immediately supported the stance taken by Thewolfchild in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Billion_vs_1.2C000_million despite Film not being an area he typically edits in. In a report at ANI today Steelpillow commented that he had received a "request to help out in the dispute": [5]. Given that this is not an area he typically edits in it is a mystery as to why someone would contact him to "help out". There is no evidence of a neutral request on his talk page. However, there is an interesting sequence of events that stinks to high heaven:

The new discussion at the Film project was started by Thewolfchild at 7.39 UTC on November 13: [6]
Steelpillow posted a "you've got mail" message on Thewolfchild's talk page at 12.16 on November 13: [7]
Thewolfchild quickly deleted the message at 13.04 on November 13: [8]

This looks very much like off-site canvassing to me. Even if Steelpillow was "canvassed", he is not at fault for that; however, it is disingenuous to pass yourself off as a completely independent opinion if your opinion is solicited. Also, when the correspondence takes place off Wikipedia there is no record of it. I do wonder far beyond Steelpillow this canvassing extends: considering that that the first debate opinion was evenly split, opinion in the second discussion at the Film project markedly favors Thewolfchild's position. Fair enough if those are legitimate opinions, but the huge swing is suspicious in itself. I also had suspicions that the surge in the anonymous alterations was co-ordinated too: despite being spread all over the world it was always the same change by random unconnected IPs. A central point of the argument put forward by Thewolfchild was that "dozens" of editors keep changing it. At the very least it looks like there may have been some off-site canvassing, and at worst the whole thing could be a co-ordinated effort by a group of editors organizing their efforts offsite. It seems to me that a debate where honest opinion was evenly split has now been unduly influenced and I don't really know how to deal with that. I think the discussion still needs closure but I believe Steelpillow's and Thewolfchild's position in it has become untenable and they should no longer be permitted to participate. I think the article should remain protected until the debate is formally closed too. I also think that a very experienced admin should perform the closure and they should be made aware that opinion has been canvassed offsite, so the resolution should be based purely on the arguments, not on the strength of opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for the detailed post. Before I get into the nitty-gritty of reviewing this, I want to quickly clarify that the intention was not to fully unprotect, but rather, to lower protection to semi. Full protection is a rather unusual state that we don't like maintaining for long. Semi could be a problem if we anticipated sleeper accounts, but I'd hesitate to suspect something like that in the current case. Certainly, the suspected network of IPs would not be a problem if we semi. Samsara 18:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think semi-protection is best I will leave that to your judgement. I guess you'll be monitoring the situation anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samsara, before you dive in too far, you might like to check out Talk:Skyfall#Shortcut and see just how many new voices are voting against Betty Logan's choice but with me and Thewolfchild and.... Some conspiracy, huh? Let me know if you still have any serious concerns. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any hard evidence to support Betty's allegations? Sounds more like a bunch of unsubstantiated suspicions and innuendo. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SonOfThornhill The evidence is essentially a confession: if Steelpillow received a "request for help" as he claims then who was it by and what form did it take? Per WP:STEALTH opinion should not be canvassed off-site, yet there is no evidence of such a request at his talk page. I have asked him to elaborate on this request he received but the silence is deafening. If there is any innuendo it has been created by Steelpillow himself. The whole point of not having private messaging on Wikipedia is so that our actions and comments are open to review. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still sounds like innuendo to me without any hard objective evidence to back it up. SonOfThornhill (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how should an editor interpret this statement in the context of WP:STEALTH: [9]? 01:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

So what? It's not like they were trying to hide it. And WP:STEALTH states "off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged", the key word being discouraged not forbidden. As someone who has engaged in canvasing yourself, I find this very hypocritical. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SOT, can you include a diff for that claim? Thanks. Samsara 16:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is a diff? And what claim? SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Betty was also involved in canvassing. If that's so, it might be relevant for me to know and see what the extent of the problem was. Betty has submitted evidence for her claims, so it's only fair to ask you to do the same. Evidence is usually submitted in the form of "diffs", which can be generated from the history tab of any page. See Help:Diff and let me know if you need further advice. If you want to submit your evidence in a different format, that's fine too, as long as I can find where I should be looking. Regards, Samsara 16:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot what page I was posting on. My intent was not to make formal complaint on the issue of canvassing, just point out to Betty her hypocrisy on the issue. My apologies, did not mean to stir up a hornet's nest. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A diff is the difference between the before and after versions of a page when an edit is made. If you click the View history tab they are confusingly labelled "prev". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SP1 SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the real problem is that this isn't a proper RfC with a neutrally worded opening statement. The landslide is easily explained by the one-sided opening statement at WT:WikiProject Film. In light of this, I'll withdraw my request for closure and recommend a proper RfC, which I note was another user's first response to the posting as well. To be clear, following my assessment, the malformed motion at WT:WikiProject Film should not be further used to claim consensus or motivate editing of articles. It is regrettable that much effort has been spent contributing to that discussion in good faith, but NinjaRobotPirate's suggestion should have been followed from the start. Samsara 12:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps WP:SNOW is relevant here? The "millions" option has had just one new vote, while the "billions" option has pulled way further ahead. I cannot believe this can be explained by the propaganda power of one obviously partisan post. Why waste everybody's time all over again? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is very good feedback, so thank you for taking the time to assess the situation. I would like to mention that WP:RFC does recommend using the article's talk page as the first venue for resolution, but when that doesn't work out, it suggests taking the discussion to the WikiProject as another option. It doesn't specifically state why, but I assume that's because it will have greater visibility there and will attract the attention of additional editors (such as myself). Obviously an RfC will attract an even wider audience, but I'm not sure it was completely necessary from the get-go as the RfC instructions page seems to imply. So correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume it's better to work your way up the chain as each stage fails to form a clear consensus on the matter. While one may not have been technically reached yet, I would consider it very close at this point. My 2 cents. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The hope would be that particularly because RfCs get advertised through the feedback request service, new editors would be recruited to respond that were not exposed to the earlier non-neutral message. Kind of like finding jury members that haven't watched the news coverage. If the RfC is to be conducted on the same page as one of the earlier debates I would additionally recommend archiving that debate to ensure neutrality at the get-go. It would also seem a good idea for participants to the earlier debates to either agree not to contribute, or not to contribute during the first X days for some value of X. A good value of X would be such that the first Sunday is fully covered by X and begins no earlier than three full days into X (as Sunday is our most active day by far, and notifications via Feedback Request Service are rather slow). Samsara 16:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable approach for future reference. Should the current discussion not reach an adequate consensus, which will hopefully be decided by an uninvolved admin, I would be happy to bring that suggestion to the floor for the RfC escalation. Thanks again! --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsara: I notice you have withdrawn the close request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure noting it is "not worth relying on for consensus". While I appreciate the sentiment the problem is it will keep rumbling on regardless unless it is closed in some manner. Could you not close it yourself with the conclusion it is an illegitimate discussion, or ask another admin to do so with the same recommendation? I think it has to be closed by an admin because I doubt a non-admin close would be accepted at this stage. For the record I would be more than happy to participate in a neutrally worded RFC and to abstain from the initial stages if the other "heavy" participants agreed to the same condition. I do appreciate that the previous discussions have become too "expansive" for editors to read through due to the heated debate between a small group of editors. Betty Logan (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal. There were some questionable circumstances that led up to the predicament we're in now, but not all of which are entirely conclusive. Early on, these circumstances – conclusive or not – would have probably been enough to close the 3rd discussion, reopen the 2nd, or make some other change outing the actions of certain editors. I agree with that much. However, it seems we're too far into the most recent discussion and poll to illegitimatize it. A significant number of uninvolved editors joined the 3rd discussion including myself, and even more added their opinions to the straw poll, including an admin (and another one that has been closely watching). I think we're beyond the canvassing or multiple venue concerns, especially now that legitimate arguments have been raised that were previously unconsidered (in the spirit of WP:CCC). Instead of one or two deciding its fate, it might be better if the call was left up to a larger group of admins and/or uninvolved editors, should the decision be made to pursue this further. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent poll has a neutral opening statement. It's therefore not clear that it should be killed in the manner described, even though it's not a proper RfC either. If there were consensus in favour of having an RfC, then obviously it would make sense to close the previous discussion and let it be superseded by the RfC. Samsara 08:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the an RfC has only been mentioned once, on either page, and that that single time solicited no response what-so-ever, is a clear indication that there is virtually no interest in an RfC. In reading this page, it seems clear to me that some people are so caught up in how the debate should be handled, that they've lost sight as to what the debate was about. - ^theWOLFchild 19:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf, I will not tolerate any discussion of the subject matter on my talk page. My sole concern is to ensure that the current business concludes in an orderly manner. Please restrict your comments to that. Samsara 20:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, forgive my confusion, but I was only contributing to the rather lengthy conversation that you have not only "tolerated", but took part in as well. In fact it's so long, that I must've missed where you similarly scolded all the other editors for also taking part. - ^theWOLFchild 07:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My actions at Metrojet Flight 9268

Hi Samsara. I would be interested in your take on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Metrojet Flight 9268. Especially as it might seem that I was contradicting a determination you made that the page would not benefit from an editing restriction (although you turned down pending changes, and I have enacted semiprotection). I believe the bad edits made by IPs enormously outweigh the good, and although I am an involved editor I have semiprotected the article after it sat at RFPP for 48 hours without action. I believe it is especially important on a high-profile article like this that we err on the side of being conservative. Obviously my actions are unusual and could be viewed as irregular, hence my asking for the input of others. Very grateful for your input. --John (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that NeilN essentially answered that query in my stead. The editing pattern now looks different than when I turned down the request, so no objections from me. Samsara 20:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camera lens articles

Hi Samsara. You've said that there is a consensus that we should have articles on specific camera lenses. I'll take your word for that for the moment, although I would appreciate a pointer to somewhere where this has been discussed.

That consensus will not excuse these articles from the standard rules on notability and sourcing. It must be possible to find reliable sources for article topics. Please don't delete the notability and one source tags until these problems are fixed. --Srleffler (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post here myself when I noticed this. Could you point me to a consensus that all lenses are inherently notable and should have standalone articles? It seems rather counterintuitive to me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings once again! I just wanted to make sure that you had seen my message; I would be really curious to see this consensus. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Huccha Venkat

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Huccha Venkat. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. draft version is here-> Draft:Huccha Venkat Rajannamysore (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template?

"Eye" can see that Eye article is not a template. It appears that you accidentally did template protection. Can you please change back to semi, not template protection? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Samsara 04:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Operation Eikonal

On 6 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Operation Eikonal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Operation Eikonal delivered data about European defense projects to the National Security Agency? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Eikonal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kst (software)

The article Kst (software) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Samsara 08:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigs and logos

Hi, Samsara - you certainly raised a valid question that needs discussion and resolution, but at the same time, TRM made a good point about first getting confirmation that it is an error. Sounds a little like wikilawyering, but....Atsme^📞📧 14:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, and Samsara should know far better than to claim "tradition" equals "rule" (equals "policy" or "guideline"?). Until this is resolved at the featured picture project, this has no place at all at ERRORS, and I'm glad to see it's been removed for the third (or fourth) time. Fix the issue by clarifying the guidelines at FPC, not by claiming there's been some error at the main page, that way you may actually gain something from the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you realise, Samsara, but you've now restored the discussion three times after it's been removed. One more restoration of the discussion by you and you would be liable to be blocked for breach of the three-revert rule. If you want a discussion of principles, find somewhere to hold that discussion - but WP:ERRORS is not the place for that discussion. Your complaint is effectively that WP:FPC got it wrong, but that's not a decision that WP:ERRORS is set up to consider. Thanks, Bencherlite ^Talk 14:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost here!!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
	Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree* in the spirit of the season.* What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, and it won't catch fire.
	Wishing you a joyous holiday season... ...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉
	Atsme^📞📧 15:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]	Pure pun-ishment. [10]

Happy New Year, Samsara!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Samsara, I wish you and those dear to you
golden days of love and joy in a

Happy New Year 2016!

Best regards,
Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pass on!

Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages.

Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Nomination of List of selfie-related injuries and deaths for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of selfie-related injuries and deaths is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of selfie-related injuries and deaths (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fiachaire (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NSO Group has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Samsara. NSO Group, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for NSO Group

On 16 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article NSO Group, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Israeli software company NSO Group has been identified as the possible developer of the iOS spyware Pegasus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NSO Group. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, NSO Group), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pegasus (spyware)

On 16 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pegasus (spyware), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Israeli software company NSO Group has been identified as the possible developer of the iOS spyware Pegasus? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pegasus (spyware)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Samsara. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Fujifilm X10 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fujifilm X10 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fujifilm X10 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fujifilm XQ1 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fujifilm XQ1 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fujifilm XQ1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Newman

I have tried to delete an inaccuracy regarding Nancy Newman - that "Newman" is her mother's maiden name. The article by Ken McFee incorrectly states this. Short of providing her mother's birth certificate there is no way of referencing that this information is incorrect. It is irrelevant to her career, but incorrect nonetheless, so it should be deleted. Please allow me access to delete this inaccurate statement, or simply delete it yourself. Further, please delete the use of the last name name she used in Canada, as Ms. Newman does not use this name for safety reasons. I hope you understand. I do not think that Wikipedia wants to be a reason for making someone feel unsafe. Lyndsayalarice (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have the ability to remove publicly available information from the web. We will, however, retract information concerning individuals who have not reached the age of majority. This does not seem to be the case here. I am also concerned that you may not legally represent Nancy Newman, which would make your request highly problematic. Having advised you of the Streisand effect, let me leave you at liberty to contact an oversighter, although based on the information available at this time, I assess the chance of your request being honoured as zero. Regards, Samsara 09:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samsara, thank you for addressing the concern of legal representation. At no point did I indicate or infer that I am Nancy Newman's legal representative. Can you please advise me as to why, without legally representing Nancy Newman, a request to delete information for her safety is highly problematic? If Wikipedia were to block users from posting private information about public TV personalities, that puts them into unsafe situations, this would not be an issue.Lyndsayalarice (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Lyndsayalarice: This information is not "private" it has been published in readily available sources. Anyone can find it if they look. The Nancy Newman article is just summarizing the sources. Jim1138 (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information was published in 1992 with inaccurate statements. That article is not online, it is in print. Wikipedia is assisting stalkers to easily access Nancy Newman's private life. All other websites online have complied with requests to delete the information for safety reasons. It is not pertinent to her career or wikipedia profile and because it puts her safety at issue, it is imperative the information is not publicly available online, on a website that people can easily access. Thank you again. Lyndsayalarice (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of GenStat

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on GenStat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.vsni.co.uk/about-vsni/bioscience/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi PP for Timeline of ISIL-related events (2016)

Am I misreading the edit summary? It seems to read that the expiration for the PP was set for the exact date/time it was put in place. Maybe I'm not reading it correctly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at it, it says expiry in December, which is next month. Samsara 20:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm... walks quietly back to his corner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. But check this out if you feel like a laugh. Samsara 20:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being Russian Orthodox I'm pretty hopeless when the topic is calendars. We still use the Julian Calendar. Which means today is really October the 23rd. Or to put it another way, I usually get some really great pre-Christmas shopping deals. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Murray

Andy Murray is still being edited by regular editors even though it should be under full protection. T v x1 19:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supermoon picture

Who is the photographer of supermoon picture that appeared today in Wikipedia Nov 14, 2016? And who upload the picture? anybody that can give me that info?what I know samsara is the administrator Rosanna2003 (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the picture and it should take you to that info. I assume you mean this one.

Samsara 23:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Samsara.

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

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

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Bellucci

Hey there! May I ask you the reason for undoing my edit on Monica Bellucci? Thanks! Taddah (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You inserted:

Monica Bellucci at 2002 Cannes Film Festival for the promotion of Irréversible

Commonly, however, that sentence would need an extra article, thus:

Monica Bellucci at the 2002 Cannes Film Festival for the promotion of Irréversible (emphasis for clarity, not for insertion into article)

HTH, Samsara 14:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ye that's right. But it was better if you'd add the article instead of reverting what I did. Thanks again!Taddah (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and that's what I would have done if I had had the time. Unfortunately, there were vandals to keep an eye on and an RfPP backlog. Thanks for taking it in good spirit - it's a nice improvement. Samsara 15:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

FYI about Jabrill Peppers

Hey, I know it wasn't your intentions, but after protecting Jabrill Peppers and attempting to fix all of the vandalism, you restored a vandalized version. I reverted it back to a clean version. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MordeKyle, I did not actively restore anything. I'm fairly certain it's not supposed to happen that way and is in fact a bug. Samsara 21:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsara: I see. I'm not certain how any of that stuff works, but it was clear to me that you were not trying to restore vandalism. That page had a lot of edits in a short amount of time, so I just assumed there was some confusion on the last clean version. Anyways, I think it's fixed now. Keep up the good work! {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - and you. Samsara 21:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snapchat article

Thank you to your careful attention to this article. I would suggest that the article lede, which introduces new content not appearing in the main article, and fails to summarise the content of the article as a whole, is in need of a full revision. The second paragraph on the 2016 survey results summarises content from one source over many lines, and so consumes space that should be summarising the article—this belongs in the main body, with 1-2 sentence summary at most, being needed in the lede. Given its length, and the first lede paragraph's length and limited focus (e.g., on company history and personalities) ensures that the article itself is not summarised. Is this something you would like to attempt, that I could assist with? I do not wish to be seen as a "drive-by" editor, and so wold rather work with someone who is a regular at the article. Reply here. Cheers, Le Prof (Leprof_7272) 73.211.138.148 (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for suggesting to discuss this. I don't have any particular expertise in this area, and mostly just revert obvious vandalism and enact protections when things get bumpy. Drive-by editing seems to not be unusual for this article, but if you want, I can identify for you some of the more regular editors of the article and we can discuss with them. Regards, Samsara 23:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Leprof 7272: Just pinging so you know I replied. Samsara 01:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel California

Can you semi-protect the page to persistent genre warring. 123.136.112.59 (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done 3 months semi against persistently adding poorly sourced content. Samsara 08:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Samsara. You have new messages at Dane2007's talk page.
Message added 17:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Gestrid (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Eagle

The IP editor at Eddie Eagle is not editing disruptively and is certainly not engaging in vandalism. I believe this RFPP was inaccurate.[11] The IP editor was not doing more reverting that the requester was, and in fact he added good material which has mostly been retained. If protection is required again in the future I suggest using full protection instead. Felsic2 (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the whole story though - if it had been a direct match between two editors, I would have suspected a dispute, but here the editor somehow managed to trigger Cluebot NG and then Babymissfortune into reverting. I believe that Cluebot learns from other editors' reverts, so if people are using the rollback button carelessly, Cluebot will imitate their behaviour, which may become a problem in the long term. That could be a longer discussion for another day, but I've unprotected and will recommend dispute resolution. Samsara 17:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: As regards your earlier request for page protection, my recommendation on reviewing the situation more closely now would be to resolve the disagreement through discussion, or seek dispute resolution, and I have unprotected the article in line with this suggestion. Sorry for not making the right call on this earlier. Regards, Samsara 17:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samsara, I would like to ask that you reconsider your removal of page protection for the Eddie Eagle article. Please note the UK based IP editor is not Felsic2. The UK based editor seems to be a POV pushing editor who has been reverting my and other people's edits on this page and on the Rugger Mini-14 page. On both articles you will find a long list of "rrv" explanations for reverting other people's edits (not just mine). The IP doesn't engage in discussions even when asked. Even though the content is in dispute, the editor in question is not contributing. I can give more details if you wish. Thanks, Springee (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Felsic2 is giving an independent perspective. The situation at Ruger Mini-14 has been dealt with separately, and I am not the person to speak to regarding that. Unfortunately, we do occasionally encounter users who are disruptive at one article and constructive at another. You will find a variety of opinions among admins regarding the retention of material contributed by editors identified as disruptive. My own view is that we are here to build an encyclopedia, that the material is contributed under whatever the current license is at the time, and that therefore we both can and should retain any good material, even if contributed by someone previously, concurrently or subsequently found to be disruptive (so long as it's not copyvio). While I do follow the argument that an "rvv" edit summary is inciteful in a dispute, I also think that the tendency to disrupt may decrease if material that may well originally be contributed in good faith, is responsibly handled under the general aegis of our core policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS etc.) As I said, I would still regard it as weighing against an editor if they continue to use inciteful edit summaries and avoid the relevant discussion at talk pages, but if Felsic2 wants to continue to evaluate the material contributed by the IP editor (which seems to be the role they have taken at the talk page), it is hard to decline their request to leave the article open to such editing. Best regards, Samsara 18:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Chow

I am at a loss, that IP hasn't replied to my question on the talk page, I wanted to try and improve the article, but I still see the same problems when he reverted it back. I can't do any edits to the article without him/her reverting me. I don't know if you have any tips to help or not, cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: Remind me - the only difference between the two versions is in formatting? Samsara 07:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you look at the two tables in question, directed and produced, they are divided by his acting credits table, so it takes away how similar the two tables actually are, it's more or less the same information twice. Govvy (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the latest two versions again, and I notice that he/she also lists Chow as writer for seven films. If this information is correct, would it be difficult to include it in your table? Samsara 14:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an administrator

Hi I am just curious, are you an administrator? I've seen you protect pages, and I thought you had to be an administrator to protect pages, but your user page does not say that you are an administrator. 166.137.98.103 (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am an admin, which you can verify here. Do you need help with something? Samsara 08:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Armenia

Hey, Samsara. Did you mean to make the full protection of Armenia indefinite? Bishonen | talk 11:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Before full protection, it was on ECP. To avoid it dropping down to unprotected after a week, I left it at indef, with a request in the report (permanent diff 1 2) for anyone to return it down to ECP after 1 week. It is my understanding that we do not currently have the technical means for an article to automatically drop down to a previous protection level after a protection expires, so someone will have to manually attend to it. Hopefully, discussion will be started within the week rather than warriors waiting for the protection to be removed, in which case, further determination should be made on the best course of action. So my above writing and my reponse to the RfPP should be understood as saying the protection should be lowered to ECP after 1 week UNLESS there are good reasons not to. Samsara 11:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any extended confirmed protection in the history, though, and Varj26, a new editor, was editing it right up to here. How does that work? Bishonen | talk 11:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, looking at the log, I can see that the last edit protection seems to have expired in June. When I opened the protection page, the slider was set to ECP and indef, so I assumed that's what it was. It may be my browser playing tricks on me as I ECP protected earlier in the day, although that would be unusual. I've changed the setting now to be a week and then unprotected, with the move protection as before. The priority is to encourage discussion, so if that is deemed successful, unprotecting earlier is possible. Thanks for pointing it out! Samsara 11:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thanks, but...

Result: Rangeblock by KrakatoaKatie. Samsara 11:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

...I do hope you realize that this pattern of editing by the 41.137.59.xx Editor (editing the lede sentence fullname in American history/biographical articles to include an asserted military rank, usually by using the abbreviation of "Col." for the word "colonel" and/or editing subjects' names to include unsupported middle names or numeric designations as seen in .50's edits, .72's edits, .80's edits, .28's edits etc., etc.,) extends to an uncounted number of articles... Shearonink (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing but a rangeblock will fix it, a rangeblock we must request - at WP:ANI. Due to the potential for considerable collateral damage with rangeblocks, I wouldn't take that step unless we've exhausted all reasonable means for making the IP aware that there is an open discussion waiting for them, and given them time to see the invitation. Samsara 18:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now there's .111's edits... I have no idea what this editor's issue is, am getting a very strong WP:DUCK sense about a blocked editor with similar behaviors on Washington/Lee/Adams/American historical figures biographies and family-members' associated articles... Shearonink (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can establish that link, we should be able to fastlane this. Samsara 19:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am asking about that possibility on NeilN's talkpage, he blocked a possible associated editor as a sock but there's no master mentioned. Shearonink (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shearonink. There's no master registered editor. IPs kept getting blocked for messing about with names as you describe (also adding incorrectly spaced "xxx ,Jr." and "yyy ,Sr.") and I guess the person decided to register an account to see if they could fly under the radar. Obviously they were quickly caught and blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It might not seem like a big WP thing but sometimes the drip-drip-drip type of vandalism can just get so wearing... Shearonink (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

RFPP

Hi Samsara, Thanks for adding PC to the Big Brother articles, I was meant to have thanked you hours ago but had completely forgotten so thank you :) - Much appreciated, Happy editing :), –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - happy editing to you, too! Samsara 21:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

The rapidly reverting vandal is back. See Special:Contributions/106.168.181.128. Could you please block? Altamel (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for flagging it. Samsara 01:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt leave anything copyrighted, literally every news source has it, there is no copyright to the depiction of what the person said!

I didnt leave anything copyrighted, literally every news source has it, there is no copyright to the depiction of what the person said! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackerjackerly (talk • contribs) 21:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason other news sources have it is that they pay a license fee to AP. When the top of the piece says something like "written by AP photographer X", you can be sure they will claim copyright and collect fees. In many legislations, as soon as you write something on a piece of paper or type it into a computer, you hold the copyright for it. There are many ways to acquire copyright, and there are several ways to obtain things free of license/copyright restrictions. The appropriate one in this case would be a combination of paraphrasing and excerpting as quotes. Since you didn't ask ;) I'll include a link here to a relevant article: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Hope this helps, Samsara 22:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016 - Edits done to Whitgift School

Hello, I'm Treefrog. I wanted to let you know that I am confused towards your recent contributions —the ones you made with to Whitgift School— I am unsure why the recent revision have been struck through in grey, and you mention a copyright violation. To this I am heavily confused. The information there was cited, encyclopedic and relevant. Also if you are going to remove it - which it should not be - At least do so fully, the section was called Vernacular and Punishments, if you are going to remove the punishments, you might as well change the title to just vernacular. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Treefrog (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2016 (GMT)

Libreboot

Hi. I'm Leah Rowe of the libreboot project. Wikipedia article "libreboot":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot

I used a different name when starting that project, and then I changed my name. I then edited the wikipedia article an provided citation as required for the name change.

Now I find that the article has had the name change for the author reverted, and the article is locked, so it now lists my old name as author name. For my own protection and personal wellbeing, I need you to unlock the libreboot article, and/or allow me (user account libreleah) to edit the libreboot article, so that I can change the author name back to Leah Rowe.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libreleah (talk • contribs) 18:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done via revert. Samsara 20:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! However, I would still like to be able to edit the article. Or should I wait until 18:35, 19 April 2017 to be able to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libreleah (talk • contribs)

All you have to do is become autoconfirmed. The protection was put in place exactly to prevent your name being changed back and forth. Samsara 12:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly from reading that, I just need to keep helping improve wikipedia by making edits, and then wait for a while until I've been a member for long enough?

That is correct. Best wishes, Samsara 16:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks. there are actually a few topics that I'm knowledgeable in, so I'll go hunting for errors or missing info on various articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libreleah (talk • contribs) 17:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wonderful time of the year!

Christmas tree worms live under the sea...they hide in their shells when they see me,
So with camera in hand I captured a few, and decorated them to share with you.
^{Atsme📞📧} 15:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Samsara!!
	Hi Samsara, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renewable Season's Greetings!

To Samsara, best wishes for A Merrie Christmas, a guid hogmanay and A Happy New Year for yourself, friends and family – hope you all have a great time!
No clever frame, but hope you enjoy a recent wintry scene reflecting renewable energy to power those Christmas Tree lights, and help keep us feeling cozy on these wintry days and nights.
Thanks for the nice thoughts, and for keeping on with the WikiWork.... dave souza, talk 22:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Quviahugvik

Hello Samsara: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer Solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adapted from {{Season's Greetings}}

Protection on Template:Medical citation needed

Is the risk "very high" enough for template protection? WP:PINKLOCK says not to use the protection on less risky templates just to make the templates more restricted. --George Ho (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded on 600 articles and presumably increasing; also hasn't been edited since 2012 and looks like it's feature-complete. Do you need to edit it? Samsara 23:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. I'll relent for now. I'll let you know when I shall need to do so. George Ho (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Would you semi-protect Untitled (How Could This Happen to Me?) to persistent genre warring 183.171.183.175 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And also Time for Miracles, Making Love Out of Nothing at All and Category:Adam Lambert songs 183.171.183.175 (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Samsara 04:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]