User talk:Samsara/Archive17

Protection request

Persistent vandalism just like Song Joong-ki's page due to recent engagement news Pain and Powed (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Song_Hye-kyo&action=history

14 years!

Happy 14th wiki-anniversary in advance.
—usernamekiran(talk) 12:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Usernamekiran, kind of you to notice and say so. :) Samsara 13:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Samsara. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— fortunavelut luna 14:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sing (My Chemical Romance song)

I see that on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection you said that Sing will be semi-protected for a period of 10 weeks but on the page for Sing I noticed that the page is not protected yet. Bowling is life (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bowling is life: The display of locks is not automatic, but done by a template. This is a long term known flaw/feature of mediawiki - there's a link on my userpage if you want to know more about it. Samsara 22:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added the template now - you can always check the history to see if something is protected. Samsara 23:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Dera Samsara,

Thank you for all you've done in supporting my work on the Sony E-mount lens articles and for talking with User:Usernamekiran. I've been absent as of late due to home life and multiple family emergencies occurring all at once, which has mad doing much difficult as of late. However, I am glad that the majority of the articles in jeopardy have been cleared.

- Raine

Chevy111 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Chevy111 - pleased to meet you! Of course, family must always go first - please take good care of them! I've sometimes thought it unfortunate that some of Wikipedia's processes DO work towards a deadline - I personally lean towards Wikipedia:There is no deadline#View two: Don't rush to delete articles, but that may not be reflected by the people typically attracted to AfD. I was happy to see that usernamekiran offered to help. I look forward to seeing that collaboration begin, and will try to continue to personally contribute as well. Thanks again, for now, for all the good work you've put in! Looking forward to more. Best, Samsara 15:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Samsara :)
Hi Raine I hope all is well with you, and your family. I wanted to let you know that it wasnt Samsara's words that changed my mind, but it was the passion of both of you that did the trick. :)
Although I respected Samsara before this AfD incident, his polite demeanour through this debacle, and his passion obviously, increased my respect for him further. Also, I am not at all attracted towrds deletion. I always think of deletion as a lost resort, it can be seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barel. But unfortunately I have been casting a lot of delete votes recently.

The reason I pinged you both, is an essay that I have been working on since almost a month a now. I would appriciate it very much if both you provide your opinions of the talk-page of that essay. Also, this very essay was a reason why I nominated these articles. User:Usernamekiran/Notability (electronic devices). There is no hurry at all regarding your comments. Just to be on the safe-side, I will add a DNAU notice for the bot. I hope Samsara wouldn't mind. :)
See you guys around. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Geological ranges in taxoboxes

As present isn't a geological epoch people might not want it used in statements of geological ranges. Recent is an epoch, but the Holocene article states that it is invalid under current rules. My opinion is that Holocene is the appropriate usage, but it might be worth raising the issue at WP:TOL (and other relevant major biological projects). (I changed Cycad to say Holocene, before discovering that you had made similar changes elsewhere.) Lavateraguy (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: I did not change any articles that already said "Holocene". I do think "Recent" is potentially confusing, and I observed that many of the more edited articles and many of the higher taxonomic levels (phylum, order, etc.) already used "present", presumably because of this reason. If you want to change all articles to "Holocene", I will not stand in your way, but it's also not a battle I will fight on your behalf. :) As a minor point of interest, I believe I discovered that if the template is given names of epochs as parameters, and if the most recent point is given as any string that isn't recognised as an epoch, the template will behave as though Holocene was specified, and display as though the taxon is extant or extant until "recently" (for some value of "recent" - not sure off-hand how much non-recency a pixel's width would imply). Best, Samsara 02:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

PS In some edit summaries, I referenced MOS:JARGON, which arguably bears on this case. Samsara 21:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Disambiguation pages with potential has been nominated for discussion

Category:Disambiguation pages with potential, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pariah24 (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Microsoft Office 2010 protection

Greeting, Samsara

I wonder if I could have a word with you about the Microsoft Office 2010 article, which you have protected on the grounds of content dispute. I am afraid this is a case of editor harassment, not content dispute.

The 2601:5c2:200:31ae:f15b:f5c2:8a8c:9212 belongs to a very well-known stalker who exclusively chases Codename Lisa around Wikipedia and reverts her. (This type of harassment is explained in WP:HOUND.) Although he contributes (=attacks) from different IP addresses, his IP ranges are known. Example of what he did in the past:

• [1]: Committed revert-vandalism in List of typefaces included with Microsoft Windows, brazenly claiming that PP (page protection) won't stop him. (He is unrelated to the IP that originally vandalized that page.)
  • This IP range is blocked by Materialscientist for harassment. Clearly, there has been many other instances of harassment from this range.
• [2]: The edit summary of this revert reads: "Another editor was asking for clarification which you did not provide." No. Not another editor. Codename Lisa herself had asked for clarification. Later changed her own mind. But any excuse for harassment, right?
  • This IP range is blocked by Mr. Stradivarius for harassment.
• [3], [4], [5], [6]: Tried bad-mouthing Codename Lisa in four admin's talk pages. Mr. Stradivarius blocked his IP range.
• [7]: Grossly insulted Mr. Stradivarius for blocking his other IP range.
  • This IP range is blocked by Materialscientist for harassment.
• [8]: Tried to do revert-harassment in ANI. Another admin dealt with it.
  • This IP range is blocked by Materialscientist for harassment.

This isn't a full list. (I am not in the habit of keeping a list of what a third-party does to another third-party.) But Codename Lisa keeps a full list along with IP geolocation information.

Now, you are probably asking what is my interest this matter? Well, Microsoft Office 2010 is now showing wrong info because of the work of a malicious person who was smart enough to write an average edit summary.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@FleetCommand:

m:WRONG VERSION Samsara 13:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

And here is his latest vandalism today: [9] Changing some dates to something random. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not have checkuser to confirm that. I'm also concerned that you may be misrepresenting the situation. What triggered my involvement was an edit by RecentEdits who has edited a variety of topics not known to me to have any particular connection with Codename Lisa, and who looks to be an editor in good standing. The edit was summarily reverted partly based on containing weasel words, but that is always poor reasoning as weasel words can simply be removed. Furthermore, no attempt was made to find a source that clearly states that XP is not affected - I would expect this to be easy to do, if only in the phrase "versions of Windows prior to [some version] are not affected". As the dispute seemed to be spreading to engulf other articles, I decided to pull the brakes. The reason for this spread may well be the harassment you describe. However, also note that protecting for disputes nearly ALWAYS generates the sort of complaint that you've just shown, which is why (1) (I suspect) most admins pick those "fights" quite carefully, and (2) the mere fact that you responded in this already-anticipated way holds no particular weight. The time would have been better spent on resolving the dispute.

The bottom line is that if you want to build a case page for this harrassment, I'm the wrong person to turn to as I don't have CU available, but it seems to me that a valid question was raised by RecentEdits. Based on your query, I just looked this up, and it turns out that Microsoft does remark on disabling the feature underlying Petya vulnerability in Windows XP.[10] That being true, it would be easy to see how an editor might be frustrated at having the entire material reverted, and suspect a conflict of interest on the part of the reverting editor. So I would encourage you to go to some more effort to convincingly clarify whether this is or isn't an issue that can affect XP and merits inclusion in the article. Petya was front page news, so I think the issue of notability is already sufficiently addressed. We are trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, and accusing other editors of this-and-that may not be helpful in this regard, for anyone! Focus on content, not the contributor!

I will always immediately lift full protection as soon as it's clear the conflict has been resolved in the spirit of our goals.

Regards, Samsara 13:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Samsara

How do you do?

I see that FleetCommand started this post about the Microsoft Office 2010 article but your response is exclusively about the Windows XP article. But there are few mistakes in your message that I feel I must address anyway:

• I do not have checkuser to confirm that. You cannot use CU to confirm that; you need the geolocation tool that you (and I) already have. (CU does something entirely different.) Other people who have attended this case were all admins, such as yourself. The question is: Assuming you could see the truth full and untarnish, would you have attended this case?
• We are trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, and accusing other editors of this-and-that may not be helpful in this regard, for anyone! Quite true. But the sordid fact is that vandalism, COI, spam, harassment, socking, hounding, lobbying and disruptive editing has been part of our effort to build this encyclopedia. The important fact is: You say this sentence when you know for sure that the accusation is false and non-constructive.
• Focus on content, not the contributor! If ask so, then so be it. This contribution is false: The source says so.
• I will always immediately lift full protection as soon as it's clear the conflict has been resolved in the spirit of our goals. This person had been hounding me for four years. There is no end and no resolution in view. Of course, I personally do not insist that you lift this protection; it is suboptimal but not a catastrophe at all. (If the situation was serious, I'd have presented my evidence in ANI and asked the admins who previously dealt with the person to reduce the protection.) While you and I are not here for a victory, this certain hound definitely is. And getting this certain poor edit to stick for 8 years is the biggest victory he has achieved to this day. Let's let him have that. After all, he wastes his numbered days in this world on a futile effort to disrupt Wikipedia and spends his afterlife getting punished for it. The way I see it, he is the true loser in this whole affair.

By the way, there is something I always wanted to ask you: How do you manage to become an admin with only 23715 edits? That's quite an accomplishment. (No, I am not being sarcastic; I have been to many RFAs.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for initially supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. I regret that the behavior of some immature editors led you to withdraw your support. I will remember your initial support and will do my best to regain your support as time goes by. Please do not hesitate to give me advice at any time, as I ease into my new role as administrator. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328, for this well thought out note. I should say clearly that withdrawing the !vote was done only for the stated reason - I think it important that we give admin candidates thorough consideration, and - which has been a problem over the last year or so, and is mentioned here as an aside - treat opposers with respect. I saw that some people expressed a belief that admins with particularly well-supported RfAs do not always live up to community expectations (which did not factor into my vote or subsequent withdrawal). I can think of many reasons why this might be so, but I am heartened by you taking criticism seriously, and am hopeful that you can avoid this pitfall.

While I've had active periods as an admin, now isn't one of them, so my "case knowledge" may be limited, but if you ever want to get a second opinion or some such, feel free to call on me. Best wishes, Samsara 07:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Protection on Sean Spicer

Hello. The original expiration date for semi-protection was February 2022. Can it be changed back, or can you extend time a little bit? --George Ho (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for mentioning it. Samsara 04:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Samsara, having noticed this, I think you might want to look at related issues at White House Press Secretary; for the last two weeks, there has been a slow-moving edit war between a number of different contributors (extended confirmed, autoconfirmed and IP), some of whom are involved at Sean Spicer now. I took the matter to EdJohnston the other day (he had previously banned one of the parties for edit warring), suggesting page protection, but he didn't seem to agree it was warranted (though many of the reversions had not been made at that point). I became aware of the situation after being RfC'd to the talk page, where I found a pretty toxic situation. So after Ed declined my suggestion, I decided the leave the situation alone, rather than take it to RFPP. To be clear, it looks like the edit warring has died down, owing to the sourcing becoming clearer (which is what I was hoping would happen, so no more direct action was necesary), but you may want to review the last couple of pages of the revision history, because there were a couple dozen reverts and some of these editors seem to be edit warring unchecked across multiple pages under discretionary sanctions, relating to American national politics. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Per policy, White House Press Secretary and Sarah Huckabee Sanders would both need to go under full protection. However, the admin corps is no longer fully supportive of such actions. Regards, Samsara 08:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh. I hadn't realized such a strong aversion to full protection had developed. That explains Ed's hesitance. Well, I just hope the edit war ends when the current bone of contention (who is officially press secretary) shortly becomes moot. Unfortunately, having discovered that this contest of wills apparently spans several articles, I suspect that its more likely that this will end with someone falling afoul of discretionary sanctions on the wrong page. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Happening to notice my name in this thread, I looked at White House Press Secretary again. The prior discussion on my talk was at this link. Since problems are ongoing, I've gone ahead with two months of WP:ECP for the article. (User:Ad Orientem had previously applied two days of ECP in late July but this protection had expired). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

That's just giving a leg up to one side in the dispute, and may stop them from taking much further interest in the discussion here. I'm half inclined to suggest to Ronen7668 to run an RfC, but not really sure that this makes things better in the big picture. Samsara 14:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Samsara. When Arbcom authorizes discretionary sanctions for a topic area it surely implies that restrictions on editing may be applied to stop abuse, even at the cost of some inconvenience to less-experienced editors. If you check Talk:White House Press Secretary you probably won't find any posts there by anyone with less than 500 edits since February, except for a single IP post on 22 July. So if there is any desire by new editors to participate in good-faith discussion we don't yet see evidence of it on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Your comments make me unsure of whether you realise that the same conflict spans both articles. Samsara 16:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

For what my non-admin opinion is worth here, I'm somewhere between you two. I think any amount of protection may be for the better; even though, as Samsara points out, it actually gives one side an advantage and rewards disruptive behaviour, it will hopefully at least forestall the edit war some. That said, the vast majority of the edit warring took place between veteran editors with full permissions who should have known better. They edit warred for weeks (sometimes up the point of 3RR, sometimes slower) on a discretionary sanctions article, while a consensus discussion (which was only itself opened because they were admonished at ANI) was under way. And at least one of them seems to have abused rollback rights during the edit warring.

I suppose I understand the hesitance to go full protection on such high traffic articles, but maybe some warnings / pointed reminders that these articles are under DS would suffice? They would have to come from a mop though; the parties doing the edit warring have not shown a high degree of responsiveness to the rank and file. I had considered mentioning the edit war myself at AE or AN3, but after getting a first-hand impression of some of the parties involved at the RfC, I decided I did not care to get that deeply involved. At this point, I think only an admin could restrain the behaviour without being sucked into the dispute. Of course, the worst of the edit warring seems to have passed (at least at White House Press Secretary), so maybe warnings would be stale and superfluous at this point. But I'd not be surprised to find these editors edit warring on the same pages again before long. I don't know, you two are better qualified to determine how to handle it at this stage as the disruption is dying down. But I'm glad the two of your are aware of what has been going on, in case the edit warring resumes. Sorry for the very long-winded post on your TP, Samsara; I wanted to provide all of the context I could so that I can walk away from the matter altogether this time, satisfied that I've done what I could, short of an AE filing I really didn't want to make. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

List of European countreis by average wage

Have a look to User talk : Galgah and hungarian IPs in this page to prevent vandalism and original researches.I already stopped him once.Thanks.Benniejets (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Benniejets: Your problem is with all the 84.* IPs and with Galgah? Thanks for clarifying. Samsara 17:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

They are the same person.84.* is from Budapest area and Galgah writes about hungarian subjects.He also wrote the same things of 84* in the article.User talk:Csalinka is another username of this guy.He uses also this one to write always the same things in the article in the last days.There's evidence and they should be blocked.Thanks again for your attention.Benniejets (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if a rangeblock might be a good solution. Samsara 17:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You realized the not correct position of this guy and the risks for the article to be vandalized with original numbers. Thanks Samsara.

Hi again, Benniejets. Given that there are two logged-in users involved, I would suggest that you report the issue to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Regards, Samsara 17:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I followed your suggest.What about locking article?ThanksBenniejets (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

With up to thirty edits a day, and only one or two coming from those IPs or accounts, I think any protection would be more disruptive than the problematic edits themselves. But once you have a checkuser result, things will be much more straightforward in terms of getting blocks and rangeblocks. Hope this helps, Samsara 19:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Question

I didn't know there was a policy specifically regarding the protection of Latin letters. Can you point me to it? Thanks, Enigma^msg 15:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Enigmaman: If you look at my RfPP contribs, you'll see that I classify all my actions by subject area, for possible future statistics purposes. Regards, Samsara 19:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for volunteering to do page protection review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Samsara. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

pbp 14:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: Replied. Samsara 17:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

And replied pbp 18:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi for two related articles please?

Morning! You recently semi-protected Linkage disequilibrium after it came off its previous pp and immediately got hit with the same refspam again. Could you please do the same thing for Supergene and Co-adaptation, which are subject to the same treatment? (came off semi and got spammed again right away) Thank you! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Samsara 15:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Jess Glynne discography

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.

---

What did you mean by "the effect of [pending changes] is not expected to kick in until after the IP first encounters it"? Their pending revision was accepted before I even knew it had happened, by an editor who somehow didn't know it was blatantly false information. This IP will just keep changing the page and having their revision accepted by editors who don't know it's vandalism, then it will need to keep being reverted, so it just feels like there is no protection status on the page at all (or at least, it's not having the intended effect). Ss112 02:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

What I meant was that an IP will not reduce editing frequency until after the first time they realise their changes aren't displayed live. @Snow Rise: Your pending change reviewing is being discussed. Samsara 02:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Samsara, I appreciate the ping. :) Ss112, I studied that edit for a long moment trying to figure out if it was a good faith improvement. Since I was uncertain about it, I should have reviewed the edit history in more detail than I apparently did. I will say this in my defense: looking at it, it seems you didn't leave an edit summary for you revert (which you always should for any reversion, regardless of context), which might have made the back and forth stand out more. That said, Samsara's edit protection notice was just a few items down in the log, so I should have seen the dispute regardless and it was clearly a lapse in my own process. I wouldn't panic about pending changes not being up to the task; it mostly suffices and you're unlikely to get two reviewers in a row missing the context. Since I now know there is a controversy on the sourcing for this content, I will watch the page and reject any identical proposed edit that may be forthcoming from the IP in the next couple of days, with a note that they should take the issue to the talk page (also something your edit summaries should suggest, if you are going to be edit warring with the IP, even if you are on the right side of WP:V). Will that address your concerns? Snow ^{let's rap} 03:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Why are you treating this like a content dispute? They're making up song titles, and adding peaks and certifications that don't even exist. That is blatant vandalism in my eyes. There's nothing to explain in the reverts and if I were not reverting vandalism, I would leave an edit summary. I'm well aware of the etiquette. Anybody can do a simple Google search (if they don't know who Jess Glynne is) and find out that all the songs this IP is insisting on adding don't even exist (at least, they're not hers). It's not a "controversy over sourcing". They are outright inventing information: please look at this diff again. Release dates for albums in 2021, 2027 and beyond? I don't think reverting that needs to be explained and I don't mean to be rude, but I'm stumped as to how you studied that for very long and didn't work out it's not constructive—chart positions and certifications for albums that haven't even been released? Albums coming out in 2035? Same here and here. Obviously the IP is having fun making up things, because what they're adding isn't even consistent between edits. There's nothing for them to discuss, and they won't anyway as I'm sure they're well aware what they're adding is made up. Ss112 04:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You're certainly not required to explain reversion of vandalism in an edit summary, but it's still advisable, precisely because it can prevent any ambiguity about the edit in a situation like this (though I am sorry to have missed the dates that would have flagged that as vandalism, regardless). I'm sorry to have gone out on AGF here where it wasn't warranted, but I'm not sure what more I can do for you but to keep an eye on the page and revert any further repetition of the edit. I can appreciate your being a little frustrated here, but just give the protection scheme a little time; the IP will get tired of this game soon enough, assuming no one repeats my mistake, and my next revert will include an edit summary that flags the issue for any reviewer that comes after me, to reduce the likelihood of that happening. Pending changes protection isn't perfect, but with a little patience, it usually quiets trolling before long. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If you would revert any repetitions of clearly made up albums and singles, that would be appreciated, yes. Thanks. Ss112 04:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Surely: I just wish there was more to be done about the vandal but to freeze them out; they seem to be doing this to other discographies ([11]), but are jumping too rapidly between IPs (which are not, unfortunately, within a blockable range). We'll just have to wait the juvenile behaviour out. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Burn

IP editor is back. May need a year of protection since they are using multiple IPs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: What are the earliest edits you assign to this editor? Samsara 17:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

These ones anyway [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

On that basis, I've given it three months, and if that doesn't stop it, I'd think going for at least a year would be called for. Cheers, Samsara 00:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Perfect thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Chris Pratt

Thanks for the protection that page was clogging up my watch list. Whispering 03:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regards, Samsara 04:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello S. I understand why you removed your protection on Basic income (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but you should be aware that the blanking has started again. I had requested the RFPP based on the fact that it is so easy for those IPv6 IPs to change. If the blanking is still going on when you have a chance to see this would please consider restoring the protection. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

As you know, we don't protect pre-emptively, so until we see that the IP is changing and disruption continues, a block can be the appropriate resolution of an RfPP request. Seeing that the disruption has continued with a new IP, I've now semi-protected. Samsara 04:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. MarnetteD|Talk

Yikes "IPv6 IPs" is a Dept of Redundancy Dept violation. I usually try and avoid those :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 05:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again S. I wanted to let you know that another IP has shown up blanking huge sections of the article since the last protection expired. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 13:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent Page Protection - August 2017: My Pillow

Hey there. Just a quick concern:

I noticed you put the article in question into temporary protection, but where's the protection icon on the article? Usually, when a page is protected, the history log shows two edits in regards to that, of which one includes the padlock icon that appears in the top right of the article. GUtt01 (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@GUtt01: Usually bots or helpful editors will insert the lock within a few hours. There may be rare cases where the lock is deliberately left off, but you can usually apply it yourself. (Note though, that bots will also remove it if it is applied to pages that are not protected.) I'm not aware of any sanctions ever being enacted against anyone for simply placing the lock, although you probably shouldn't edit-war with any of the bots. ;)

I've now applied it manually for you. Samsara 09:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Norton LiveUpdate

Hi, I saw that on RFPP you were discussing the protection of Norton LiveUpdate. I think 24 hours of full would be the best way of going about this because it's obviously a content dispute and semi protection would be basically saying that we're siding with the logged in users. What do you think? Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Thanks for the message. I don't see how it can hurt. In the long run, I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to work towards a consensus that paraphrases the source more closely, which seems to be the issue behind this. If you look at the timestamps, it now seems likely that the IP won't return to the article, but I could be wrong. I think dropping an entire section because a part of one sentence wasn't covered by the reference violates the "what if everybody did that" test for maintaining Wikipedia in good shape. Samsara 12:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Right. I've given it 24 hours in the hopes that some people will discuss the issue of the section, even if the IP doesn't contribute. The section had been there for years before, so a discussion would be nice. I'll copy this over to RFPP in just a sec. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Did you invite the parties? Samsara 11:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I left a message on the RFPP page asking people to discuss the issue on the talk, but no, I didn't contact anyone directly. I'm hoping that by the lack of enthusiasm it's all passed now anyway. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: It started up again. So can we go and fix this with close paraphrasing, or are you not motivated? Samsara 10:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a discussion going on at Talk:Norton LiveUpdate, but only people supporting the removal have commented so far. I'm going to leave a comment over at the talk page of the most recent IP in hopes that they come and discuss it to. I've got no interest in the topic and I know very little about it. Do you think we should hit it with 3 days of full to stop the war from continuing? Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I don't think this will be resolved without resolving it, if you see what I mean. Further PP at this point will just drag out the conflict. Samsara 11:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I get where you're coming from, but it can't be resolved if people keep warring over the article and the only ways to stop this is to get them to discuss, or to protect it. There's a discussion open but there has been no contributions from any opposing sides (inclusion of the para). The most recent IP has been blocked again for 3RR (which is why I didn't leave them any comments), and if others continue to revert the IPs then they might tread into 3RR too. Up to you as to what we do. I'm fine with leaving it all alone and letting it play out on the talk page. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: My experience is that if one makes an edit that neither side can reasonably argue with, conflict will often stop. Samsara 11:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Grey-headed woodpecker

On 14 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grey-headed woodpecker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the grey-headed woodpecker (pictured) was split into three separate species in 2014? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grey-headed woodpecker. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Grey-headed woodpecker), 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.

Alex Shih^Talk 01:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

not you, the other guy

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Algerian War

Hello, can you tell me please why you did put the page under protection but don't really protect it from the stupid things that some are adding there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.81.24 (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You should present your concerns at the article talk page, Talk:Algerian War. Best, Samsara 14:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Unite the Right rally

Good work with trying to maintain that page and locking it... I would have liked to put clearer info in it, but allot of members seem to not want that. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Usually, making a good argument for the notability of a detail on the talk page is your best shot. Regards, Samsara 04:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I gotta Tell You Something

Change The Loud House protection level to 6 months because I want to edit it, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B029:942B:145D:87F0:B3D2:B364 (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have something important to add, you can make an edit request. Regards. Samsara 04:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

edit request? You know maybe block users who are disruptive because anonymous users love disruptive edits because they're funny to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B003:A4EB:2D97:F227:9AA8:BBA5 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Christiaan Barnard

You questioned my contribution on the Dr's page stating that perhaps his views on race had no place in the wiki.Zamorin1851 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Yet you allow a section on his public life to stand, which; a) paints his views on race positively. Zamorin1851 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) b) was completely not cited (the only citation was to a url which does not exist).Zamorin1851 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

But, now all of a sudden, you have a problem with his negative views on the topic being on the wiki. What level of hypocrisy is that?Zamorin1851 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it is only his brother that sought political office, but apparently he is not notable enough to have an article. So if even his brother, who DID go into politics, doesn't have an article, and the lede does not mention politics at all, then I think doubt is in order as to whether there should be such a section in the article. With the first version of your insertion, you demonstrated that such a section is likely to attract some rather novel claims. The fact that you've now come to my talk page to make further accusations casts additional doubt over your motivations for contributing. Samsara 04:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Well,the very first paragraph of the public life section talks about his own views on race relations. Why let that stand without citation? Is that paragraph not POV? I am do this because I see this sort of thing all too often. Zamorin1851 (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC) My motivation is simple, to add information about him which was not on the page. Is that not the idea anyway. I am also forthright in stating why I see objections such as the one you yourself raised. To me it is the height of hypocrisy to object to my info based on a cited interview while letting stand the previous entry which carried no citations and is arguably POV. I also note you sidestepped the essence of my question to you. If you want to attribute my motives to something else, have at it. Be my guestZamorin1851 (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it not interesting that even now, after all this back and forth, you and the others of similar persuasion have no problem to the sentence presenting his views on race as being progressive, though still not cited! If your goal was to improve Wikipedia and do it with fairness, what explains that? After all you clearly must have read that very first line and decided, "well, this one stays"Zamorin1851 (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Next time, just read my comment more carefully, please. My doubts apply to the entire section, as stated clearly above. Samsara 08:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Google memo article protection

[13] The request was for semi-protection not full protection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

RfPP is not McDrive. Samsara 20:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

What does that even mean? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It probably means that you don't always get what you ordered. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you brand-new-single-purpose-account-with-six-edits-created-just-to-push-POV-on-articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: could you kindly cease the personal attacks against me. Please stop making spurious accusations and go read WP:CIV, WP:HAR and WP:NPA. A long time user like you should know better. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think protection until we reach consensus was a good idea, thanks. VM's removed the content 3 or 4 times so I don't see how we get consensus without him but this (1, 2, 3) isn't getting us any closer. I try to steer the focus back to content and get nothing of substance to respond to: 4. I'd appreciate some guidance. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Creating an essay?

Hi. We got off on sort of wrong foot. For people who are not familiar with cameras, there can certainly be a confusion about notability of them. Would you like to write an essay about it? I have been writing a counter essay for mobiles since ages lol. Maybe we can request Chevvy to contribute to camera essay. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 02:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89/PeopleWhoVandMe

I've been told that this page may be doing more harm than good. So just kill it. I have other ways to track the socks. And SALT it, too, please. pbp 03:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

Please re protect "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals". 63.96.90.212 is trying to put back "undocumented" again, despite consensus in the talk page to the contrary. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.200.144.47 (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.200.144.47 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That silver padlock...

Hi, you semi-protected the Shooting of Kian delos Santos article, but I don't see the silver padlock atop it. Has this really been semi-protected? Thanks, SLIGHTLY^mad 04:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: The padlock is (currently, see my userpage for links to more details) decorative and on a technical level has nothing to do with protection. A bot will usually place it, but this seems to have become intermittent lately. I've done it manually for you. Regards, Samsara 08:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Topal Osman

Samsara, I am new to this and do not know if this is the right forum for the following.

On 30 jan 2017 you made an entry regarding freezing some information regarding armenian massacres. What does this mean? Was the 4200 character information added back? If not ,can we now add it back?

I am currently having a problem with a user who appears to be biased and continually removes one of my entries.

Could you please look at talk page for topal osman. I would appreciate your advice on what should be done.

Veritylookingfortruth

Veritylookingfortruth (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Veritylookingfortruth: These issues are usually decided on the strength of sources. It looks like you haven't indicated what sources (books etc.) you are working from. Samsara 19:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I can live with that.However if this is the case then shouldnt the ergenekon sentencw be removed as well as it has no citation?

Also,what about the armenian information removed and added many times? What does freeze mean? If not added back already when can we do so?

Regards, Veritylookingfortruth Veritylookingfortruth (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: Can you give any commentary on this? Sources you have available, perhaps? Thanks. Samsara 20:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

RPP query

Hi there! Page has been protected but just to answer your question, the section is Talk:Mansplaining#Mention_at_the_lead. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Samsara 07:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (2)

You have protected this article upon request on August 24. Please re-consider whether in view of the articles's history a mere semi-protection could be sufficient, given that the edit warring was performed only by IP's or very recent "new users" and that the article's talk page presently shows that further editing by WP authors would make sense. Thanks --Chris Howard (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Answered on article talk. Samsara 07:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Persistent Difficulties

I am commenting here to avoid disrupting your thread at the Administrator's Noticeboard.

I have had persistent difficulties with VM who insists there are roving bands of IPs (and sock-puppet editors) conspiring against him, across several topics, as a means to justify edit-warring and aggressiveness. This justification is easily testable, as he exhibits the same behavior with established editors. The behavior is most prominent in political articles.

I should mention I have been on the receiving end of this behavior. He has responded to several of my comments on article talk pages solely to accuse me of stalking and harassment, without addressing content or policy [1] [2] [3] - there are many more examples. This persists even in articles which I was the first to edit [1]. This is arguably the worst of his behavior but by no means the extent of it.

If the behavior were limited to our interactions it would prompt serious self-reflection, but I haven't experienced such hostile interactions with other editors, and VM has them with many. He has escaped several dozen complaints against him without sanction by obfuscating and deflecting until administrators lose interest. His apparent immunity to sanction seems only to have emboldened him. I have recently limited my article editing partly to avoid confrontation but there is a longterm problem that needs to be addressed. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Samuel Saiz

Hi. You have protected the Samuel Saiz page so I can not correct the seasonal appearance tables ... it is missing a Leeds United Totals row. And does it really need to be protected for as long as you have done so, attacks on Leeds players tend to die down a week or so after they sign/leave Exeter White (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

DREAM Act

Volunteer Marek has now started the same type of actions on the DREAM Act page as he has been doing on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals page. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Samsara, I have just done what I believe should have been done earlier: I blocked this editor for disruption, including POV pushing, edit warring, and bad-faith reports. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, which edits did you consider to be calling for this block? Samsara 12:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Mostly all of them, except for two other article edits. I outlined them at the AN thread. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Time to Quit Protecting the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals page

The program is done and covering up the facts is unacceptable.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Despite the rude tone of the above, there is actually a good reason to lower protection at this point, and a request to do so has been made at RFPP. I have gotten WP:INVOLVED at that article (I edited through the protection to add today's important news) but I endorse the idea of lowering protection, possibly to Extended Confirmed, possibly even to semi, with the proviso that people must refrain from edit warring over "illegal" vs. "undocumented" while the protection is lowered. I have proposed, on the article talk page and at the RfPP request, that if even one person makes an edit on that subject then full protection would be restored. What do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Samsara! The full protection has now expired so these requests are moot. I have put on semi-protection for now since there was IP vandalism. Any additional protection will be your call. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Request to lower protection of DACA article

Hi, could you please lower the protection for the DACA article? It contains some inaccurate statements and is poorly formated but confirmed users like myself can't edit it. Article views just increased x20 within the last three days. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Appreciation for all you do...

	The Herculean Award
	Neutralizing an advocacy is like decapitating the Lernaean Hydra
	Heracles cried out, and the Hydra "quacked" back. Where there was once one head, two more appeared. And then a giant crab came to assist the Hydra.
	Atsme📞📧 13:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)	Pure pun-ishment. [14]

South Park (season 21)

Hello. It's continued! Can you unlock the page? 31.223.133.218 (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Move Request

Question, I wonder if it's possible for you to close this move reqiest: Talk:Celebrity_Big_Brother#Requested_move_10_September_2017? From what I can tell the majority of move requests usually sit around in the backlog. If you can close it thanks! If not do you have any other suggestions? (I can't close it myself as I'm involved.) TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you tried to close it but those instructions on the template can be confusing try: Wikipedia:Simple_RM_closing_instructions that really helped me my first time. Basically it's just adding the template to the beginning and end then replacing "result" with "moved" or "not moved". (Then actually moving the page if that's the result.) And again I'm sorry if I'm being a bother I just don't want it sitting around in the backlog. TheDoctorWho (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

When I looked at this in detail, it looked like a split result between "Celebrity Big Brother (UK)" and "Celebrity Big Brother (UK TV series)". I'm not familiar with the specific conflict(s) that spawned the cited guideline (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)), so it's unclear to me if the guideline was intended for this particular scenario, and hence it may or may not apply. My current thinking therefore would be to wait for input from more editors. Samsara 13:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that Amakuru has just done it now. Samsara 13:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Samsara, thanks for protecting anything Arab-Israeli related but you forgot to add the blue lock icon and create this one here for example for the protected pages in the bottom:

{{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}

Can you make one for Template:Editnotices/Page/Dome of the Rock, Template:Editnotices/Page/Israel–Lebanon relations, Template:Editnotices/Page/Israel–Syria relations, vice versa? Thanks. Wrestlingring (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I will look into this as soon as I have (free) time to breathe from clearing backlogs. Regards, Samsara 15:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Mitchell Report (Arab–Israeli conflict)

I requested that ECP be placed on the page, which you reluctantly protected. However, at RfPP, you and Enigmaman had noted at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict that if they need to be protected, there should be disruption by non-extended confirmed editors, and not just because it relates to WP:ARBPIA3. I still made the request despite the fact there was not much disruption on the page. Do you think it really needs to be protected? —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 22:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@MRD2014: Hi, I protected based on this incident of disruption in 2009, which strictly speaking qualifies under the ArbCom order, so no admin could have declined the request. The other aspect is that once attention is drawn to articles by bringing them to RfPP, additional disruption may occur, so it may not now be a good idea to unprotect the article. The question of whether the article might be likely to be significantly developed by a new user does merit asking, especially since it's changed rather little compared to 2009. My general recommendation would be to first check if one is dealing with a sleeping dragon, and if confirmed, let that dragon sleep. Samsara 15:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Manny Pacquiao

The IP (possible sock) who had reinserted the same BLP problematic edit again should not be rewarded. I suggest you go back to last short version, as one editor seems unwilling to even start an RfC on the claims made. Thank you. Collect (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope my reply here addresses your concern. Samsara 15:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Questions

I removed a section from an article (that is under DS which states: 1 revert/24 hrs - must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article) because an RfC a few months ago determined (nonadmin close) that consensus was to retain the POV tag and that a rough consensus showed the section was noncompliant with one or more PAGs. As you know, NPOV is one of the 3 core content policies of WP:BLP, so removal of that section was justified. I am not aware of ever retaining noncompliant sections in a BLP for such a long period of time, so I simply removed it and a disruptive editor reverted my edit, the NPOV tag with it, and provided an incorrect edit summary. On the 9/24 another discussion began about a possible TNT of that section and based on what I read, a quick consensus indicated delete & rewrite, [15], [16]. Will you please look into this because we're looking at a BLP violation, a violation of consensus, and a possible violation of DS? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Samsara, if you could also look at this I'd appreciate it, thx. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Especially in view of VM's further reverting. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait. Um... Anythingyouwant, you just added the phrase "Especially in view of VM's further reverting" and linked to a diff which shows me... restoring the tag. Are you honestly saying that's a revert? Are you honestly complaining about the fact I restored the tag, seeing as how you were actually complaining I removed it???????

You are: 1) pretending that my partial self-revert is another revert. This is dishonest.

and 2) you are pretending that there's something wrong with me undoing exactly what you wanted me to undo.

Do you not see that what you are doing is providing explicit evidence that you are not acting in good faith? I mean, if there was any doubt before, now it's pretty clear. Volunteer Marek  03:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The tag was removed by an editor other than yourself, and you restored it, which was a revert, and not a self-revert. Anyway, you violated 1RR even without that last revert. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. You wanted the tag in there. You complained about the removal of the tag. But when I restore the tag - to satisfy you - you immediately call that a revert and try to turn that into a reason for block shopping? How low can you go? And no, I did not violate 1RR. Feel free to bring it up to 3RR or another proper venue rather than try to block-shop admins-you-think-hold-a-grudge-against-me (not saying Samsara does, just saying you and Atsme think they do) for a block. That's classic WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:GAME. (and of course if you wish to remove the NPOV tag, be my guest)  Volunteer Marek  13:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I did not complain about the removal of the tag, and have no opinion about it (not sure why that's relevant anyway). Nor did I "block shop", and am glad to go to AE if this is not resolved here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to undo my edit which restored the tag. As in remove it. Neither I nor anyone else will count that as a revert on your part. I would do it myself but I'm pretty certain that were I to do that someone would accuse me of reverting. So please, remove the tag since you're obviously complaining about my edit which restored it (sort of hard to deny that). Volunteer Marek  16:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Not once in the history of Wikipedia has any revert that is self-reverted been subsequently counted toward 1RR or 3RR. Moreover, I have no opinion about whether the tag should be in place, and even if my opinion were that it should be in place, I wouldn't feel like spending my one daily revert on that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Patently untrue since that is exactly what you're trying to do here. Feel free to undo my edit which restored the tag. I'm not gonna do it because I know someone - maybe not you, but someone - will try to use it against me. So please, since you think that's a revert, undo it. Show us you're serious and not just WP:WIKILAWYERing. Volunteer Marek  16:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I am tired of responding to you here VM. Let's see what Samsara says. AFAIK, Samsara is an uninvolved admin, and "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

So wait, is Samsara now like your go-to-he'll-ban-Marek-admin-guy or something? There's literally a couple dozen of administrators you could've brought this up with Atsme, including the ones already active on the talk page, but you come running to this one? Sort of obvious why. This is extremely bad faithed WP:GAME, WP:BATTLEGROUND and block-shopping. If you're gonna pull stunts like these you might as well try being a little less transparent (you might also look into what happened last time).

Anyway, Atsme, as you well know since you've been active in this topic area:

1) That whole "must not reinstate" thing has generally been deprecated by admins at WP:AE, but, if you insist, to the extent it applies...

2) ... you got it backwards. This text has been in the article a long time. There was even an RfC on it and the closure stated it should remain allowed it to remain. Hence by removing the section from the article YOU are the one violating DS by not obtaining consensus on talk first. YOU should have started a discussion rather than trying to sneak through unilaterally.

The idea that it's "noncompliant" is just your own idiosyncratic opinion.

Now, if you really think this was a DS violation (as opposed to pretending it was one as part of your disruptive battleground behavior) and you were to do this honestly, you would go to WP:AE with it, rather than running over here to Samsara in particular. But you know what happens at WP:AE... they like to throw around certain curved weapons when they find that complaints have no merit, are spurious and are indicative of battleground mentality on part of the filer. Which is why you're here.  Volunteer Marek  02:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

(EC) oh and I see Anythingyouwant has come rushing over here as well. Can you guys please stop it with the tag-team block shopping?  Volunteer Marek  02:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

What is "block shopping"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Running around to admins you think will be amicable to dishing out a block you like, rather than using appropriate venues such as WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, WP:AE or other forms of dispute resolution. Usually done when the person seeking a block knows that if they were to actually use one of the proper venues they wouldn't get what they want and might very well get WP:BOOMERANG, cuz of "dirty hands". Alternatively bringing up the same thing in multiple venues and agitating for somebody to get blocked. But you know this, no?  Volunteer Marek  02:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And oh yeah Atsme, I don't appreciate being called a "disruptive editor". That is a straight up WP:NPA. If you want to say I made a "disruptive edit" or something that's fine, but calling somebody a "disruptive editor", without solid evidence, is way over the line. Volunteer Marek  02:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the slightest thing about Samsara. I was not even aware that he is an admin until today. I noticed that his scrutiny had been requested, so instead of going to AE, I simply came here instead to keep things consolidated. Would you prefer AE? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

For what you're calling the 1RR violation? Sure, we can go there. Just let me make it perfectly clear: you are free to reinstate the tax section if you wish. I'm not going to do it myself unless you explicitly insist on it because that would constitute making a really stupid edit - restoring redundant text. If you really want to argue that removing redundant text and then saying "feel free to put it back if you want to" constitutes a "revert", and you want to do this at WP:AE where all our unsavoury mutual history's gonna make an appearance, be my guest Anything, be my guest. Volunteer Marek  02:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, how did you notice "his scrutiny was requested"? You posted before I managed to reply to Atsme. Volunteer Marek  02:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You ought to revert your entire 1RR violation, not merely the taxation stuff; rephrasing is just as much of a revert as deletion. I'd be glad to take this to AE if Samsara so advises. But if he feels he can properly deal with it, then that's fine with me too. P.S. Atsme said at your talk page that he requested admin assistance so I looked at his contributions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't a 1RR violation. The first diff was NOT a revert. One more time - feel free to restore redundant text to the article if you really think that would "improve the article", otherwise stop making excuses for the block-shopping. And actually if you do want to do the block shopping song and dance, you really should go to WP:AN3 rather than WP:AE where you can of course claim that this was a DS violation. I mean... if I was you, that's what I'd do, because at WP:AE, since this doesn't really rise to any kind of serious level even IF true, you could get boomeranged much easily. So WP:AN3 is a safer bet. On the other hand, if you're the risk-loving type, then yeah, WP:AE might have higher payoff. But more risk... what to do, what to do? Maybe just admit that this isn't a 1RR violation, you're unlikely to squeeze anything out of it, whatever action is taken the drama won't be worth it, it's a waste of time and instead discuss this on talk page? Of course, I imagine it might be sort of hard to start a discussion about how redundant text should be restored to the article without being laughed at... hmmm, no good options, ey?  Volunteer Marek  03:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

VM, you very clearly made three separate reverts within 24 hours at a BLP that's subject to discretionary sanctions and 1RR. Argue about it all you want. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No I didn't. You either a) don't know what a revert is or b) are lying. Provide the diffs of the three reverts. Right here. There was an edit by me which removed redundant language and reworded a sentence. There was my revert (the only one) of Atsme's unilateral removal of text, which was a DS violation on their part. And there was my partial self-revert which restored the NPOV tag. Only the second one of these was a revert. Now, I can sort of see how you might wish to pretend the first one was a revert too (it wasn't but if you throw enough bad faith at it and squint really hard I guess you could see it that way). But there's no excuse for you accusing me of making the third revert when it's a partial self-revert. I'm trying really hard to AGF here and assume you just don't know what you're talking about. Although... didn't this issue come up before, of you falsely accusing others of reverts when they weren't reverting? Anyway, you've been around long enough and have edit warred enough in the past to know the difference between a revert and a self-revert. Volunteer Marek  04:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I already provided diffs of the three reverts, see my first two comments above, and I'm going to sleep now. Please please please stay out of my dreams!  :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

VM, ATYW's issue with you is not the same as mine although your behavior is the same. I don't know what you think you're doing with all the crazy allegations, or are you just being your normal disruptive self? I've provided diffs for the July consensus as well as for the discussion that began on the 24th which also supports what I've stated. It's always the same ole blah, blah dramah most expect from you, VM. It appears you may be TB shopping the way you're acting. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No, you did not provide diffs to July consensus, or at least not to what you claim. That RfC 1) was badly phrased which led to 2) non-admin closure which said "this requires further discussion" 3) compromised by sock puppets voting (this freakin' always happens). Then the section remained in the article for two months+ making it part of the status quo. That means that your removal of it, without discussion, unilaterally was a DS violation.

And you really got some chutzpah of accusing me of TB-shopping, after YOU came running HERE - and I mean HERE to Samsara's talk page specifically, rather than going to WP:AE - asking for sanctions. Why do you do this? This, this... making up stuff that's just blatantly and transparently false? Like do you really think a reasonable person would look at this discussion and say "obviously VM came to Samsara's talk page to try and get Atsme topic banned"? What kind of a dummy do you think would believe that after reading this? You're sort of insulting other people's intelligence here with such attempts.

And one more time - calling people "disruptive editors" is a WP:NPA unless you can really back it up. You've been warned about this before. You've also used and abused this insult in multiple discussions in the past and you've been asked to stop. Volunteer Marek  03:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Your behavior here and now is exactly why I said what I said and why I am here now in hopes of getting something done about it without having to take you to the dramah boards. It appears you've had one too many cups of coffee. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

My behavior is fine (though I can always use more cups of coffee). Your behavior on the other hand... hey Atsme! Can you explain why you came to this particular administrator to agitate? I mean, there's literally dozens of admins you could've asked about this, some of them even active on the relevant article, and some of them, from what I can tell, are ones you regularly, um, "converse", with. So why this one? Wanna provide an explanation? Here, I'll start it for you, think of it as a fill-in-a-blank type of question on an exam:

"I, Atsme, came to Samsara's talk page specifically to bring this up because ______________________-"

Thanks. Volunteer Marek  03:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm sounds like a case for a more primary noticeboard--Samsara, did you apply for ANI 3.0 status? I gotta tell you, it's less of an honor than you might think. Anythingyouwant, did I understand this correctly? You wanted a tag restored and when it was, you said "gotcha!" and counted it as a violation? Nice! Marek, lay off the coffee, will you--or is 2017 NCAA Division I men's basketball corruption scandal getting to you? Drmies (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, I don't know where you got the idea that I wanted a tag restored, or that when it was, I said "gotcha!" That is all fiction. I never said that any tag should be restored. Those who say so are either lying or repeating lies, or (in your case) doing something else perhaps. Anyway, there was a 1RR violation even ignoring the reversion of the tag. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, User:Drmies, since you haven’t acknowledged your misunderstanding, I will assume that the present controversy has been resolved in Volunteer Marek’s favor. Nice! Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear well I am so sorry I'm not on 24/7 I sure hope I haven't caused you too much grief and emotional anguish did you really miss me that much? next time just hit me up on Snapchat and I'll be right there Drmies (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No more grief than usual. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• • I did not apply for anything, but I'm starting to be amused that the same characters seem to keep appearing. It seems like there is an unresolved issue here. Samsara 22:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

First, you complained on my talk page alleging that I made a 1RR violation. This wasn't true but whatever. Then I partially self-reverted by restoring the tag. Then you came here and alleged that this was a third revert. While you may not have explicitly demanded for the tag to be restored you most certainly were trying to play "gotcha games". Volunteer Marek  20:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Utter and complete bullshit hooey. The 1RR violation that I kindly invited you to self-revert (when I initially commented at your talk page) had absolutely nothing to do with any tag. And your subsequent revert of the tag was not a self-revert. I have nothing more to add to this farcical discussion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Alrighty then, next time I need an admin, I'll just position my cursor on the TP of EEng, close my eyes, scroll 3 window-lengths, and wherever it lands is the admin I'll ask. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

List of states with limited recogntion

Hello,

I was surprised to see List of states with limited recognition being given an indef 30/500 protection, and a big warning imposing 1RR on the entire page, based on an Arbcom judgement that seems pretty tangentially related. This appears to be in response to a single reverted edit of arguable benefit. Note that other recent edits by IPs there have had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict (they're mostly discussing North Korea). Indeed, the vast majority of edits to List of states with limited recognition could not conceivably be considered related to the Arab-Israeli dispute and most discussions involving the Arab-Israeli conflict at that talk page have been resolved without need for admin intervention.

Would you mind reconsidering whether this sort of protection is appropriate on this particular article? If you believe this is warranted, would you mind clarifying whether e.g. the 1RR you have imposed applies only to Arab-Israeli related edits, or to all edits whether or not they are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Kahastok talk 17:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to lift ArbCom sanctions. The way I interpret the rules, if someone takes it to RfPP and it's had Arab-Israel related disruption, then no admin can turn down the protection request without risk of being desysopped. I agree with you that there is a problem with applying arbitration sanctions to articles that are only tangentially related, but I'm not sure that I single-handedly have the power to change that. However, if you can find another admin willing to take a reversal on their log, I won't contend it. There are two discussions that I started at WT:RFPP where your views might be valuable. I'll mention your dissent at RfPP and then we'll see what happens. Samsara 17:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

User:KobraRus

Hi, thanks for blocking this troll. He has been bugging me all day. Here are some other accounts that he has created today: [17]. Regards, WWGB (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@WWGB: I got that other one for you, too. I checked a few of the others, but they were already blocked. I'm going to be AFK for a while, good luck with the rest! Samsara 13:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting footnote - he seems to know about W on Wheels. [18] Samsara 13:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hay, can you undo the protection at Time?

There were two recent edits to Time by User:Pkbwcgs that are not good and I would like to fix them. I can't see why it was protected in the first place. Thank you. 108.20.213.77 (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the first edit was not necessary, and perhaps makes things more difficult. People prefer different styles, but I could see a case for retaining readability. The second edit attempts to correct overlinking. We generally link only the first occurrence of a word in an article, and try to avoid trivial linking, if you see what I mean. That's what Pkbwcgs was doing there. Samsara 07:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

But I have to agree with others that this "harmonize whitespace" action serves no purpose other to hide vandalism. I think that should be reverted as do other editors where Pkbwcgs has done the same thing at other articles. Can you please undo the protection so that I can fix this? Or fix this yourself? Really, I cannot see why indefinite protection is warranted for this article. BTW, even though the IP changes, I am the person who wrote the current lede for this article. While I don't have an attitude of "ownership" of the article, I keep an eye on it so that it doesn't get too much crapped up. 108.20.213.77 (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Samsara, what is your intention regarding the article Time? How long are you planning on having it semi-protected? I would appreciate it if you would lift any protection. I think we can manage the article against "disruptive" editors and also deal with content disputes without semi-protection. 108.20.213.77 (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Time is under indefinite semi-protection. It has been a continuous target since at least 2008 (example); its last of many semi-protections lasted six months. Reverts, meanwhile, have continued even after semi-protection, so if anything, it may end up on 30-500 eventually, rather than unprotected. Samsara 17:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it hadn't always been under semi-protection (thankfully). I am the editor that put in the lede as it is now. Several years ago I had suggested this plain-language and well-supported lede, but other editors reverted it and fought about alternate ledes for years until I finally put this one back in and, fortunately, it stuck. I just think that this "Harmonize whitespace" is crap. And it appears designed to hide vandalism. 108.20.213.77 (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:MFD is your friend. Samsara 09:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

That I don't understand. Dunno what this has to do with deleting articles. 108.20.213.77 (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If your concern is with the action performed using User:Meteor sandwich yum/Tidy citations.js, then one possible next step would be nominating that script for deletion through WP:MFD. Samsara 15:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, your example doesn't point to anything in 2008 and doesn't really elucidate at all. 108.20.213.77 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Indef. IP address blocks

• 213.205.194.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 81.152.230.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Was it your intention to block these IPs indefinitely? Regards. 121.94.137.73 (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed Thanks. Samsara 07:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Chow

Hiya, on Stephen Chow's article in the first paragraph, it says his net worth is $1 billion USD, I've questioned that and the citations don't back it up at all, it's all gossip to me, so I removed the sentence on the grounds of WP:GOSSIP and WP:NOTATABLOID. I didn't have any objects from a project page when I raised the point, but then not sure if anyone gave it a thought. The currency in the citations doesn't even match the statement. I am not sure the IPs from 171.*.*.* even know English that well. I was wondering if you could have a look for me, let me know if I am correct or not, cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy: FWIW, the original insertion of the phrase "net worth" was this. Not sure if that helps you answer your question? Samsara 12:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Try Google Translate on this reference and see what you think. Samsara 12:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

My problem is it talks about his investment, not his net worth, the other citations talk about what he made from his films, how much his homes are worth. But this is breaching WP:GOSSIP. To assume he is worth so much from one of his investments doesn't meet the statement. That's my problem with the statement on the article, (net worth) seems to be a shot in the dark and can't be correct, which is why I also put down, NOTATABLOID. Govvy (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it is best not to make a specific statement, although the figure may be in the right ballpark given that one of his movies made $510M at the box office.[19] Otoh, according to Forbes, he generated a more modest 10 million Yuan in 2015.[20] Samsara 13:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to break the 3R rule as I tried to remove it a few times, that was my other problem because the IP kept restoring the sentence even thought I thought it wrong to have. Govvy (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Samsara:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – —usernamekiran(talk) 21:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Slough

Thanks. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Why did you protect that article to only extended confirmed users? Also, why indefinite? Why not 3 or 6 months? Or even a year? ReddyHakky1998 (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Because of a technical problem where if the ECP lapses, the article becomes unprotected. So it's better to indef and then lower the protection when deemed appropriate, which is likely to always be on a trial basis since we don't have PC1.5 yet. Samsara 10:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You reverted to the wrong version

The version including Trump was the stable version. Editors besides myself, supported the version including Trump, such as User:Doc Strange,. Only one editor supports excluding Trump, and his logic relied on specious reasoning, such as his personal opinion that "Trump doesn't belong" even though the sources showed that nearly all commentators connected the October 15, 2017 subpoena of Donald Trump regarding the allegations of sexual assault against him (which he commented on at October 16, 2017, at the White House) to the Weinstein allegations. You are basically reverting to a version that was supported by only one editor, over the stable version that was supported by two editors. Why? Peacebroker (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

See diff here by Doc_Strange supporting the inclusion of Trump several days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_Too_(hashtag)&oldid=809599762

That makes at least two editors in support, and only one editor who opposes, and who edit warred to delete this matter which has been in there for many days, with stability, until this person came along and decided to subject the world to his idiosyncratic, irrelevant opinions. I cited at least 6 sources that connected the Weinstein allegations to the Trump subpoena of October 15, 2017. Every source stated that the two events were not merely coincidental. Yet because one editor believes there is "no connection" because there are no "new allegations" (although there is a new subpoena of sitting president that just happens to come 10 days after this story broke" it must just be a coincidence. Why are you giving this person what he wants, when he A) has no other editors who support his views; B) he has no sources who support his views; C) he edit warred to delete sourced material that had been sitting there stably for several days? I do not understand your actions at all. Please look more closely. Peacebroker (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Not only that, EVEN THE SOLE EDITOR IN SUPPORT OF DELETING TRUMP concedes that the sources say it is connected; he merely opines that the sources are wrong: "many news articles about him mention Weinstein/#MeToo, but that doesn't mean they are connected." - IP editor on the talk page.

So basically, you reverted to the version which:

• 1) only a single editor has ever supported
• 2) no sources of any kind support
• 3) even the lonely, single editor who supports this version admits the sources are all against him, but he merely opines that these sources are "wrong" and it is "just a coincidence" that Trump was subpoened regarding his sexual assaults immediately after this incident, apropos of nothing
• 4) involved the vandalistic removal of sources from a stable version of the article, against a consensus of multiple editors several days old, based on the opinion of a single IP editor that the sources are "wrong" and his opinion is rightPeacebroker (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• • Given the above, can you explain why you possibly decided to revert to THAT version, of all versions? The baseline was the Trump-included version, which was supported by multiple editors, a plethora of sources, rational arguments, logical reasoning, consensus, common sense, and was the stable version for multiple days. You instead chose the idiosyncratic, unsourced, irrational personal views of a vandal destroying content and pillaging. Why?Peacebroker (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem I see is that with BLP-sensitive stuff, we need to be careful to get it right. The proposed text said that Trump's behaviour came under scrutiny AFTER the Weinstein allegations, which is definitely untrue - Trump's attitudes have been in discussion since before his election, so for about 1.5 years. Hence this is not a matter for continued blind reverts, but for discussion to arrive at a version that is factually correct - and you'll have no trouble finding sources that confirm the pre-election debates about Trump's conduct - just look at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, an article created in October 2016. Samsara 04:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. Your comment above is both remarkably snarky and nasty and totally reveals your own ignorance and cluelessness. You call what I did "blindly reverting." In fact, you "blindly reverted" material which your comment plainly indicates you didn't even read or bother to understand before blindly misusing your tools. HINT: THE SOURCES ARE FROM AFTER THE WEINSTEIN ALLEGATIONS, AND CONCERN NEW EVENTS WHICH OCCURED AFTER THE WEINSTEIN ALLEGATIONS, INCLUDING A SUBPOENA OF TRUMP ON OCTOBER 15, 2017, AND HIS DENIAL AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OCTOBER !6, 2017, (i.e 10 DAYS AFTER THE WEINSTEIN ALLEGATIONS) AND WHICH ALL 6 SOURCES CITED STATED WAS CONNECTED TO THE WEINSTEIN ALLEGATIONS. Don't tell me to "get the facts straight" when you merely assumed what was in the sources based on your uninformed preconceptions about what you thought the sources would say.

• • • • Had you actually read the material before deleting it, you might have learned something instead of snarkily telling me to "get the facts right" about something which you have just revealed yourself to be utterly ignorant of. The fact of the matter is that I added 6 sources, which you yourself DIDN'T READ, and merely ASSUMED must have been 1.5 years ago, and then have the audacity to accuse me of "blindly reverting" material which I added. Think about what you write next time. After reading your comment, it is utterly obvious 1) you didn't read even 1 the 6 sources you chose to delete, 2) didn't even read ANY of the discussion on the talk page, which would have informed you of the content of the sources 3) are merely operating from your preconceived misconceptions about what the sources must say and when they are from, without reading them. You've rather laughably assumed the sources are 1.5 years old. In fact, no sources were cited that were not from AFTER the Weinstein allegations and which did not concern the subpoena Trump received regarding allegations of sexual assault immediately AFTER the Weinstein allegations on October 15, 2017. Had you actually read the sources before deleting material, you would have known that the sources stated that Trump was subpoenaed on October 15th, 2017, AFTER the Weinstein allegations, regarding his 16 alleged sexual assaults. Had you read the sources, you would have also known that he called the reports "fake news", "lies" and so on on October 16th, 2017 and that his press secretary said the same thing on October 24th, 2017. You would have also known that all 6 sources cited connected the subpoena that came a mere 10 days AFTER the Weinstein allegations to the Weinstein allegations. Indeed, you would have known this had you merely read the talk page before choosing what version to revert to. Instead, you elected to elevate your own personal biases to fact without even reading any of the sources or the article talk page. The sources themselves state the subpoena and the new discussion of the Trump allegations are connected to the Weinstein allegations. Multiple editors agreed with me. I don't see any valid argument in what you wrote above that gives any policy based reason to delete Trump from the article. I trust that once you have actually read the material you chose to blindly revert, you'll have no trouble seeing how ignorant your comment and actions were. You even showed to all who cared to observe that you had no knowledge of what you were doing by reverting and then leaving an edit indicating you didn't even know what the material or dispute you were reverting was even about before acting. Highly responsible use of your tools. Bang-up job. Keep up the shitty work. Peacebroker (talk) 07:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Troll on Me Too (hashtag)

Hi, would it be possible to IP ban the troll who keeps using different usernames and tries to add Trump's name to the Me Too (hashtag) page, please? Not only does the person keep vandalizing the page, this person also uses very profane language to abuse other Wiki users. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posters5 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Posters5: It looks like Cullen328 has been working on that. Thanks, Cullen! Samsara 21:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Posters5, Samsara has semi-protected the page which stops disruption by IP editors. I have indefinitely blocked the disruptive, edit warring sockpuppet who posted the rant directly above. If disruption returns, notify either of us, or make a report at WP:ANI. Samsara, you are welcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posters5 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe the page is being vandalized again.70.112.229.80 (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the Talk and History pages, you'll see that "Another Believer" is just making a nuisance of himself. Thank you for your attention to this matter.70.112.229.80 (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Modern evolutionary synthesis

Hello. I see several Portal pages link to Modern evolutionary synthesis, which you quite reasonably redirected to a dab a while ago. It's not my field; please do you have any thoughts on where these links should now lead? Thanks, Certes (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Certes: We need to talk to Chiswick Chap. He recently created the dab that you speak of, citing "continued confusion" - see the history page. I am curious to find out more about what "continued confusion" this refers to - or, perhaps more specifically, whose! Samsara 21:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The dab page Modern synthesis I think answers most of your question. There was a prolonged period of turbulence (years) in the editing of the article now called Modern synthesis (20th century). The problem was that some editors took it to mean what happened between around 1918 and 1950 (give or take a few years) when Ernst Mayr and other claimed they had transformed biology, while others took the term to mean the modern stuff that biologists continue to do up to the present, obviously differing largely in scope and content. I believe that biologists are just as loose in their terminology, though since they've often heard of Mayr et al's synthesis, they tend to talk about 'extended' syntheses now. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I don't know the subject well enough to disambiguate here. It's a bit WP:IAR, but perhaps the least bad option is to leave the portals pointing to a dab page so each reader can pick which topic they're most interested in. Certes (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you're quite right to point to the dab page, as "Modern evolutionary synthesis" has exactly the same ambiguity as "Modern synthesis", viz., does it mean the early 20th century event, or does it mean work up to the current time. I'll have a peek at the portals and disambug where possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Thank you! Certes (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Wise

@Samsara: thanks for upping the protection for Dennis Wise, at least no one can say that he is a very small man Pepper Gaming (talk) Pepper Gaming (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Samsara. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.5 albert square (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Naruto

Hi Samsara,

Could you remove PC1 since the article is semi protected indefinitely? -- 1989 19:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@1989: Just so I understand correctly, is there a reason why this is important? Samsara 20:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless the semi protection is temporary, there is no need for pending protection if new users and IPs are unable to edit it. The protection is redundant. -- 1989 20:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done by another admin. Samsara 21:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy FYI

Hi Samsara. Just wanted to drop a quick note and let you know that I extended the page protection you applied to List of The Loud House episodes. This has been an ongoing issue at that article for quite some time and there has been some socking by a blocked editor thrown in as well. If this continues I may just protect the page indefinitely. Anyway I just wanted to let you know what I did and why. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Samsara. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Chad Morris

Samsara, thanks for protecting the Chad Morris article. As requested, you can now lift the protection status per the Razorbacks website. Thanks, Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 20:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Lifted. Samsara 21:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:A Way Out (video game)

Talk:A Way Out (video game) could also use something, it's being hit the same as the article page was. Cheers, Heiro 05:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Now it's Josef Fares. Meters (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone got it as I was leaving the above. Meters (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte, Heironymous Rowe, and Meters: Where are they off to now? I'd like to find out if the blocks I'm logging are making any difference. Thanks. Samsara 05:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm on The Game Awards 2017 ‎ Meters (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've just got this open in another tab on auto update: https://boards. 4chan. org/v/thread/399353610 I'm not bothering blocking any IPs; they'll just change it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

All of the ones I've checked are now blocked. Meters (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I take it back. Seems to be all over the place,even on kid's games. Meters (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #19990

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #19990 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Salvidrim! (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

Neverrainy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Dec 08, 2017 05:58:30

Message: Was this a mistake? Blocked without warning for vandalism but I can't see any vandalistic edits...

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Considering you issued the block without warning, without a block message, for "vandal flood" but there was no vandalism, and straight with talk-page-access removed, it seems pretty clear this is a simple mistake, right? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It may have been a false positive. I'm not sure where you're at with the warning, though - if they're flooding, there's no time to warn. We just had a 4chan attack that seems to be slowly dissipating as of a few minutes ago. Samsara 06:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, I think a 5+years editor with thousands of contributions deserves a warning before an indef-block with TPA removed... or at least a blocking message specifying the reason. Also not sure why talk page access was disabled but whatever. If the flood you're referring to was the redirection vandalism on Hazelight Studios, Neverrainy actually was helping and reverted the vandalism (once). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

He, she, they, zhe or whatever was editing The Game Awards 2017 at high frequency a time when a broad range of gaming related articles were under attack. Samsara 06:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access was removed so the seemingly hundreds of attackers couldn't ping us while we were fighting the rest of them off. Samsara 06:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Haha obviously, popular award shows often get updated live as they unfold. Still no vandalism. :p Can you undo your mistaken block? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and very sorry if I seemed antagonistic at all, I understand the honest mistake in the middle of a 4chan flood, it's not easy on anyone. Thanks for helping protect the project :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the sad part is that it seems there's no actual gratitude for the service that Anarchyte, Meters, Neko-chan, DSmurf, Geni and others have put in with regards to this (yes, alright, I'll put my hand up for that). Samsara 06:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that it's nights like tonight that make me wish for the admin bit, because there's nothing a non-admin can do when the garbage saves are coming in that fast.By the time I review something at least one more had already been saved. Meters (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Meters: You easily have the length of tenure and edit count to try, and a clean block log. Samsara 06:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yea, it's actually Anarchyte and Masem who have clued me onto the 4chan vandalism raid over Discord. Big props to you all. <3 Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #19989

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #19989 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

RiceKid (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Dec 08, 2017 14:29:30

Message: Hi, are you OK with my restoring TPA so they can appeal, there?

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: This may have been another false positive, see above. They may have been trying to remove vandalism by page blanking. I've unblocked and will talk to them. Samsara 19:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Just Chilling (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Protection

Hi! I noticed you protected several pages such as Fairy Tail and One Piece, but you did not add the template. Therefore, those pages are not 'protected' yet. Can you please check them? Thank you and have a nice day! Requiem II (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The templates don't do anything, they're just decoration. Bots will eventually come along and add them, but also see this mediawiki feature request. Feel free to add them. Samsara 23:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you you uploaded a Semi-protection for article Lauren Jauregui can you show me how to do that for Normani Kordei. I already got the request started I just wanted more in sight on how to go about it. I feel as though her page too needs to be protected because we have users that vandalise her page. She has received enough coverage to keep it a stand alone and violators need to be stoped!Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcometothenewmillenium, as stated at the talk page, there is not a significant amount of vandalism to necessitate protection. I have been keeping an eye on the page and I promise you if I see enough vandalism to merit protection I will do it myself. Primefac (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Johnny Manziel PC1 no longer needed

Hi, thanks for semi-protecting Johnny Manziel. However, because it is semi-protected, pending changes protection is now useless since all edits will be accepted, and since autoconfirmed users can't edit it, no edits will need to be reviewed. Can you remove the PC protection? —MRD2014 ^{Happy Holidays!} 21:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand these complaints. When semi is on, PC1 does nothing and causes no problems afaics. When you disable it, you also lose the display of what revisions were accepted and by whom, so to me, that looks like a disadvantage. What am I missing? Samsara 00:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Late reply (I was on a wikibreak), but you have a good point. Even though the display of accepted revisions is removed, the review log will still be there (here for example). I just think PC1 is redundant when a page is also semi-protected, since no edits will need review. —MRD2014 ^{Happy Holidays!} 18:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Taylor Swift

Can you lessen the protection for Swift if no one is going to edit it? The studios section and name of the tour have been wrong for many weeks as two examples. Studios was posted in Talk with no reply. Sdfakjdfjklklasdf (talk)

I believe you are referring to Talk:Reputation_(Taylor_Swift_album)#Studio. I've converted it to an edit request, but if you could give a more specific explanation of what you need done, that would be helpful. Samsara 22:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I replied to the person asking what to edit but they didn't change it yet...I'm not sure if I replied to them properly for them to get a notification or if fell outside of the edit request. Sdfakjdfjklklasdf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Central Asia

Wow... It's not an edit war case! Have you checked their edits? They ignore sourced info and maps, and just add Afghanistan to article without providing any reliable source. They also falsify current sourced info. Sorry, but I don't agree with your comment on RPP and I submit my request again. How can I discuss anything with several random IPs and IP-hoppers who ignore everything and just like to add their country to that article?! --Wario-Man (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read Central_Asia#Definitions and take particular note of File:Central Asia borders4.png. As I suggested, discussing the different definitions in the lede will likely solve all your problems. Also note my actual summary here, particularly the last six words. Thank you. Samsara 07:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Since you overruled me on this, can I check that you read the above and links therein? Thanks. Samsara 12:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not interested in taking sides in the dispute. I just see a stream of Ips coming and changing statements without ever going to the talk page. In my book, this is a reason for protection, and pending changes would be the best appropriate way. I am afraid if we remove protection, it would result in continuous edit-warring. I am however open to other opinions, in particular, on increasing the protection so that nobody gets an advantage.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

As stated above, it is my opinion that a single clarifying sentence about the different definitions in the lede will let the air out of the dispute. The fact, as stated clearly in the article (and not so far disputed by anybody), is that different organisations use different definitions. So the dispute is imaginary. After fixing the lede, if the infobox continues to be a source of edit warring, that content can be suppressed in deference to prose (the last time I read the MoS, it expressed a clear preference for prose if other ways of presenting information aren't unambiguously better). So we can just knock that parameter out the same way we've sometimes done for music genres. Samsara 12:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with that. Pls let me know when you think the article is ready for unprotection. Pls note though that the Soviet Union deliberately never used the term "Central Asia" (there were some good reasons for that, but this is not important now). It used the term which can be translated as "Middle Asia" and that included indeed Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I hear the holidays are “notable”...

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme📞📧 13:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Enjoy the Holidays and have a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Request to seriously reconsider your decision regarding Barbara Lerner Spectre

Hey! I think you may have slightly misread the situation. There have been multiple attempts to create a consensus regarding the material. Including recent attempts by me to engage in discussion with those attempting to include the quote. I do not deny a real argument can be made for including it, and some sources that aren't written by Neo-Nazis do refer to it. However, this does not change the fact that the sources being shoved into this article by IPs have absolutely 0 place in a BLP. A anti-semitic "white identity" blog like Occidental Observer has no place being treated as a reliable source in a Wikipedia article. I also ask that you read the pages cited of the book I described as being written by a "fringe nutter": the whole thing is an entirely transparent anti-semitic rant about the Jewish agenda. It is the inclusion of these sources by IPs that clearly violates WP:BLP, not the quote itself, which is indeed referenced in other sources. BLPs of Jews should not be sourced to the writings of fringe, out and open anti-semites. Semi-protection is required, to stop this from happening. Brustopher (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Brustopher I am very disappointed in your post here. You cannot keep referring to the author of that book in this way, no matter how justified that may be subjectively or objectively. That is exactly what WP:BLP is about. What BLP is not about is suppressing verifiable information. If Barbara Lerner Spectre verifiably said the things attributed to her, it's not a BLP issue - and it's clear that she did say them. This is why I referred to DUE, hoping that you would understand that that is the appropriate policy/guideline to appeal to, if one is to be appealed to at all. So I really think this community needs you to stop committing BLP violations while at the same time appealing to BLP in an inappropriate way - please learn what WP:BLP is and isn't about. It's a legal issue, not a bartering tool.

Next, we explicitly do NOT treat Jews any differently from anybody else. Again, your point of appeal should be WP:DUE, not BLP. Labels should be avoided. If statements are clearly defamatory, we will not include them. However, there is nothing obviously defamatory about quoting things Barbara Lerner Spectre actually said. As a suggestion, it might be more helpful to place them in an appropriate context, as some publications have done.

What does concern me is that this quote has been inserted into the article by various IPs and registered users in one way or another for two years, with different sets of sources and different amounts of context given. You seem to have been the main actor shutting down all of these attempts, in a way that I wouldn't hesitate saying has the characteristics of an edit war. Therefore your complaint that the current set of sources is inappropriate rings very hollow. It is implausible that you would be unaware of the various different sources previously used - an article in Vice, a book by J. E. Alexis, etc.

However, I decided not to take action against you in hopes that you would realise that an RfC is in order at this point, and make use of this more productive avenue. I do take note of the oddness of having such a long-brewing dispute/edit-war and speaking up about it only after two years.

So I'm sorry that you seem to find yourself in a situation where the dish you ordered could not be produced. I do believe you should listen to the friendly advice of your waiter. Samsara 18:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really think you're still misunderstanding my position. I am fully aware that reliable sources do exist that describe the interview. If you look at the page history I even added the information you believe I am suppressing when I found a reliable source mentioning it. I was personally ambivalent towards whether the material itself should be included. The summary of the material I inserted was then removed by User:Stanistani who gave his reasons for doing so on the talk page. I found myself agreeing with his reasoning and so didn't try and revert him. Since then IPs have tried to re-add the information without discussing first on the talk page. But the fact that they're restoring the information isnt why I'm seeking page protection. It's because they are adding explicitly fringe and anti-semitic sources to the article. It is not the material itself but the sources that are the problem. I am not asking Wikipedia to treat Jews "differently" to others, I'm pointing out that linking to anti-semitic texts that clearly are not reliable sources is as blatant and distasteful a violation of BLP as there is. Also there's shit like this being posted on top of the linking to anti-semitic texts. If I can't change your mind I believe I'm allowed to go to WP:AN for a further appeal? Brustopher (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If it's the sources that are the problem, then it seems it's the sources that need changing. If you're ambivalent, there would not seem to be any reason to be reinstating a version that corresponds to another user's point of view and not your own. If I took an impartial look at the edit history, it would still be your edits that would look very prominent, not least because of the heat in your edit summaries. If you want to get third opinions, feel free.

On the "shit like this", if that happens more often, it would obviously be a reason to protect. Has it happened more often? (I'm about to go to bed, otherwise I'd go through the entire history myself.) Samsara 21:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think an issue with the page is that all the issues have been long term and slow moving. While there have been other stuff in the "shit like this"[21][22] category, this has been over the course of two years and intermittent. But its part of a long term pattern of IP editing being generally detrimental to the BLP page. With regards to restoring. I have no strong objections to a restoration, and am willing to move in either direction depending on the opinions of others. However, those who want to include the material have refused to engage on the talk page, and have used incredibly inappropriate sources. I have pinged people who have restored the material on the talk page and they have not responded. However, you have a point about an RfC potentially being useful to get this all sorted out. Also you are right that there is perhaps a bit too much "heat" in my edit summaries. Me getting ranty is at best pointless in the circumstances, regardless of the dodginess of edits being made to the article. That said I am going to ask for a second opinion on WP:AN about protection because I am seriously concerned about the sources being linked into the article. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. Brustopher (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

those who want to include the material have refused to engage on the talk page This does not seem to reflect reality. I see plenty of discussion of this on the talk page, including the most recent post being by an IP and on this very issue. Samsara 11:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I have indeed missed that comment, and will respond to it right away. The actual editors seeking to include the information who I pinged, have however not responded. I'd also like to reiterate that the issue of consensus for including the quote is different to that of including sources like Occidental Observer. Also the link to my request for a second opinion is here if you would wish to comment. Brustopher (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Brustopher here. If a sociologist or historian discussed Spectre's quote in context, that's a valid source. A rant from a white supremacist site is not.→StaniStani 02:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Iggy the Swan

I've noticed twice now that IP's seem to target Iggy's talk page, he left a rather interesting message on my talk page a few days ago, I was wondering if you can also keep an eye on it. I was wondering if some protection is needed on it for him to stop these weird edits. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Aarhus

Hi there. You recently move-protected this article indefinitely. It is also edit-protected indefinitely and has been for some years. Protecting administrator is no longer active. Can you unprotect? Thanks, and happy Christmas. 87.81.130.219 (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

In case you didn't already guess, this is yet another IP sock of WP:LTA/VXFC because of whom the article was protected. Regards, Favonian (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have Favonian on my watchlist, so when I saw his claim that the above request was from an editor who has been vandalising the article over a period of years I decided to investigate. The shocking truth I discovered is that it is the administrator who has been vandalising the article since the original protection on 16 September 2011. There is so much administrator vandalism that I didn't look further back than 29 October 2015, but the administrator vandalism in the eight months I checked appears benign compared to what happened in the preceding five years.

I have excluded the blatant changes from British English to American English (the administrator is American). The spelling has been British from the start (the original version contained the word "harbour"). The changes continued despite requests to stop from multiple editors, for example this one:

As witnessed over the last two days, an anonymous user of varying IP address tried to express themselves, saying that there is an issue with the English language variation beginning with this edit by Future Perfect at Sunrise, which changed most words in the article to American English. However, as the anonymous user rightfoully states, the city is affiliated with British English way more than with American English. On top, there was no Engvar template ({{Use American English}} / {{Use British English}}) given on the article to justify the edit of changing it forcedly. I have since replaced most content with British English and added the according template to the article. What hinders this article from enhance is Zzuuzz, Favonian, Lectonar and RickinBaltimore constantly reverting the anonymous user instead of reading. Even if written in a hard langauge, it is easily visible that it is not spam or trolling. If there is something to discuss, wether American English goes over British English from your POV, seek for consensus here. Thanks, Lordtobi (✉) 17:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

5 July 2016 changes

• "assassinating" to "assasinating"
• "Ferries administered by Danish ferry company Mols-Linien transport passengers and motor vehicles" to "Ferries administered by Danish ferry company Mols-Linien transports passengers and motorvehicles"
• "The ferries comprise" to "The ferries comprises"

10 February 2016 changes

• "buses" to "busses"
• "Jutland headquarters" to "Jutlandic headquarters"
• "businessman" to "business man"
• "Nobel laureate" to "nobel laureate"

9 February 2016 changes

• "the bay rarely freezes up" to "the bay rarely freeze up"
• "pathways for pedestrians and cyclists, radiate from the city" to "pathways for pedestrians and cyclists, radiates from the city"
• "Denmark's" to "Denmarks"
• a grammatically correct sentence containing a verb to "Traditionally serving a Danish variety of hot dogs, sausages and other fast food."
• "Olympic" to "olympic"

29 October 2015 changes

• "the landscape rises" to "the landscape rise"
• "climatic effects" to "climactic effects" (does he have sex on the brain?)
• "low-lying" to "low-laying"
• "These conditions affect crops" to "These conditions effect crops"
• "endorsements" to "endorcements"
• "the city is divided into six" to "the city is divided in six"
• "mayor's office" to "mayors office"
• "a population of 323,893 on 468 km" to "a population of 323,893 om 468 km"
• "volumes have decreased somewhat from the peak" to "volumes has decreased some from the peak"
• "at irregular intervals" to "on irregular intervals"
• "Alexandra Institute" to "Alexandra Institutet"
• "The Navitas Park at the docklands is a new information and innovation park" to "The new Navitas Park at the docklands is a new information and innovation park"
• "Parts of the former church were excavated" to "Parts of the former church was excavated"
• "different parts" to "differen of parts"
• "They play an active role in the cultural life and host many events, discussion groups, workshops, educational courses and facilitate everyday cultural activities" to "They play an active role in the cultural life and hosts many events, discussion groups, workshops, educational courses and facilitates everyday cultural activities"
• "streetscape" to "street scape"
• "some neighbourhoods in Aarhus have a local library" to "some neighbourhoods in Aarhus has a local library"
• "Marselisborg Deer Park ("Marselisborg Dyrehave") in Marselisborg Forests comprises 22 ha" to "Marselisborg Deer Park ("Marselisborg Dyrehave") in Marselisborg Forests comprise 22 ha"

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 and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Samsara: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —MRD2014 ^{Merry Christmas!} 02:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas

A blessed feast to you and yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hello Samsara: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Aberdeen F.C. protection

Hey there Samsara - just wanted to flag that I removed protection from the above. I don't think the level of vandalism is really high enough to warrant protection for four months. I'm happy to keep an eye on it and reinstate if necessary. Thanks! — fox 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)