This is an archive of past discussions with User:NeilN. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, Neil! Today you blocked 63.143.206.232 as an obvious sock of Kingshowman. A few days ago you blocked 63.143.203.246 for block evasion with disruptive editing of the same type. In both cases, they were posting at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 with long-winded expositions of negative material about Trump. In between those two blocks the (obviously) same user made a few similar edits to that page using 63.143.202.255, 63.143.203.202, 63.143.200.218, and 63.143.201.75. Do you think it's time to look for a rangeblock? Or since I participate in that page, should I just duck-block the person every time they come back? (I think I can do that despite being WP:INVOLVED, what do you think?) Pinging User:MrX because he was the one who recognized this sockmaster. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
There may be too many IP addresses for a range block. I would like to recommend that we agressively delete any and all contributions of this user as soon as they appear, per WP:EVADE. Engaging in discussion with them tends to encourage more sockpuppetry, disruption, and blatant WP:BLP violations. I do think you should be able to duck block them as well. - MrX19:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete, or hat? I see that you hatted them all at the talk page (making it much more readable). Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Normally I delete them mercilessly, but in this case, I hatted them in deference to you and the others who had already responded to the sock. You're right though, I might as well have just taken a yellow highlighter to all of the socks comments. - MrX20:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I think hatting was the right thing to do. Not only because we had responded, but because one other editor was planning to use some of their links in creating a section. --MelanieN (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: 63.143.200.0/21 is the range in question. I looked at the contribs since June 1 and maybe 50% of the non-sock edits aren't vandalism or disruptive (a lower percentage are actually useful). For now, I would just just duck-block. Socks don't get to involve anyone. --NeilNtalk to me22:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. No point in bothering with the old ones, but as new ones come along I will shut them down. A few days seems to be long enough; either that's a very dynamic IP or else they are moving around a public library changing computers every few minutes. Wouldn't put it past them. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Balochistan conflict
Hi Neil, I suppose you have noticed that there has been a slow edit-war going on at Balochistan conflict. Here is the story of the user [1] who has been driving it. I have pinged you from the discussion. I would appreciate if you can tell him what to do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
right of using File:Hovind(1).jpg
As it says in the wikimedia commons' explications, the picture added can be use because it's someone else's work with the author granted permission to copy it. It is actualy a picture from a 1999 videotape where the author explicitly mentionned that there is no copyright on his product. The tape is from the Creation science evangelism collection and is titled Creation/evolution debate; Genesis: History or Myth By Dr. Kent E Hovind (1999).
So doesn't make it alright to edit this picture on Kent Hovind wiki page?
104.221.72.180 (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi 104. The file uploaded to Commons makes no such mention of this permission. Is this videotape recording on the web somewhere? Else, can you upload a digitized copy to Commons that includes the recorder's comments? --NeilNtalk to me01:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Freekenthovind: I am Diannaa, another admin on this wiki. I have looked at the Rational Wiki page, and we can't use that as proof of permission, because it's a wiki which anyone can edit. In fact I could go right now and edit that page to say whatever. What we need to do if possible is get an OTRS ticket on the file. There's instructions at WP:donating copyrighted materials and a sample permission email at WP:Consent. If you have any questions please let me know. — Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I would like to say sorry to you for removing directly without reason description about the section "sexual assault allegations" under Park Yoochun on July 1. I am a new user for editing Wikipedia and I haven't noticed that here is a "talk" function to communicate and discuss with the original editor for the section. Please accept my apology.
Hereby I would like to communicate with you for the following two points regarding the article "Park Yoochun":
1) Since the allegation are still under investigation by South Korea police up to date and we are all waiting for the truth which will be announced by Police. Therefore, it seems to be a kind of sneer rather than a firmed introduction to put the following "quoted" description right in the first section the introduction of Park Yoochun. I would like to suggest that the following description under the first section introducing Park Yoochun can be removed.
quoted
In 2016, while in the middle of his two-year mandatory military service, Park became the subject of a string of sexual assault charges earning him the nickname "Korea's Bill Cosby".[1]
unquoted
2) Following point (1) mentioned above, according to the public information on the news we can read up to date, all the allegations has still been under investigated by the South Korean Police. From the basic human rights perspective, I would like to suggest that the title of the section "sexual assault allegations" under Park Yoochun can be changed to "Controversy - sexual assault allegation " instead of "sexual assault allegation". I have no further suggestion on other detailed description under the section since they are all from news whether TV or newspaper or internet, people can read the news sources clearly.
Thanks a lot for your attention on my suggestions listed above and looking forward to see the modification soon. Hope this kind of discussion can make Wikipedia continuing being a free and good platform for truth and knowledge sharing.
On the dispute on editing the Ruth Smeeth page, the facts are as follows. Ruth Smeeth has put out a statement on her website stating that a speaker at an event had accused her of being part of a "media conspiracy" and that this constituted an anti-semitic trope. Smeeth placed those words in inverted commas in her statement and this is widely understood to represent a direct quote. Video footage of the event shows, clearly, that the speaker, Marc Wadsworth, did not utter those words,or even either one of those words. That video footage is available on the website of The Independent newspaper, in an article entitled "Labour activist who berated MP Ruth Smeeth says he did not know she was Jewish and denies Momentum links". This article is included as cited source 6 in the Ruth Smeeth page, which is a point made by an editor other than myself. While the article does not specifically say that Smeeth's statement was factully incorrect, it is clear from watching the video of the event, which is included on the article page, that he said no such thing. That is a perfectly valid source for my edit which says that Ruth Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate. Subsequent to my editing the article to say that, my edit was almost immediately reverted by the user This is Paul, on the grounds that I had not cited a proper source. I had initially cited an article on the blog of the senior British diplomat and former amabassador, Craig Murray. Murray's article includes a link to the video on The Independent as well as direct quote from Ruth Smeeth's statement and compares the two. He draws the explicit conclusion that Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate. This is Paul objected that Murray's blog was not a valid source and suggested that I use more "credible" sources such as mainstream media, providing a list of what he considered to be "credible" sources, including The Independent. I subsequently removed the link to Muray's article and linked solely to The Independent article that included the original video footage of the event. That can be viewed here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-activist-who-berated-mp-ruth-smeeth-says-he-did-not-know-she-was-jewish-and-denies-momentum-a7111366.html
I also edited my contribution to read " Video footage of the event, however, shows that Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate as the speaker, Marc Wadsworth, did not use the term "media conspiracy" or either of those two words individually." This makes explicit that my source is the video footage of the event itself, rather than the opnion of the journalist in the article. My source is entirely within the standards required for a Wikipedia edit and it also clearly supports my contribution that Ruth Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate. This is Paul has repeatedly reverted my edit, offering a variety of changing reasons why he has done so. Initially, he claimed that my source was not reliable and, ultimately, in our discussion on this article on the Admin noticeboard he states "FWIW I personally don't believe she is directly quoting Wadsworth, but is instead using the quotes to define the term, which is something slightly different." He is now basing his reversions of my edit on his personal belief of what Smeeth meant, rather than the facts that I have cited and backed-up from a higly-creadible source. He is not editing from a Neutral Point of View and my edit should be allowed to stand.
The debated issue in this article involves a politician at the heart of a high-profile controversy and there are clearly people interested in guiding this narrative. The involvement of the user Philip_Cross in making the exact reversions to my edit that This is Paul did withim minutes of my having put the information back into the article also suggest that the removal of my edit is not being done from a neutral editor. Philip_Cross's activiities on Wikipedia were flagged in the March 2016 issue of Wikipedia Signpost; please see the March issue of Signpost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-16/In_the_media . He took over the job of reverting my edits after I flagged the matter of This is Paul's constant reversions on the Admins' noticeboard. To reiterate, these reversions are not being done from a Neutral Point of View and my edit should be allowed to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.7.160 (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. The other unjustified page move (1894 Istanbul earthquake) was already taken care of by someone else. AstroLynx (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I notice you're pretty active at the vandalism and page protection boards, so I thought I would ask for your advice here.
An IP editor keeps adding a link or reference to a personal webpage to the entry on Low Fantasy. It's clearly nothing more than a pet-project, and it's not discussed in any outside source, but it seems like it might fall under the "Lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia" from WP:VANDNOT.
Still, they're using multiple IP addresses (maybe accidentally) and they haven't been responsive to my repeatedly requesting that they take the discussion to talk or familiarize themselves with the purposes of Wikipedia.
So, my question is: would this be something that is reasonably interpreted as vandalism, or would it be better to request page protection, or is it more of a AN/I issue? Thanks for your time. Nblund (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Nblund. I remember seeing this at RFPP - it was declined by another admin but I see there's been more activity since then. It's not vandalism so here's what I would do: State clearly on the talk page why the source does not meet our reliable source guideline. Not being notable does not mean not reliable. "A personal webpage... It's clearly nothing more than a pet-project, and it's not discussed in any outside source." is more on point. Then make your revert, pointing to the discussion on the talk page. If the reverts continue, make a request at RFPP, pointing out that IPs are reverting without joining the existing discussion. Many admins including myself will protect to force discussion. --NeilNtalk to me16:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Could Luol Deng please be semi-protected. He's involved in a reported sports transaction and a lot of anons are making premature, poorly sourced edits. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to request page protection on my user page. It appears to be a hot topic right now, with three vandals in three days. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
DaHuzyBru, I've semi-protected indefinitely which is the usual way to go. If you want it lifted at any time, just ask any admin or put in a request at RFPP. --NeilNtalk to me20:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
NeilN why did you change kent hovind page? What you say is not neutrol you accuse him of taxe evasion, but IRS admits their wrongdoing about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freekenthovind (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Freekenthovind, incorrect. Hovind was acquitted on one new criminal contempt charge. He was convicted and served time for many other charges. And "conviction = Bible believer" borders on outright vandalism. --NeilNtalk to me19:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Creating a page that is protected pre-emptively
Hi,
I am e-mailing regarding creating a Wikipedia page. Our organisation, a multi-award winning charity, works on sensitive issues such as Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG)and Counter-terrorism and therefore requires pre-emptive page protection rather than create a page and then request page protection.
I have been informed that the official position of Wikipedia is that you never do preemptive protection. However, I was also told that there have been some rare circumstances where it has been done. I was told by the Wikipedia information team that we don't quite fit those circumstances but rather than simply turn us down they pointed us to the place where protection is requested.
I was also told by the Wikipedia information team that as a technical matter they don't think there is a way to create protection ab initio. However, if one of your editors with expertise in protection policy is sympathetic to our request, we can coordinate with them and ensure that the protection is added within minutes of the initial creation.
First off, it's really not a good idea to use the term "your/my page" as it gets other editors' hackles up. See WP:OWN for why. To answer your question, once you get an account, you can check "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" in your user preferences. --NeilNtalk to me19:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Question
Do you have a link to specific policy or guideline to say that a consensus close should not by made on a RfC that is withdrawn? This seems to be a grey area.
I would like to point out that Marteau has purposefully highjacked the RfC process. When I started discussing posting a RfC, he immediately posted a RfC to present a biased question. He then withdrew it when it appeared to go in a direction he did not like. I would just like it to be closed properly, to reflect the consensus of the people who have commented there. I'll be glad if you write the close. If not, please give advice on how to go forward to resolve this issue. Thanks, --LK (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) LK, that RFC ran for less than seven days and discussion was still ongoing when it was withdrawn. Consensus was still forming. Moreover, you expressed an opinion during the RFC and therefore are not uninvolved. I agree what Marteau did was very uncollegial but it looks like they have the right to do that. Posting an analysis of the discussion outside the RFC was the right thing to do and a nice move on your part. Suggest you wait a bit for further comments. --NeilNtalk to me14:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no need to assert consensus within the closed RfC. Simply assert consensus outside of the RfC, on the talk page. You can even cite it as foundation for your assertion, just leave the closed RfC alone, mmmkay? In addition, as an involved editor, it is not your prerogative to assert consensus within that RfC. Furthermore, it was not my intent to 'hijack' anything... I genuinely felt that at the time, the result would be to maintain the status quo, and that nothing further would be gained by continuing it...however, I can see how it would appear that I had malicious motives; I assure you that is not the case. However, since I have seen the reaction to my action (attempts to silence me, to censor my statements, to prematurely archive it... to go to extremes to remove my statement for no other reason than WP:IDONTLIKEIT) I have to admit I have my proverbial dander up about this entire situation and I will continue to apply policy and guidelines as necessary to protect my privilege to post my views on the talk page and to have them remain. Marteau (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Good Humor
For making me literally laugh out loud with this edit. Don't know why, but it was perfect timing and completely deescalated the tension for me. Just glad I wasn't drinking anything at the time I read it. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 03:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Sometimes you have to look back on all the hours spent here, and all the stress that comes with your unpaid volunteer job, and marvel and just laugh. --NeilNtalk to me04:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I will. I honestly thought I was doing it right by going to RPP and so on. Next time, BLP noticeboard, and the other suggestions you gave. Appreciate your help and advice. -- WV ● ✉✓05:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Blocking IP
Hey do you remember when you blocked that guy for being a sock puppet? Did you block his IP? I am concerned that he may try to create new accounts to vandalize Wikipedia. TheUSConservative (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I think this IP needs a timeout. They have not heeded to warnings on their talk page and they persist with adding premature information into articles despite many reverts from not just myself. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey thanks, 2601. Doing recent changes patrol as an IP is doubly thankless so I'm really glad you've stuck with us. --NeilNtalk to me00:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi User:NeilN
I'd like you to review the article that I created for My Love from the Star TV series, because it's hard to find on the search bar.
Kazaro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could have a look at IP User:120.155.99.102. They have made so many disruptive edits there are to many to list. Removal of [[ ]] from names as just as example. I have issued a warning to them. Just wondering if you could take a look and see what you think. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Glad to see you back at PERM! Another development since you were gone: User:MusikAnimal/userRightsManager.js. It (1) asks for optional closing remarks (2) assigns the permission, including a permalink to the discussion in the rights change summary and (3) issues the user talk page template – all in under 2 seconds. To get it to work just add the script and click on "Assign permissions" on any PERM page as you normally would. If you don't want to use the script in a particular instance, right-click the "Assign permissions" link and select "open in a new tab". Hope this helps! — MusikAnimaltalk16:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Why? Why is it so difficult just to remove one "See also" section link? Why do I even need to discuss why I think we should remove that one little link, let alone request a RfC? I am tired of people reverting my edits and say "we need to wait until consensus is reached", when said debate, which I started by the way, had been laying dormant for months, and I had to reignite it last week, and it's already going cold. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Because, as I said elsewhere, other editors disagree with the removal. How would you react if they said, "Why? Why is it so difficult just to keep one "See also" section link? Why do I even need to discuss why I think we should keep that one little link, let alone request a RfC?"? Holding a RFC will result in a debate that will have a proper discussion and resolution. --NeilNtalk to me17:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Monitoring your page, when I saw the section heading I thought it had to do with your Wikipedia service. {:>{)> Just kidding. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎)17:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the last time I tried something like that (I'm not sure if it was a RFC), it went fucking nowhere, it ended without me, and I can't even find what happened at the end. I apologize that I'm a little bit hesitant to start something like that all over again.
Hello N. Thanks for starting the RFC. As you mentioned the need for "neutral wording" the IP should also be aware that this edit vioilates WP:CANVASS. Cheers and have a delightful weekend. MarnetteD|Talk20:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Kindly look at revision 728949584 on Mark Grisanti from IP user 98.... 16 at 12:54 U.S. Pacific time today, and see if a magic wand of some administrative sort warrants being unholstered and waved over it. (I haven't troubled myself yet with taking out the comparably inoffensive cruft.) Merci beaucoup! - Julietdeltalima(talk)20:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Both. Half the sources are either blogs (mostly his) or things written by him. I'm also concerned about the POV that comes from that. It reads like an extended sponsored bio. I would prefer TNT but I settled for an ADVERT header. TimothyJosephWood01:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: Well there's a large difference. I have no objection to the above text being included in the article if sourced properly. I would support a too many primary references tag. --NeilNtalk to me01:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Given he phrasing, there is almost certainly some COI editing involved, which is an entirely separate issue. Random editors don't make articles like this. TimothyJosephWood01:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm at least adding the POV template. Tried a bit of cleanup but this is going to take hours to make neutral. If it makes any difference, I have no idea who this guy is. TimothyJosephWood03:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you placed FIFA Ballon d'Or under semi-protected status until July 9. Knowing the controversy between the two leading footballers who have won this award, I feel that the protection of this page be extended. Too many users will start changing information just like the IP user did a while ago. De88 (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on the Kelli Ward page. I have not heard from the other editor. If I do not hear/ we can not resolve anything, what would be the next step? Tsudeck (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
He's just nominated Murder of Kylie Maybury for deletion. You know,
that murder case that's been mentioned in books, had an extensive 30th
anniversary article in the press and has had recurring publicity for
the last 32 years. One of his acolytes, if not him himself under a
sock, didn't take defeat in the Riley Ann Sawyers AfD too well and
sent me a transphobic email (I'm a trans man).
Hi Neil, In my sandbox, I have listed the activity of an IP hopper, who keeps attacking the JNU sedition controversy-related pages and is generally abusive to other editors. He/she had a 72-hour block (for whatever it is worth), but I think more is needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya3, after reviewing the edits and looking at the revdelled material, I believe the person behind these edits should be blocked indefinitely. Accordingly, I have blocked the 2602:30a:c7d7:e590::/64 range for one month. Should disruption from that range resume after the block expires, a longer block should be put in place. --NeilNtalk to me13:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Don't care. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and discussion is focused on articles. If you want to discus your particular point of view please do that somewhere like reddit. --NeilNtalk to me14:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thanks for answering my questions at the help desk...these are genuine questions that have nothing to do with that admin..and I have no idea how they can be construed how he is construing them...and that other editor who closed it and put that nasty closing note already doesn't like me either from past interactions...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I sought you out to-day to ask a question concerning the page that you recently protected. While I do appreciate the protection of the Seeberville Murders, I would also like to know why a veteran, and better yet, an administrator of the English-speaking Wikipedia, would delete credible and fully-sourced content of a page.
As an amateur and aspiring historian, I have undertaken studying the Copper Country Strike of 1913-1914 and the events that accompanied it for a good three and a half years now. I have collected various plausible sources by authors such as Lyndon Comstock, Steven Lehto, Arthur W. Thurner, Larry Lankton, Allison Hoagland and P. Germain, and have extracted evidence for the sequence of events from a plethora of historical records.
A response to this post would be greatly appreciated within the next twenty-four hours. Kiitos!
The Copper Miner (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The Copper Miner, I reverted to the last stable version of the article before fully protecting it. I have no opinion on the content. Talk:Seeberville Murders is still empty. You should be making these points there so those editors who are interested in the article content can comment. --NeilNtalk to me19:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
If that is the attitude that you are going to adopt about such matters then I am afraid I might just resign as an editor of Wikipedia. I simply will not tolerate having credibly-sourced content removed after hours of strenuous effort. Good day.
The Copper Miner (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The Copper Miner, first, your changes are in article history and can be easily retrieved. Second, as I took admin action on the article, I cannot weigh in on whose version is "best". Please see WP:INVOLVED. I urge you to start a discussion on the article's talk page. --NeilNtalk to me19:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I am a novice user, literally my first edit. You have said I included original research. For the Biathle championships this is definitely not the case, I included the full results, which show him finishing last. On the selection criteria of sending 6, that is and was the policy but obviously no online record of the 2003 policy is available. I spoke to the 2003 Team Manager to understand their selection policy and was told that if only 4 went that that was because only 4 wanted to go and that a Junior Age group this was not unusual. How do I get that included? On the Duathlon side I included the seasons rankings. Was the issue here that I had not linked to Mr Young claiming to have finished 4th in these championships to qualify for the team? Please let me know what else I need to provide to get this important context included on the page as at present the uninformed reader may believe that getting onto these teams was a major achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodywing (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@Woodywing: You need to stick to facts and analysis appearing in reliable sources and omit commentary like "when there were not enough Junior Men to fill the full 6 berths available" and "There are no such championships listed on the British Triathlon website and his only ranking performance that year was 7th in a field of 8 placing him 18th out of 23 competitors in his age group in the UK that year." Things like this should only be added when a reliable source points them out. Also, any conversations you have is original research and content based on those conversations cannot appear in the article. --NeilNtalk to me14:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Is my recent update OK in this regard? I realize it includes a Facebook source, but it is a verified account belonging to the subject of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodywing (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I posted this in the thread on that admin's talkpage who closed that ANI, genuinely curious:
"..what I don't understand is why someone like NeilN doesn't just block BMK for "disruptive editing" if/when you think it's warranted...it's perfectly allowable for you to do so as an admin...blocks are the only thing that will affect him..the ANI process is pointless and nothing an admin even needs to justify such an action..."
you complain about the ANI result but you could have/can just go ahead and block BMK whenever you want unilaterally for disruptive editing (so long as you think it's warranted in good-faith)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
One of the rules I have, and I think it's one every admin should follow, is "don't surprise the community". Suddenly blocking a long-standing editor with tens of thousands of productive edits with no warning would constitute a large surprise. There's lots of things admins can do. The number of things admins should do is substantially lower. --NeilNtalk to me00:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
totally reasonable and makes sense but in this particular case if he got goofy again real soon I don't think you blocking him would constitute "suddenly" or "no warning" or a "surprise"...in other words, I wouldn't think another long ANI thread should be relied upon by you; just block......just a thought..68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
RevDel request
Hello, NeilN. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
you are one sick individual or let me say FAQASH and your sickness is called Somaliland i have seen you in the last week revert me for no good reason , and i tried not to get in edit wars with you but to accuse me twice in one week that is more then harassment and i don't know why the other editors leave you do that you really think you can booly me or harass me without any consequences think twice .Bysomalilander (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
NeilNtalk to me i don't believe in reverting and i try my best to limit it you can see my page but to go on a crusade about every thing involving Somaliland and try to mix it with Somalia i cant just sit and watch and no one seems want to talk. got the link and read it thanks Bysomalilander (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I have unprotected the article as she has been officially confirmed as PM and so the reason for the edit warring no longer exists. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Some people are stubbornly uninformed as in the case of the individual who was reverting news of an event that had occurred. You acted presumptiously by swooping in and locking the article because of someone who was making ridiculous assertions (eg that the picture of May kneeling before the Queen was "suspect"). You should have taken a few minutes to actually assess the situation. Electoralist (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Multiple people were edit warring on both sides. I'm quite comfortable with my decision to protect for one hour when I did. I also fully support Thryduulf's decision to unprotect when they did. --NeilNtalk to me17:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Note that the Guardian article stating that May had become the PM was posted at 17:40 (British time)- five minutes *before* you protected the page. Electoralist (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, aside from freezing the article in an incorrect state, I think it's important that admins do the extra work when there's a heavily watched article to make sure they're doing the right thing (or at least locking the article with the correct info) rather than just swoop in deus ex machina. It would have taken an extra 30 seconds for Neil to check a news website to confirm that the event that had been reverted had, in fact, happened. Electoralist (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
All things being equal, this was a good lockdown; the passions that ran so high over this would justify continuing the full-protection for twenty-four hours. MuffledPocketed17:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
You did some revdeling here regarding a recent notice board post by myself. FIM did one additional reversion of copyvio after you had finished. Probably needs revdel as well. TimothyJosephWood17:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
There is actually one more thing you can do for me. Give me a 5% raise. You were right that I'm not paid enough for this. 105% of $0 is still $0 EvergreenFir(talk)18:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The registered account is probably someone's sock and combining that with their username and edits has gotten them an indef block. The IP, I agree, is a sock of the named account and has been temporarily blocked. Thanks for reporting. --NeilNtalk to me02:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Notability assessment
Hi, you just added this to my user page:
Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. NeilNtalk to me02:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Before reading the text of that template, how is one supposed to know that the guidelines for lists of persons also apply to organizations? (or double-check a claimed rule infringement)
But OK then. Given what you can already read and check from what I have written in various other discussions, can you please now confirm for me that "the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline"?
Thanks for the citation above. It points out that Wikipedia has a different definition of "notability" than the common-sense definition. In other words, common sense says that something is notable if enough people know and care about it. The wikipedian definition is that something is notable if enough people have publishedreliablesecondary sources and at this point it should appear obvious that this policy is likely to cause biases and hurt coverage, especially when that policy is taken to the letter by patrollers. That is, at any given time, subjects that are actually notable will end up rejected because they did not attract enough interest from the specific kind of people that are authors of wikipedia-policy-compliant sources. Such sources may not yet exist, and if they exist they are likely to be way harder to find, and way less accessible (different language, offline, paywall etc).
Which brings me to WP:NRV: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Which is exactly what my original complaint was about. Reverters are editors, and when considering cancelling the work of other editors (assuming good faith) I believe they should proceed with due diligence.
But enough lawyering. Could you please check refs 1 and 2 on the page User:VonBlinkendenzwoelf/wip-ccm/Lists and tell me if they are enough to pass the wikipedian notability test? For Compart which is clearly worth mentioning either I will have to find something else, as both firms managed to miss them (or maybe Compart did not want to pay).
VonBlinkendenzwoelf, on the face of it Gartner/Forrester coverage indicates notability. I cannot evaluate the details as both sources are behind paywalls. However, if the firms paid for coverage, then that's a different story. --NeilNtalk to me20:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Having read them I think both reports are reasonably fair (balanced, actual research, good coverage), though none of the firms will disclose if participants paid or not. You can request a free download through the website of GMC. In my opinion this is not much worse than with other types of publications or credit rating agencies, where conflicts of interest are common and undernoticed. -- VonBlinkendenzwoelf (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick heads up that this IP has gone back to editing again after your previous block. I really can't tell whether it's the same person or not, but...
a). They resumed editing right after the blocking period...
This version restored by Tripwire is full of copyvios, please restore to this, which is copyvio free. I mentioned this issue on the talk page but FPaS decided to revert my warning and leave the copyvios in the article. 217.146.29.69 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
No, they were fixed by me, FPaS restored the edit last night, but he missed this bit "There is alleged link of BSO Azad with India coordinating targeted attacks against Baluchistan strategic assets and general Baloch population" Apart from the alleged, that was also copy pasted from the original source, cheers .2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:3 (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello again! There is currently a slow burning edit war on the Somaliland article. It is caused by various ips and recently created accounts. Do you mind protecting the page? AcidSnow (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, thought I might mention that there's a protection reason specifically for extended confirmed protections under the 500/30 Arab-Israeli decision. It's the one below the normal AE option. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc. I can't quite work out what tool/action/edit you're referring to. Can you please expand? --NeilNtalk to me 8:17 am, Today (UTC−4)
When you extend(ed) confirmed protect a page under the ArbCom Arab-Israeli 500/30 decision there is a specific protection reason in the dropdown box below the standard Arbitration enforcement. Compare this reason with this one. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Callanecc That's what I thought you were referring to. Are you/they using Twinkle? All I see under Tagging options is {{pp-30-500}}: Arbitration enforcement. Then it's the "Pending changes templates" header. --NeilNtalk to me13:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Separately to the above question did you intend to pick Arbitration Enforcement for these three pages? As far as I can tell it isn't enforcing an arbitration remedy (123)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
"Your recent editing history at Carles Puyol shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war"
This is precisely the problem, I have written repeatedly in the article talk page (Catalan/Spanish paragraph) providing numerous arguments and samples of consensus in other articles on this topic. Are those who have made reversals those who have not written or discussed ANYTHING in the article talk page. Now you have done the same and has protected the page with the version of which have reversed without reason or discussion.
Yes, a "reason" (but only in some cases...) a "reason" that the only thing showing it is that they not only do not respond, but did not even bother to read that these alleged reasons had already been shown to be false and against the consensus showed in other articles in the talk section of the Carles Puyol article (and I also wrote all these arguments on the page Mattythewhite ... and he did not respond anything). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.19.144.48 (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
NEWBLPBAN
I am livid to find out about this WP:NEWBLPBAN horseshit. I don't know how I didn't notice it in the past two years but I'm deeply disappointed in ARBCOM for placing discretionary sanctions on such a large swath of articles like Zakir Naik. Editors like me are just going to let the crazies win the content battle because it's not worth my trouble to get involved. Chris Troutman (talk)19:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia started off on the wrong foot with the whole "anyone can edit" stuff. Instead of having an HR department to sort through would-be editors, they show up at an article like Zakir Naik because Zakir's in trouble with the government and they want to push a viewpoint. Wikipedia dares me to deal with these partisans and won't lift a finger to help with content disputes. They'll wait till editors misstep behaviorally while in dispute and use stuff like discretionary sanctions to ban me and everyone else. So in answer to your question about minimizing disruption, we shouldn't be letting everyone edit. I don't mind ceding ground on the article about Zakir, just like I ceded ground on Thomas More, so it's no big deal. The crazies can have the BLPs. Chris Troutman (talk)20:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I have to note that I have some sympathy for Chris, as the crazies in large numbers can overwhelm the more neutrally-minded, and we often have so many other areas of interest that we really prefer not to have to waste our energies on these sorts of battles, which often boomerang at the wrong person (as well as the wrong version...). Montanabw(talk)23:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Neil, per this, the userfied draft article [3], was deleted before I could even get to it to contest the nomination (less than 24 hours). It was an AfD that I userfied in my own user space to work on it as a draft and see if it would be brought up to a GA standard. Userfication is almost always OK unless there is a copyvio or a BLP violation, neither of which is applicable here. I believe that deletion under these circumstances was inappropriate. I asked the person who deleted it to restore it, but I believe you are also an admin so you could as well. This was, as you know, a hotly discussed article and had significant support. I do not believe there is any policy that says that such an article cannot be userfied for improvement and future return to article space. Please restore, or encourage RHaworth to do so. Thank you. Montanabw(talk)23:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@Montanabw: I did not follow the AFD or delete the article. I just moved the speedy delete notice. Which was absolutely correct, BTW. You cannot userfy an article like that. It loses all history and required attribution. You can ask an admin to restore the article and move it into userspace. If RHaworth doesn't respond within the next 4-5 hours I'll do that for you. --NeilNtalk to me23:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
So, where did the notice originally post? It appears that the article was deleted before the notice even landed at my talk page... I would be quite grateful if you could do so, if RHaworth does not or cannot. Technically, it wasn't so much userfied as content moved into draft space during the AfD so that it could be worked on, keeping content in case-- as happened -- the AfD was suddenly closed without warning. (And I did the copypaste because moving an article during an AfD is disruptive and generally not OK). I am more than glad to have the entire article with history userfied, in fact, I'd prefer that, I'd be really happy to see that. However, the talk page of the userspace draft was where the work was happening, and it contained some discussion and a few links to sources that I'd like to have back too. Montanabw(talk)23:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I missed the edit summary because I had multiple talk page posts and I went straight to the page without looking at the history. By the way, and FWIW, while I fully agree with you about moving and attribution, userspace is a little more complicated -- the reality is that a lot of folks move an article into their userspace to work on drafts and improvements with a full intent of later pasting their efforts back into the main article. There is not an intention to avoid proper attribution, it's actually a very good faith intention to not disrupt a relatively stable article while major renovations are taking place. Not sure how to handle the intersection of attribution and sandboxing... I suppose in non-AfD cases, a permalink to the version copied would at least meet the minimum standard... Montanabw(talk)00:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I see. If the main page gets deleted and the userspacedraft stays around then we don't have attribution. Got it! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Outside of Afd, a lot of people routinely copy article text into their sandbox to work on article improvement without messing up the real one in mainspace. Then, when done, they copy their changes into the main article as a single edit. Montanabw(talk)05:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I will in a bit, but the accusations of bad faith inherent in that whole debate and then this deletion issue are troubling me. To be honest, the issue of preserving article history and attribution didn't occur to me when I userfied the article prior to deletion. In fact, my bigger concern was that somehow userfication after deletion would be the thing denied. (Not sure why I thought that, but the wiki is a big place with a lot of written-but-hard-to-find rules). Overall, I really have been appalled at the toxic environment at AfD; several people who started reviewing some of these WP:WOMEN AfDs with me have thrown up their hands in despair. It is a mess that needs a lot of cleanup and reform. Montanabw(talk)23:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Could this user please be blocked. They have ignored warnings and final warning on their talk and are continuing to be disruptive and a vandal. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm writing in reference to the section you deleted:
Finger wrinkling:Finger and toe wrinkling is controlled by the sympathetic nervous system in response to water immersion.Humans are the only great apes to show finger and toe pad wrinkling in response to exposure to wet conditions. Originally it was assumed that the finger wrinkling was simply the result of the skin swelling in water, but it is now understood that the furrows are caused by the blood vessels constricting due to signalling by the sympathetic nervous system in response to water exposure.[1][2] One hypothesis that has been put forward is that the wrinkled fingertips are adaptive for grasping in wet conditions in the same way as tyre treads help to avoid slipping on the roads. This adaptation could have evolved at a time when human ancestors spent a predominant amount of time in aquatic or semi-aquatic environments. To investigate this, a study in 2013 found that the wrinkled fingertips provided better handling of wet objects but gave no advantage for handling dry objects.[3] Conversely, a 2014 study attempting to reproduce these results was unable to demonstrate any improvement of handling wet objects with wrinkled fingertips.[2] However, no other theory has yet been put forward to explain this nervous system response, and the authors of the latter paper suggest that this nervous response "does not serve any adaptive function but rather is a byproduct of sympathetic nervous system-induced vasoconstriction".[2]
You cited "no link to AAT" under your reason for removal of the fingertip wrinkling passage.
"One hypothesis for why this occurs, the “rain tread” hypothesis, posits that the wrinkles may help the fingers grip things when wet, possibly being an adaption from a time when humans dealt with rain and dew in forested primate habitats"
AAT supporters believe that the wet conditions that gave rise to the evolution of this interesting nervous response is actually semi-aquatic environments or the result of littoral living where humans collected molluscs from the water for example.
This is one of the central pieces of evidence in support of AAT.[4] Although you may not agree about the evolutionary cause of the wrinkling, (and I included a reference that opposed the idea, for fairness and balance), it is clearly relevant to the topic of AAT, there is published research on it and therefore to ignore it and delete it completely is misinformative.
@Music1201: Not a mistake! I've been asked that before. It may look funny but there's a method in the madness. If a page with a low, but steady stream of unconstructive edits suddenly gets vandalized at a higher rate, I apply the semi to stop the current disruption and a longer PC to make sure the article isn't totally unprotected when the semi expires. That way, we can judge if a semi is needed again without vandalized versions being shown to readers. I'm more apt to do this with BLPs and high profile pages. --NeilNtalk to me00:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Different ways of contributing
Something you just wrote to someone else: ~"Overheard at WMF. If content creators all left... If vandalism fighters all left..." Do you mind if I quote that (with attr. to you) on my user page? Thanks either way. Jeh (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi NeilN.
I guess we should also block this user.
The Wikipedia editor and admin who, for some reason or other, has recently chosen to refer to himself as "Piet van Nieuw Holland" aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I′m really sorry, I was polite in the first place. Consider that some of the Wikipedians are working against articles About Croatia and Croats, especially that Dutchman. Please do something about that. Thank you! --BrunoMed (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
All accounts and IP's have been editing out information on That Poppy only, the latest one being Islanduser83, all on the lines of "Incorrect information", "Irrelevant information", "Doesn't add to the article", explanation about the difference between Pereira and the Poppy character, or no explanation at all. I know it's already been reported to WP:ANI (about GrabrielMarx89), but I'm wondering if there should be anything else done to prevent future editing wars/vandalism. Thank you in advance! Adog104Talk to me16:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
User:NeilN, my apologies to you and to User:Boing! said Zebedee. You have been seeing a bit too much of me lately. The last few weeks it seems, not another day goes by without one or two of these incidents, that get to involve me. I notice now, how that got to me today. Perhaps I need another hobby. Substance abuse springs to mind, but perhaps flower arranging is a better option (that was a joke...). But anyway, I do think that Wikipedia should remain an at least somewhat pleasurable experience for me and at this pace it isn't anymore. I'll see what I have to do about that. Thanks. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Frankly, I just noticed for the first time that I needed to talk to someone about deletions made on the Kelli Ward page. I still honestly don't know who I'm talking to about this and why another editor keeps inserting totally irrelevant and malicious statements on the Kelli Ward page. I realize that fairness may be subjective with Wikipedia, but, the user(editor) who keeps inserting "controversies" is well aware that Dr. Ward is in the middle of a US Senate race against John McCain (who has a PROTECTED page, by the way and none of his "controversies" can be posted. I'd like to have a legitimate conversation about this important and vital issur. Can someone email me at RogerCG1@aol.com and explain how all of this works? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerCG1 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey Neil,
I wasn't sure whether you'd read my last message on the fingertip thread because you hadn't replied, so I just wanted to leave you a quick note to say it's ok if that section is deleted. Thanks for your help.Aquapess (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Your warning to me
I am really fed up. Working to make improvements in Wikipedia articles with reliable sources and then some editors who disagree with your edits (don't know for what reason or so) revert you. Then you revert them for good and are being shown as engaged in edit war and warned of being blocked. Wow. What a great reward for your dedicated work ! Well, if you noticed, I am in edit war, you must also have noticed why I am reverting those edits which reverted mine. If not, then see yourself. This is sheer bullying by administrators and certain other editors. Wasted all my time. Vibhss (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Vibhss, I can understand you wanting to add your corrections. But other editors have objections: 'wrong article. this is only about Modern Standard Hindi. see Hindi languages for "all the dialects"', 'census data not useful here, because it is a different Hindi', 'Rv: this has been discussed multiple times, Census 2011 used a much more "liberal" definition of Hindi than we do'. You will need to engage the other editors on the talk page and wait for consensus to form. --NeilNtalk to me19:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Why is my editing misleading.
Why in gods name do you say my editing is misleading... th information that i have been trying to change is correct what you have is a lie. and disrespectful to 3.5 million citizens of the island.
The recent case called Sanchez Valle vs PR states completely that ultimate power is on USA congress so what you call commonwealth and we call ELA Free associate state is not correct. we are a colony without a doubt. how can i make this clear to you. Everyone on the island i clear on this subject but you clearly know nothing about the island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohamGabriel (talk • contribs) 22:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
this is what wikipedia says a commonwealth is:
The English noun "commonwealth" in the sense meaning "public welfare; general good or advantage" dates from the 15th century. The original phrase "the common-wealth" or "the common weal" (echoed in the modern synonym "public weal") comes from the old meaning of "wealth", which is "well-being", and is itself a loose translation of the Latin res publica (republic). The term literally meant "common well-being". In the 17th century the definition of "commonwealth" expanded from its original sense of "public welfare" or "commonweal" to mean "a state in which the supreme power is vested in the people; a republic or democratic state". "Better things were done, and better managed ... under a Commonwealth than under a King." Pepys, Diary (1667)
"Supreme power is vested in the people" But in PR Supreme power is vested in US Congress,... So How can i be misleading/???? please explain.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohamGabriel (talk • contribs) 22:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
and this is wikipedias definition on colony: In politics and history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign. For colonies in antiquity, city-states would often found their own colonies. Some colonies were historically countries, while others were territories without definite statehood from their inception.
Please tell me what is misleading in my typo correction. more than 100 years we've been a colony under a false sense of sovereignity.
JohamGabriel, please stop posting about your content dispute here. I am not involved in it. All I'm telling you is to stop edit warring and to stop using misleading edit summaries. clpo13 also has some good advice that you should take note of. --NeilNtalk to me03:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello again NeilN. I am come before you to-day to report the deletion of some fully-cited material on the Seeberville murders page by user Rms125a@hotmail.com. I conversed with him as you suggested and he refused to reply to my latest comment on his talk page in which I stated that I had not been, as he said, "copying and pasting" information from other websites but rather I had used books, newspapers of the day, government records, telegram correspondence and other relative historical documentation as my sources. I had cited them as such and now more than half of them are gone. I request that you please help me out with this as it has gotten out of hand already. Kiitos! The Copper Miner (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The Copper Miner, lay out your arguments on the article's talk page, not a user's talk page. If other editors are interested, that's where they'll chime in. That's also where admins will look to see if discussion has taken place when looking at edit warring accusations. Post there, wait a couple days, and see what happens. --NeilNtalk to me03:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
BrunoMed
Hello User:NeilN I noticed a remark on BrunoMed's talkpage where he apologized for using IP addresses. He did that here somewhere. The use of these addresses can be seen here. It is about the numbers 46.188.174.187 and 46.188.225.122. Now I noticed that numbers from the same range, this one and this one and this one and this one and also this one have still been editing articles about Croats in the last two days since BrunoMed was blocked. I'm going to compose an SPI request. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I would describe the following diffs as two reverts within 24 hours: [4] (42 consecutive edits) and [5] (6 consecutive edits).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Bbb23, the three edits between those two sessions of editing consisted of fixing disambiguation links, fixing punctuation, and adding headers. All were untouched as far as I can see. Kind of cheap to block for that, don't you think? --NeilNtalk to me13:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, how's things? If you have a mo could you remove my eponline (Course online volunteers) userright? I no longer use the permission, thanks :) -- samtartalk or stalk14:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
MariaJaydHicky continuing edit-warring and disruptive editing, using a number of different IP addresses 2a02:c7f:de18:a800:bd00:636e:50eb:beb7, 2a02:c7f:de18:a800:c4ea:90d5:e41b:ca2b, 2a02:c7f:de18:a800:8991:d563:f4a8:4b6d and other most recent 2a02:c7f ranges. The current account Postcodezrepresenting is likely sock.123.136.106.218 (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
New editor mass changing/reordering genres and complaining about unreliable sources? Too suspicious. Look at this edit which partially restores this edit from what I believe to be an IPsock. In my opinion, Postcodezrepresenting definitely is MariaJaydHicky. I don't know if there's enough evidence right now to warrant a block but maybe later it might be worth starting an SPI. Sro23 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed, blocked and tagged. I must block more MJH socks outside SPI than any other master. It seems like everyone and their mother see possible socks lurking. Funny thing is they are almost always right.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Bbb23. I think part of the problem is that there a lot of genre warriors out there and to an outsider, they all start to blur together when hunting for similarities. --NeilNtalk to me18:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
User page
Why did you delete portions of my user page? I know my user page isn't NPOV; but NPOV doesn't apply to peoples' user pages. If anything, I'm helping NPOV by admitting my own biases. JoeM (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, you're right, I see BLP applies to user pages. But how did my page violate that? It's not like I posted some libelous claim saying I had personal knowledge about Hillary Clinton committing a crime (which would be true libel if proven false), I just posted some common anti-Hillary political slogans. JoeM (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey Neil, I just wanted to drop in and say thank you for your hard work over at WP:RfPP. Almost all of my reports today you protected within minutes. Thank you again! -- LuK3(Talk)00:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Administrator privilege to edit a STUB : Singla ? No way dude.
You are not doing any good to your reputation by putting unwanted administrator privilege to edit a stub page. It clearly showcase that you have ulterior motives which will surely damage Wikipedia reputation because of people like you. People like you who don't even have an introduction on their profile page and are hiding their identities don't even deserve to be on Wikipedia administrator list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.177.140 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
In reply to your concern Dat Guy, All I have to say I understand your concern about 3RR rule and I was noway near to breaking it. Also, more importantly redirect protection does not apply here as Singla is not synonymous with Singhal unless and until you guys want to call Elizabeth II as Hitler.
So, kindly understand the concern and suspend the redirect till a support for the claim for redirect is not found. As was done already before your revert and block.
Thanks and Regards.
223.176.162.102 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I have refuted him in the talk section but he just does not get it! He provided a economy article with a 1 page blurry picture to support his claims. I have added solely war dedicated article, yet he keeps on trolling and vandalizing them.
Thanks for the note; I've never seen that template before. I figured an EL-style link was the only way to avoid the ping, since I wasn't going to avoid signing my post. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Second thoughts, the IP is likely stale now (edit was late yesterday evening), but their edit may still need removing - I'm not sure if that qualifies for revdel -- samtartalk or stalk16:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
samtar, the editor has been using the same IP for over a week so it's likely not very dynamic. Blocked two weeks. I don't see any urgent revdel need so I'll get Ponyo to decide what to do. --NeilNtalk to me17:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the frivolous AE request filed by an IP user (173.161.39.97). It is a quite bizarre campaign of harassment by him, and I do hope it ceases. Thank again. --Neutralitytalk17:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Sir: Respectfully, I request that you unlock the page early, or at least allow me a fully protected edit in order to add in my evidence, the interview with show executive producer Bob Schooley conducted by a verified industry expert whose credentials are even meticulously detailed onsite, in order to justifiably refute a certain editor's 100% untrue assertion that "Penguins of Madagascar has absolutely nothing to do with My Little Pony or Bronies". For anything else that i may not have a verified article on hand with the words "Penguins of Madagascar has (blank) in it, for sure, no doubt about it!" (geez, what burden of proof, but i nevertheless assent and fully abide by Wikipedia's rules)... being flexible about page content was never an issue for me; as stated numerous times i have wholeheartedly agreed to take down severely disputed items and still will keep any controversial material off if agreed upon in discussion and/or proven to be in clear violation of Wikipedia's editing guidelines. However certain other editors have consistently ignored any reasonable discussion in the talk page, and contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines NEVER (sorry, but such negligence, willful or otherwise, really bugs me) use any tags to mark objectionable content in-article and, more egregiously, consistently make personally subjective and hurtful attacks on other users' work AND personal accounts constantly over the past 24 hrs instead of reasonable discussion in talk pages and, even more egregiously, have begun to target said users for what appears to be vandalism, harassment of personal accounts, and even wikihounding said accounts. Would like to finally note certain complaining editors have still not come up with reasonably explained justifications for deleting all the work i have done recently, although i am always till open to talk calmly, civilly and without all the (back)biting as well as continually being personally insulted as "annoying" and my work destroyed over and over again with the same justifications given ad nauseum. Please sir, even if you do not assent to this request, can someone in administration at least see that i am being bullied and targeted exclusively, when the page has so many problems that these complaining editors are blatantly ignoring (i.e.: calling the character Burt an "indian elephant" without any evidence given in or outside the series, i can use the linguistics logic of wikipedia articles to say Skipper and Kowalski speak North American English, but complaining editors say the exact same logic cannot be used to say Private speaks Estuary English, even though by linguistics he speaks every single shibboleth the article Estuary English has to offer...), with said aggressively hostile and hurtful editors constantly making me feel sooo vulnerable and unsafe on Wikipedia that i had to ask my own buddies, brothers and sisters to "escort" me in the midst of a barrage of what appears to be clearly bullying as well as sock puppet attacks (if you, as the complaining editors feel you need to accuse me of using the disgusting habit known as sock puppetry too, then i can have my best friends as well as my personal, real- life flesh-and-blood family respond in ANY way you deem fit to quell such unverified rumors, really... simply request it of me and it shall be done posthaste... the main reason me and my brother share an email address is because my whole family has Apple Family, so he's used to putting my Family Organizer gmail down when prompted and the dude didn't think to sign up with a separate gmail upon registering for wikipedia... however, he is signing up under his own gmail asap and will use that from now on if he still wants to edit... i honestly am getting fatigued of being bullied online...). Sigh... i guess if i really am forced off Wikipedia, i will just stop contributing; honestly, i never thought strong-arming could keep an encyclopedia from really being free, but then again as certain editors keep reminding me, i guess i really don't know very much at all, and maybe well, maybe i just should stop trying, sir :? (your honest opinion is greatly appreciated, even if you want to rag on me and my editing abilities as well, i suppose). Anyways, thanks for reading this, I hope this can all be rightfully resolved in some way, any way really. Eshumaitreyus (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello NeilN, after you warned 67.175.16.150 of edit warring and personal attacks, they again started personally attacking me and reverted my contributions. You should have blocked him yesterday, as their [6] own admitted IP, 206.167.71.30 was already warned many times by editors about 3RR and NPA. Please see this NeilN [7] they made more reverts after you warned him of 3RR, They made total of 10 reverts (counting reverts his first IP 206.167.71.30 as well) in one day. Please see this also, what they told to User:Rajmaan about me after you yesterday warned him of NPA [8] and his this comment [9] which starts with "Spartacus, since you were already debunked in the Sino-Vietnamese talk page; therefore, your source was also unreliable in this article. You use the exact same source !" Spartacus! (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Spartacus!, those are not personal attacks and the one doing the warning is you. You are also edit warring as much as the IP is and, just like them, engaged in ill-advised accusations of vandalism. Should I block you too? If not, please see WP:DRR for other options for resolving this content dispute. --NeilNtalk to me10:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, NeilN. I am the user Spartacus is accusing off. I just registered this account so that I will not appear as some random IP.
Spartacus just keep disruptive edit them with his no credential source. His source was proven totally unreliable by Rajmaan a well respected editor in the talk section Talk:Sino-Vietnamese War; yet he continue his endless and groundless arguing by posting more and even requesting a dispute resolution. The source I provided is dedicated to the Sino-Vietnamese war where his is an economic article. He used his no credential source for both articles.
I believe that he will be back reverting those articles once no one keeps an eye on those pages.
Hello Neil,
I agree with what you said , but Anant is my cousin and he has personally asked me to get rid of this article , and I am unable to do it .
Please help me in getting this article deleted.
thanking you in anticipation
regards
Chandan Indoria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandan.indoria (talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
SO, what should we (me and anant) do to get this article deleted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandan.indoria (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Chandan.indoria, you are not able to do it because Wikipedia does not allow deletions of an articles because subjects want them deleted. You must figure out precisely why Anant does not meet WP:BIO and then start an article for deletion discussion. If you can come up with a reason why Anant does not meet our notability guidelines, I will help with the rest. --NeilNtalk to me15:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Its just that some of the information that was published earlier was not supposed to be made public and I made a mistake by publishing it . Hence Anant is furious at me and is repeatedly asking me to get this whole article get deleted. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandan.indoria (talk • contribs) 15:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Chandan.indoria, it looks like all the sources are public. And again, we do not delete articles because the subjects are "furious". Look at WP:NACTOR and see if you can come up with a guideline-based reason for deletion. --NeilNtalk to me15:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me on how to sign my post on talk pages.
I do understand your point, but what I did was a mistake and this might get him into trouble as the information I published in introduction section was not supposed to be made public. and it has no citation and or reference like him being a "kathakali dancer" and or "a martial artist ". He is okay with critical response section . but wants other sections to be removed as there is no proper citation and/or reference to it .
Biggest mistake is in his name. His name is Anant Vidhaat and not Anant Sharma.
Thanks
Chandan.indoria (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear Neil: Thank you for your helpful and friendly advice. But I did warn them repeatedly; if you see the talk page history, then you will see that they have deleted my warnings and have chosen to ignore them. I may not be a respected editor on Wikipedia, but I trust that you are. Please do everything you can to end this edit war and try to reach a understanding with them before you block them, please. The Roman-Persian Wars article is where the problem with them began.
Foleo, right now the only editor I'm looking at blocking is you. I strongly suggest you use the article's talk page to discuss content and drop the false accusations of vandalism. --NeilNtalk to me02:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Then I will do the same with you if you act aggressively as threats are not the solution. I am only looking for a solution. But you seem to be close friends with them as you falsely accusing me of attacking them. How do we resolve it? Foleo (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
We need a serious effort by admins to semi protect articles related to Balochistan since sock puppet Darknesshines is rearing his head constantly at these places and causing massive conflicts between editors which some of them sadly allow him to edit and hide behind them not knowing it was a sock to get the article changed to their pov. We also need topic bans for users who constantly disrupt these pages with assistance from obvious sock accounts of DS or this will never end. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks like this nice gentleman could use his talk page access yanked. See here, among many other non-constructive edits on his talk page since being blocked. Just wanted to give you an FYI. I hope you're doing well, and it's good to say hi to you again! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Plenty of harassment and vandalism in this article over the last few days. I was blocked, simply for attempting to insert the material that indicated Bill Ayers admitted in 2013 he was the ghostwriter behind "Obama's" Dreams From my Father book. I just tried restoring some material from the Talk page that I had written. (Nobody else seemed to be using the Talk page). 75.175.65.141 (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Please explain your weird comment on my page. I explained to someone else that he was vandalizing a page, and I forwarded the information to you as well. What's wrong with that? Please don't use "boilerplate" comments. 75.175.65.141 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh!!! I just found your comment in the History section of the Talk page for "Dreams From my Father". You said, " DO NOT add back without *mainstream* sources." Would New Yorker magazine be considered "mainsteam" enough? I think it was founded in 1925. 75.175.65.141 (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say that in my first edits. But it is relevant. The fact that Obama lied would certainly explain the various harassers around here trying to keep this material (even absent the claim "Obama lied") out of Wikipedia. 75.175.65.141 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You can propose to use that. For best results, you should also propose specific changes to the article using that source, being careful not to overstate what the source says. --NeilNtalk to me21:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Neil I was unaware that a block had been placed when I posted to you, my concern was the ANI that has no merit from what I see and they linked their talk page and I saw you had warned them as well, they apparently now think we are all in collusion according to their unblock request. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
In no way was I soapboxing, promoting or advertising, I just want my school to have a wikipedia page since there was none when I created it. if you want, you do the editing and stuff, I don't want to maintain it anymore from innacurate info and vandalism FYI, I don't have compensation wasting my time on this page. I feel so bad right now. Thanks to all of you for ruining what was supposed to be a good day for me. Drewnewvillage (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering why you made Lovato's award page unable for people to edit it? Was it something that me and other people were putting on it? Because if it is, I was told why one of her nominations was not true. I was wondering if you could please revert it back to it being made public for anyone to edit? I am not going to add anything that isn't true. Please let me know! Thank you!
I hatted their comment because they being an involved editor were acting as moderator and trying to put theirs options down my throat. Why they still been let go scot free ? They continue to cast aspersions and attack me after umpteenth warnings. Spartacus! (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello admin NeilN. I really do not know whom Xenoverse9 was. This morning I got a comment from this user asking me to report. I thought it was just my talk section. I really do not get the idea of "casting aspersions".
Most recently, I got a new message from Spartacus:
hi i am responding to your message i am moving the Steffy Forrester,Caroline Spencer,Macy Alexander and Sharon Newman page because since they got married the credits changed their name Caroline is getting a divorce but steffy and Macy i have proof the credits i do not have proof for Sharon but she is married so those users are being a know it all
--Alanpop (talk)1:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanpopo123 (talk • contribs)
I know you used to work at AIV a lot. Just letting you know Widr has been semi-active lately so an "AIV backlog" has become a thing again, should you be interested in resuming activity in this area :) — MusikAnimaltalk18:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Haha that's not a terrible idea! Widr doesn't seem to take many breaks, so I would go the other route and have the script ping us if it detects he is not present :) I might actually code this at some point! The issue (but not a complaint!) is that Widr is so responsive there I don't bother ever checking AIV, so I don't know if it gets backlogged, I just assume it isn't. In actuality it'd be more appropriate to make some pinging system when AIV becomes severely backlogged, but I really love the idea of a script completely devoted to stalking Widr's activity =P — MusikAnimaltalk20:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
MusikAnimal, while you're at it, how about developing an API function to keep track of edit conflicts with Widr? Then we can hook a userbox to it - "I've edit conflicted with Widr x times!". On a related note, you might want to tweak the userRightsManager script to check another admin (ahem) hasn't already assigned the permission a sub-second before you push the button. --NeilNtalk to me21:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
All in good fun, Widr. I hope I made that clear. But the userRightsManager tweak would be useful. I've already had to undo duplicate messages and responses three times. --NeilNtalk to me22:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Widr I can't completely read you through the wiki but for the record these are compliments to your incredibly hard work!! :) Anyway thanks for jogging my memory, NeilN; I noticed a while back you had to revert some userRightsManager edits, I then made a mental note to fix it, and obviously it never happened =P A rather high-priority bug that requires worthwhile effort. This is frankly something that should be fixed in core, just like there's a conflict when blocking users but there isn't one when protecting pages — MusikAnimaltalk07:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Request for reduction of protection of 2016 Miss Universe (currently a redirect)
Now that reliable sources have confirmed that the pageant will be hosted in the Philippines with a definite date (january 30, 2017), I request the reduction of protection to allow at least auto-confirmed users.
Also there is sufficient info beyond the date (e.g. sponsors, negotiation process of current title holder, Pia Wurtzbach with President Rodrigo Duterte and the Department of Tourism, etc.) such as in [18]. Although some media sources are confused whether the Philippines will host the 2016 or 2017 edition of the pageant due to the scheduled date of early 2017.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
You blocked edditing of Ring, County Waterford. I would make the case that the page should be edited to reflect the correct name of the Electoral Divisions of An Rinn, Baile Mhac Airt and Aird Mhór as per sources and also to remove the claim that the name Ring is widely used in Waterford and elsewhere as there is no reference to substantiate the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.203.178 (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for stopping this madness. I do not know what is wrong with the other editor, but this is a complete madness. RGloucester — ☎18:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the page. However, the person that wants to change the stable title is the one who should makes the requested move. The stable title was Taiwanese until RGloucester moved it in May and deliberately make a meaningless edit on the other title to prevent others to revert him. Besides, WP:NC-GAL says to use the format "Demonym type election/referendum, date". The common Demonym of ROC is Taiwanese. So in my opinion, the page should be protected with the other title.--Coco977 (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
What is wrong with you? How many pages are you going to follow me to? Stop with the nonsense you are making up out of thin air! Mr Neil, spare me the trouble and get rid of this cut-and-paste talk page the above editor made... RGloucester — ☎18:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Please do substantial discussion instead of simply saying that I am "nonsense". RGloucester did not respond to my argument. The cut-and-paste page is the result of RGloucester's disruptive behaviour.[19],[20]--Coco977 (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
You did not have to cut-and-paste anything. You only had to discuss, and listen. You have done neither, and have instead insisted upon making mess after mess. I'm starting to think you're some kind of troll of the worst kind, and that I'm about be taken into your maw. So be it. RGloucester — ☎18:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Questioning Censorship (Your violation of Neutral Point of View)
Just wondering what gives you right to make judgments regarding the scientific credentials of people like Dr. Spitzer Ph.D after less than 30 seconds? I noticed that you immediately categorized him as non-scientific source. This hateful, instant assumption that priests cannot be scientists is contradicted by history of Western science. From Copernicus to Georges Lemaître modern science has been born from the intellect of religious people. You have made instant judgement that he is not a scientist because he is a priest and thus his book had to be removed. Furthermore you have shown your extreme bias by disallowing editing to the statement that "all claims have been refuted" based on one article in a popular press. If you have any understanding of scientific methodology you should at least be aware that in science there is never a final refutation of any theory. It's strikes me that you are not acting as an impartial admin, but as an ideological censor who disallows opposing views to your own prejudices. Also, your typically condescending comment referring to my citations as "junk" without any farther justifications reveals only your animus and ideological bias, which is contrary to the whole idea of Wikipedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirVirtutas (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:NeilN. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
but thanks for sorting out Parajellytittle Temple and its protection. Cheers. Muffled Pocketed 15:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
--NeilN talk to me 17:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Mlpearc (open channel) 22:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 02:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed, blocked and tagged. I must block more MJH socks outside SPI than any other master. It seems like everyone and their mother see possible socks lurking. Funny thing is they are almost always right.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}