User talk:NeilN/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Understood

Respected NeilN, Greetings of the day! I took great help in an article from Themessengerofknowledge that is why trying to correct his page.My sincere apology if anything done wrongly and assurance for the future. all the best Rajiv Sharma (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh hey, thanx for the welcome. You are really nice ;-) Mpumi02 (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Relief India Trust, SELFPUB, edit war

@NeilN: Hi! This is regarding the edit war going on at the Relief India Trust page. Firstly, you write that my interpretation of SELFPUB is incorrect. I made the interpretation in the context of what I've written in the Relief India Trust page. In the section, I have reported experiences of people with the organisation Relief India Trust. I do not make any claims, nor do I report claims made by the people who write on social media - I have merely reported their experiences. By reporting their experiences with the organisation, my edit does not, I believe, fall into the category of "claims about third parties". I am reporting their claims about their own experiences, and their claims have been verified on the respective sources by the users. I might be wrong in my interpretation though, and I seek your advice.

This organisation has been soliciting money through unethical means, and in their communication, they use this Wikipedia article as a source to prove their authenticity. Without the section on criticism, which I included, the article looks like an advertisement. Checking the history of the page shows that the page was made and was maintained, and is being maintained by sock puppetry. Many of the initial users have been blocked. Looking into the contributions of the users who made the current edits and try to maintain the advertisement-like tone of the page, it does seem that they are using sock puppetry. It might be that they are charging money from the organisations whose pages they maintain on Wikipedia.

It is to counter the advertisement tone, and to warn others who are referred to the Wikipedia page as proof for the organisation's authenticity, that I included section. This has led to an edit war: DChinu and myself trying to keep the criticism section;Aarvig and Bullus trying to delete the concerned section. Aarvig has been involved in deleting such criticism earlier on the same page, and in similar edit wars on other pages.

May I request you to check into the matter and advise on what could be done? Protect the page with the criticism part, or delete the page? Thanks a lot!Neogarfield (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neogarfield. I looked at the article when a request was made at WP:RFPP. At that time, I determined the deletions were not disruptive as the edit summaries pointed out concerns with the sources. This is a content dispute which needs to be resolved by talk page discussion. WP:NPOV is what we strive for but we do not use dubious sources to get there. Personal blogs and forums discussing experiences with third parties are not acceptable sources. For example, a blog post I wrote about a bad experience with a Samsung product could not be used as a source in the Samsung or product article because the post itself is making a claim about a third party. If my post was reported on by a reliable source like a quality newspaper then it could be used. Many of the sources in the criticism section look very dubious from a reliable source point of view and discussion is needed and research should be undertaken to see if better sources can be found. If you suspect sockpuppetry then please open a case at WP:SPI. Protection of your preferred version is not an option right now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying NeilN! Neogarfield (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey @NeilN:. Quick additional question. Would a legal letter, composed and signed by professional attorneys, make for a verifiable source? Couldn't find an answer on Wikipedia:Verifiability. For example, in this case, this legal notice. Neogarfield (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Neogarfield, no, there are two issues with that. First, the provenance of the letter cannot be confirmed. Anyone can mock up an attorney letter and host it on their website. Second, even if the letter was confirmed as to be authentic, it's still a primary source. A reliable, secondary source needs to mention it to give it context and importance. Again, an example: If I sued Apple for a faulty iPhone power charger which sparked a fire that burned down my house, the letter my lawyer sent Apple is not a reliable source per WP:PRIMARY. It is full of unverified claims and companies are subject to lawsuits all the time. Now, if my lawsuit caused a major class-action suit to occur, and secondary sources covered this connection, then the letter could be used as a source in some fashion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey NeilN. Thank you, I understand. Neogarfield (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

D'Onofrio

What I find amusing is that (a) apparently the Greta Scacchi article is unimportant, even though the marriage to D'Onofrio has been listed there for years and (b) Cvanderdonk's assumption of my gender. It's not the first time that's happened. I find it rather amusing, actually. Also, I proposed on the talk page that she get her husband to make a public statement about the marriage situation. That is, if he really cares, and if that user really is his wife. I know WP:AGF, but I have doubts on that front. Or if she is, she really doesn't like Scacchi. Whose article, again, she doesn't seem to care about correcting. Never a dull mo' around here, eh?  :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 16:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: This whole situation is strange, starting with the mysterious TrishGow, who was around for the first quarter of 2007, made some claims regarding OTRS, and then disappeared. Seems to be your day to hammer home WP:V, with this article and Talk:René Bazinet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And don't forget Talk:Evolution. Like I said, I'm all for WP:AGF, but there is a law of diminishing returns. At some point one has to realize the other party is never going to get our policies through their head, and at that point just go, "Sure, Wikipedia is evil and unjust and biased, yadda-yadda-yadda." Nothing is impossible for the person impervious to reason. Except getting some articles changed the way they want. Cheers. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 19:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey there,Friend!

@NeilN ,Hey there ,Administrator! [Respected NeilN], Although I know that you are much,much experienced and skilled in wikipedia editing than me, As you have written on your talk page that you welcome suggestions as you are a human being after all, I wish to humbly remind you that according to the Wikipedia's article on Wikipedians,that-

'Wikipedians or editors are the volunteers who write and edit Wikipedia's articles, unlike readers who simply read them. Anyone—including you—can become a Wikipedian by boldly making changes when they find something that can be improved. To learn more about how, you can check out the basic editing tutorial or the more detailed manual.

Wikipedians do a wide variety of tasks, from fixing typos and removing vandalism to resolving disputes and perfecting content, but unite in a desire to make human knowledge available to every person on the planet.'

So I don't think its a crime to edit another person's user page(without vandalizing it,of course!,and if there is no objection from the user) in general,or to give barnstars! {If it has been forbidden by 'The Wikipedia guidelines',please don't hesitate to enlighten me}

Although I accept it was not sensible on my side to list permissions I don't yet have... And moving the involved user's User page was wrong too.[P.S thanks for reverting on that][P.P.S I myself anted to ask an admin to do the same] I wish you to accept my apologies ,and I promise trying to improve Wikipedia on my part...

I also hope you do't take it personally (in a non-intended manner) and I just wanted to clarify on my part...

Themessengerofknowledge ^{write to me} 13:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Themessengerofknowledge: It's not really a good idea to edit another editor's user page without their express permission other than to revert vandalism. My main concern was your move of their user page but I'm sure that won't happen again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

user:81.170.31.87

Good afternoon. You have a lot on your plate, as always, but I'd like to bring this IP to your attention. He's at 6RR on Oscar Wilde and has ignored multiple warnings from myself and other editors. I'll initiate a formal complaint at WP:AN/3 if you'd prefer, but since it's such a clearcut case (and I'm at 2RR and can't revert him further) I thought the most expedient move would be to go directly to an admin. Either way, thanks. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE: Abecedare took care of it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring under multiple accounts

You should ban the edit warring users under Temple of Bel due to the obvious use of multiple accounts and abuse. Removing facts, live interviews and sources should not be allowed by the destructive users with multiple accounts. Please preserve the facts, truth and history of this article by banning the accounts performing edit warring and abusing the "undo" feature for reasons not logical. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.250.200 (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The only one I'm looking at blocking is you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Class project

Re this change: you requested abeyance to see if "this class project improves the article". Are you in contact with someone indicating that a class project is presently active on the page? The last Class Project template was added to the talk page in 2011. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi WikiDan61. I was investigating per a request at RFPP and came across this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Unlock page

Would you please unlock the List of Steven Universe episodes seemed unnecessary to lock it for the next 6 months. There are also some details I need to fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.53.75 (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I protected it after a request at WP:RFPP pointed out disruption had started right after the 3 month protection had expired. Perhaps get an account? It's really easy... Or you can list the fixes on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Robust bare link tool needed

Makeref seems to be a dead link, Refill does not catch 100% of the bare links (and cannot access the ubiquitous nytimes.com site at all), Reflinks is MIA, Proveit is tedious at best.

Are there any good ones out there? Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, reFill is the best of the bunch I think. I've posted on User talk:Zhaofeng Li/reFill. Now that the WMF have dumped development of Flow, perhaps it's time they worked on something that would be welcomed by the community and helped out on tools like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This thread may interest you regarding Flow: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#D.C3.A9tente.3F

Checkingfax (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeking your input

Greetings sir,

I'm seeking your input regarding the sources collected for the Parwez article here:[1].

It looks like most of the sources are being accepted, just two questions remain:

1. Can I insert the sourced comment that Parwez rejected "some" hadith to clarify (not remove) his "Quranist" title?
2. How many primary sources can I use to suppliment the 3rd party sources on which there is consensus?

Your opinion will be highly appreciated. Thank you. Code16 ^{... Logic Bomb !} 11:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Code16: That's a question for the article talk page and I see others are discussing with you. I am limited to what I can say here per WP:INVOLVED. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Understood sir, thanks for clarifying. I'll attempt to ping a few random/uninvolved editors to contribute an opinion so as to strengthen the consensus before I make any edits. If at least 4 or 5 editors contribute that would be great I think. Thank you. Code16 ^{... Logic Bomb !} 13:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Connection issues

Just wondering if you've had any problems accessing Wikimedia sites. The last couple of days I keep getting sporadic ERR_SPDY_PROTOCOL_ERROR and 400 Bad Request errors when trying to check Wikipedia. After it happened a few times, I tried getting on WikiCommons and WikiTravel and the same thing happened. But not WikiVoyage or any Wikia or any other site. Maybe it's my computer, but why would it not affect the non-Wikimedia sites. I have to do some weird chrome cache clearing to get them to work again. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 13:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: Looks like a Chrome issue and sites that support the SPDY protocol. [2] I use Firefox. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Figures. What is it with Chrome? Anyway, thanks. Maybe I'll look at other browsers for Wikipedia too. Cheers! :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 14:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

History of Surveillance

After the class supposedly finished with this article, it is a morass of walls of text, improper citations, and - as you described - a mess. I am tempted to restore a prior version, before the class started editing. Do you have any objections? Scr★pIron^IV 13:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: No objections. Perhaps post to the talk page with a link to their last version and invite editors to see if there's anything worth incorporating? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Except, of course, there isn't a good version. Someone had plans for it, and gave up in 2013, and it had barely been touched since then, until that class started. Perhaps a dose of WP:TNT is required here. I think there is an aricle in that mess somewhere, but sorting it out to find it is the real challenge. I will absolutely post a request for assistance on the talk page. Thanks! Scr★pIron^IV 14:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Where to report

Hello again N. I am drawing a blank on where to report this activity. The editor is continually removing prods and speedies from articles that they created. I know that doesn't count as vandalism but I have forgotten whether the report should go to ANI or somewhere else. Is it short or long term memory that goes first? MarnetteD|Talk 19:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I always reported to AIV (after the proper warnings, of course) and the processing admin usually blocked. I will block if it seems the tags are merited (example: User talk:Shakaib Islam). That is, I won't block if notability speedies are removed from an obviously notable topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I haven't dealt with speedy removals in many, many moons, thus, my confusion. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI The social media links that you removed from this users page were restored. Re: the posts on Ebyabe's talk page isn't it amazing to realize that it is 32 years since the first series of Blackadder aired? Where does the time go? When I think of how delightfully goofy Tim McInnerny was as the various Percy's and then see his career since then I marvel at his craft. Early in his editing I was helpful to User:John Thaxter. After that we had a wonderful online correspondence and he would send me his reviews. He gave a glowing one to Tim for his performance as Iago opposite Chiwetel Ejiofor's Othello back in 07. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 13:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I was pretty lucky. A history teacher of mine decided that Blackadder was "historical" enough to be shown in class so his personal VCR tapes were my introduction to the show. I still remember his contempt for the official classwork exercises (copying text from overheads) and him giving us photocopies of the material and showing selected episodes instead. Couldn't happen now but hoping today's students come across teachers like him. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What a great experience! Thanks for sharing it with me. Your teacher had a "cunning plan" to educate his students. MarnetteD|Talk 14:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again N. Update on this situation. The editor has removed the prod tag two more times on the Shopnolok Ov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. I have reported this to AIV but I had a followup question. Do those removals reset the prod in the queue for those who check on the articles suitability? Several weeks have passed since the articles creation and it still lacks any sourcing at all. Had I come upon it first I would have added a speedy but I have no problem waiting on the prod process to play itself out. Any insight you can add will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 14:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Removals do not reset the clock. Diannaa beat me to the deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and thanks to D for taking care of the necessaries. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether the activity warrants a block or not, I will have to leave for others to decide. I gotta go to work now. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, Neil! I saw you on the protection page and know you are an admin so just wanted to ask: I recently filed for protection on the Cougar (slang) page but, nothing has come of it yet. If it's just that noone has gotten to it, that's fine: no rush (and I know that simply filing doesn't mean it will definitely happen but, it also hasn't been declined yet so...)! However, if it's because I did something wrong which is causing it to be ignored, would you mind telling me what that is so I know for next time please? That's only my second time ever doing it. Thanks in advance. Bye for now!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cebr1979. You did nothing wrong. If admins are processing other requests but not commenting on yours that is an indication it's not a clear cut case for protection or a decline, either in terms of disruption or level of activity. In this case, admins (including myself) are probably wondering if the occasional insertion of trivia merits protecting the article and are waiting to see if further disruption occurs in the near future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks!Cebr1979 (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Per capita of Indian Cities

Hi there is a big issue in this page. Wrong information is given in this page. The Brooking institution report is completely wrong, in which it states Karanataka state per capita as Bangalore cities per capita. The second reference shows the Bangalore cities per capita correctly. Please Unlock the page or edit it as before showing Bangalore's per capita as 4750 dollars. Bangalore city contributes to 60% of the states economy. So the cities per capita cant be same as the states per capita. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.134.8.163 (talk)

The article's talk page has ample discussion on this. The article was protected from your disruption. You cannot change a sourced number to an unsourced number that you've made up. As you've been advised, you need to find another source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion not completely working?

Hi, I saw that you deleted User:Rakibhasan786 at my request. Yet the page is still there, though the speedy deletion template looks odd, there's no History tab, and there are Create Source and Create tabs instead of Edit Source and Edit tabs. I tried purging the page but it didn't change anything. Any ideas? —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

—Largo Plazo, it's completely freaky. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What.27s_happening_here.3F. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

May 2014 San Diego County wildfires

Because of my recent issues with violating the WP:3RR I wanted to ask for you input before I do anything else. Could you please look at the recent changes to May 2014 San Diego County wildfires? There is a user that is continuing to insert unreferenced and incorrect material. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I see you've used the talk page which is good. Is the dispute still unresolved? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I just gave up because the individual never responded to my attempts to talk and simply kept reverting my changes via actual undo's or other edits. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for unprotecting the Tasmanian devil page! --110.20.234.69 (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Relief India Trust wiki page

Hello NeilN First of all I would like to thank you to let me understand my simple concern is not involved on Wiki war or intentionally remove the part of the page Relief India Trust “Negative reviews and criticism”. I come across the page and find some unusual activity and check the reference links on that page I found that http://techapple.net/ Ref No: 7th, 15th and 17th is a technology related page and the only odd post I found about Relief India Trust and look like intentionally done. Second reference http://vishnugopal.com reference No: 10th and 12th is a personal website and self driven content and some experiences which is not credible to Wikipedia there are some more links like Quora Ref No: 11th , wordpress.com Ref No: 14th , Weebly Ref No: 13th , Facebook self posted Ref No: 9, i.imgure.com Ref no: 16th public platform for image posting. Iims.edu Ref No: 18th and 19th is not is not related to concerned. As per my experience of Wikipedia and their policy the references mention is not credible. So I would like to request you to take suitable action for this. Regards BULLUS--Bullus (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

2015 AFF U-19 Youth Championship for page protection

Hi @NeilN: I talk you will be see to Requests for page protection that! Thanks! Boyconga278 (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Boyconga278: Reprotected for 2 more days. Note that you adding a padlock icon to the article won't do anything - only admins can protect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please adopt me!

@NeilN Although I know you are no really into this 'adopting' thing but I am a fan of how you actively try to make Wikipedia a better place...

I think I can learn a lot from you. 

Please consider the same. Themessengerofknowledge ^{write to me} 13:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 11:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC) P.S YOU MAY WITHOUT TO LOOKUP ON WP:AAU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themessengerofknowledge (talk • contribs) 12:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Themessengerofknowledge. I will answer any specific questions you have within reason but I don't adopt users, sorry. WP:AAU is a good place to learn how to get adopted by editors who are willing to adopt. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You know who

See Special:Contributions/92.25.66.96 & Special:Contributions/80.42.79.200, pushing Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_120#Proposal_to_change_the_focus_of_pending_changes. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza, latest one blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And again, Special:Contributions/86.171.93.3, restoring [3] comments of Special:Contributions/80.42.79.200 to User talk:Jimbo Wales. Also [4], [5] JoeSperrazza (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/86.174.74.179 JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by FPS. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi there, can you please protect Renaldas Seibutis. Thanks. -KH-1 (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Three days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Neighbors 2

Now an auto confirmed user has done the same edits. What now? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Usual process. Increasing levels of warnings followed by a report if unsourced additions continue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

What about the sockpuppetry? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Is it a sock (of who?) or just another person adding what they read in the gossip columns? That editor has been editing sporadically since April 2014. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That could be a possibility. But I see it as sockpuppetry when ten thousand IPs all charge in with the same edit and mount to a confirmed user they had forgotten about. Knowing from past experience, there are the disruptive IPs, the helpful IPs and the inexperienced IPs. One IP will continue to add the same content without sourcing and doing disruptively. Then an IP will kindly add a source or say it was announced on some day or whatever. I've seen that before and what I see on Neighbors 2 is the same person. Unless my sight is blurry and my mind is going nuts? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Gomez is uber-popular with younger editors so I think it's likely they just want to update articles with any scrap of gossip. If we don't have solid evidence to tie the editor to an IP, we can't block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for your help (: Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: And you have veteran editors, who should know better, adding the same speculation to the article. [6] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That makes it easier. I had IPs adding information without sourcing. At least someone did it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

A hopping IP edit warring at zakat article

Hello NeilN, Have a look at Zakat edit warring by a hopping IP, and no response yet on its talk page despite an invitation. I wonder if semi-protecting the article for a few days will help. Best regards, RLoutfy (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Warned editor and posted on the article talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, RLoutfy (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Radio Biafra

Your protection on this page has expired. The talk page indicates the disagreements are ongoing. Perhaps prolonged protection is required. I'm about to decline the outstanding edit request on BLP grounds. Bazj (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC) ...even though anybody's approval or disapproval is moot at the moment. Bazj (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Bazj, the article hasn't been edited yet so let's see if re-protection is necessary first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Request to Semi-Protection article

Not sure where to post this request. Is it possible to protect Black Panther Party. It seems to be a vandal magnet. If there is a specific page to post this request, then please point me to it. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is what you're looking for. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 18:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: Ebyabe's correct. I have pending change protected the article for 6 months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: @NeilN Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hungama TV

As predicted, more copyvio content was introduced. I am in the process of removing it and I was debating if I should start an ANI report on the users? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Aman33445 blocked one week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The Situation At Pete (Disney)

The edit war at Pete (Disney) is about the anonymous editor inserting original research, i.e., his claim that Pete is really a wolf, and his attempts to keep his original research in the article. As far as I've known the anonymous editor, he demonstrates no ability or desire to discuss anything beyond saying something is so because he said so, or to stop because he said so.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr Fink, the article has a couple mentions of "wolf". The problem is there are no sources for "cat" either, also making it problematic. I don't care what it is, someone needs to find a decent source so the issue can be settled or it can be shown that one side is changing sourced facts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletions

You don't understand. Please take a look at the page history, and then the comments found on the User talk page. It is obvious that that those entries needed to be removed. Thank you. 23.104.14.46 (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The comments are fine. Please don't delete them again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

POV on Haiti and your removal of bias tag

You've blocked my attempt to show bias in the Haiti article, which I assume means you think its not biased. Haiti has been in a non-stop crisis for 50 years, starving children eat dirt cookies daily, sewage runs down the streets, most people live in abject poverty, and literacy is the lowest on this side of the planet, I can provide reference for every single one of these claims, and yet you and others want to exclude this information from the article on haiti. I do not understand your perspective on this. I am trying to follow all of Wikipedia's rule and guides and no one seems to be doing the same. Haitian STEVE (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Haitian STEVE, "no one seems to be doing the same" is a good indicator that your edits are seen as problematic. I've replied on the article's talk page. Please keep the conversation there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:96.11.165.218

FYI, I extended the block to 3 months since the user has been at it since April, has no useful edits, and the IP seems stable. Abecedare (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Okay, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Also need to change visibility of his this edit on this talk page.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  18:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: As far as I can tell, it's a run of the mill insult directed at me. Has to be really bad or a BLP violation to have me perform a revdel on my own pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Took care of the mainspace insults, which were more egregious and at BLPs. The one on your page (tr. "Your mother's...", which is an established insult by insinuation) was relatively mild, and I too wouldn't revdel it unless the recipient cared. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit War Germanic neopaganism

Hello.

Regarding the Germanic neopaganism article, please note that my edits have been restoring academically referenced material that another editor has progressively deleted over the last month. I endorse incremental change, but one person has rewritten and renamed the article to promote the agenda of a small group within Ásatrú. The old lede, which I restored has several academic references, for example, but his new one has zero. --ThorLives (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives, the article is fully protected for three days so you can hash that out with the other editors. I recommend working on a piece at a time so incremental progress can be made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have restored material that he deleted, and he constantly deletes my restorations. --ThorLives (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Phil's daddies

Hi, Neil. You have blocked User:PhilsDadddddddddy, but User:PhilsDaddddy, created one minute earlier, is still at large (no edits yet). I'd better leave it, as I don't really understand the username violation… but I'm sure they're the same, so maybe you want to handle it. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen, thanks, blocked. "Daddy" in this sense is derogatory/disparaging (see this), coupled with this edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You're a complete star of an admin, one who happens to always be around to clean things up. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 19:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks My name is not dave. Appreciate the sentiment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

DAY6

Hey, thank you for protecting that page. Can I ask if you can block the many questionable accounts (and IPs) that began causing trouble on it? See this list I compiled. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Zeke Essiestudy !!! That's quite a list. Let's wait for the CU results to see who should be blocked. The article is protected so the disruption should be stopped for the short term. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to Ideas and Contributions of Ghulam Ahmed Pervez

Greetings sir, I'd like to invite you to check out the new page I created, resulting from the discussion/advice/suggestions from all the editors involved in the Parwez discussion. We have a strong consensus on all the major issues now. The bio page and this newly created page are both in a stable state and on the path towards growth, on account of everyone's contributions. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Blakinking my page

I am quite entitled to blank my page, and it is not my page, it is owned by Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Si Trew, certainly. But as I and another admin have indicated, talk pages aren't deleted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Duggartarian

Hi Neil, you around? I'm of the opinion that Draft:Duggartarian needs to be speedy deleted, but I want to bone up on my knowledge of when to delete drafts, so I thought I'd ask you if you could point me in the right direction. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I delete drafts if:

• they're attack pages
• they're purely and blatantly commercial (I won't touch if they read like a company profile)
• they're copyright infringements
• they were created by a blocked/banned user
• blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations (e.g., rants, used to play a game)
• they just consist of BLP violations

I won't delete because of notability or if I can't figure out the main topic. Basic guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Drafts#Deleting_a_draft. I would say this draft violates WP:NOTWEBHOST for a start. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Muchas gracias! I was also thinking it would qualify as "made up by contributor". I'll mull then figure out what I'll do. I appreciate the help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Benigno Aquino III

In relation to a protection request on the article please take note of 125.60.195.230 who continues to make unhelpful edits to the template and also to X in the Philippines articles. It is noteworthy that the IP address is a suspected sockpuppet of Vince daryl falcunitin.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hariboneagle927, template protected, IP blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Unprotect Ashley Boettcher

Hi NeilN – This article Ashley Boettcher was deleted 4 times for providing unreferenced links, poorly written and it was protected from page creation, This is a child-actress who was involved in roles such as: Aliens in the Attic, Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer and Allen (Prison Break), She is also currently acting for Television Show Gortimer Gibbon's Life on Normal Street as second lead child-actress. The article's draft was submitted at Draft:Ashley Boettcher. I have successfully reviewed this article and it has met minimum criteria of WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER was eventually passed, I'm kindly seeking an assistance from an administrator to unprotect the mainspace, so this will allow me to move the drafted article to the mainspace, I have also submitted the request at WP:RPP but no one is looked at the request and it took long to wait because the draft is kept as under review at Draft:Ashley Boettcher, So please kindly take look at the mainspace and unprotect it, Thank you MONARCH♔ 14:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

MONARCH, unprotected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

NeilN Thanks! MONARCH♔ 15:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Potential superpowers without consensus

The article was changed without consensus on Talk page like the former one that must be restored.In this one Russia and brazil were just other contenders.EU following the letters must be set after China and before India.A huge confusion that article now.It was a pure vandalic act.151.40.61.248 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, your edit broke the infobox and making a bold edit is not a "pure vandalic act". You can edit again (not breaking anything this time please), leaving a proper edit summary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The article was written with broad consensus in the Talk page by Antiochus the Great.With no broad consensus the page isn't valid.151.40.94.9 (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, making a bold edit does not make an article invalid. You can edit again (don't break the infobox please), leaving a proper edit summary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't change the article like that guy without a broad consensus.The article must be restored as it was before.151.40.94.9 (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"Must be restored" - not really, as that's for editors to decide. I don't think you're listening to me as you've broken the infobox three times now and have never left an edit summary stating the reason behind your edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Many times editors asked broad consensus to repect Wikipedia lines.How can a person to change all after a long talking to agree?151.40.94.9 (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

For the last time: Make the edit you want, don't break the infobox, and leave a proper edit summary so other editors understand what you're doing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to restore the former article that derived from broad consensus.151.40.94.9 (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Look at the history. Click on a date to see the version saved on that date. If that's what you want, click edit. Click Save after you enter an edit summary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note to NeilN: Take a look at the bottom part of the section here. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• My name is not dave that IP range certainly has a history. Pinging Antiochus the Great to help out but he's been rather inactive as of late. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about the method that has been without consensus.This was the law for me the same is for this guy.Thanks NeilN ,i'll restore later.151.40.94.9 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Where is broad consenus and talking?Colors aren't right on the map.India shuld be listed after EU .I si after E.151.40.94.9 (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

By my count four different editors have reverted you. It is now up to you to use the talk page to make your points and stop reverting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You answer me so because you realized your mistake in allowing him to change that article.No consensus on it.I remember for consensus it takes much more people than 4.151.40.94.9 (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see that you are continuing to live up to your history. Any more edit warring and I will ask you be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Neil: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mediolanum/Archive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, Liz! Last time they were on here they were going on about Italy. User_talk:NeilN/Archive_16#Italy_is_a_great_power I also bolded "for the last time" in that conversation! LOL! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought that an SPI might have existed. Thanks for the pointer, Liz! ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm usually not very good about identifying socks but even I wondered, "Is it likely there is more than one IP editor from Italy disparaging Russia who focuses on this one article?" Looking at the archived article talk pages, who is or isn't listed as a superpower is a regular subject of debate so I'm not sure there was ever a stable version. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: It's a miracle Antiochus got it to GA. So, how do you like being an admin? Your talk page seems devoid of the usual accusations of power abuse, incompetence, favoritism, idiocy, blindness, etc., etc., etc. Are you sure you're using the tools the right way? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, there are two clear reasons for this:

• a) My RfA was so contentious, the slams against me were so personal, that the only way for hell not to rain down on me was to begin my admin duties cautiously and conservatively. I also don't have much experience with SPI cases so I thought you'd be more familiar with whether these IPs should be appended to the old case or they should be simply blocked; and
• b) I'm traveling for a month (I'm down to the last week) and so I'm not editing Wikipedia on anywhere near a regular basis. I took on one big editing fiasco (with Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia move) recently but when you're staying with other people, being online for hours when it is not related to work is considered rather rude. So, I'm popping in for an hour or two at a time and then go back to being a friendly houseguest. ;-)

I'm sure that once I'm back to my house and return to regular editing, I'll have a talk page full of complaints about administrator abuse. I think this is a prerequisite for admission to the special VIP area of the admin club, right? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Refactoring of comments on Jimbo's talk page

I got that. But if you read the text I removed none of it is pertinent to any responses received thus doesn't change the context of anything. That is why I deleted it. — not really here discuss 18:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Me? I'm not really here, on the contrary, 'and by "percentage of women" I mean the percentage of real independent thinking women, not women who get paid by, or receive college course credits from, feminists to intrude ultra-feminist POV material into Wikipedia anyway they can (because they don't count)' goes a long way to explain the tone of the responses you got. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it is already redacted. And text stating that and why I did it remains. I thought Jimbo's response to it was a bit paranoid and, quite frankly, a blatant violation of WP:AGF... anyone looking at my "Contribs" can see I have zero interest or participation in Gamergate. That text was based on a completely independent MIT published article. But I don't wish to add it along with more text explaining that and thus pursue it any further. It's water under the bridge. Forcing people into confrontational situations with each other when they are trying to gracefully withdraw is hardly productive. That's exactly the sort of clueless nonsense that is causing so many editors to leave. — not really here discuss 19:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Me? I'm not really here, struck through is not deleted. You don't get to let other readers dropping by at a later time wonder why editors made the comments they did. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Struck through text most certainly is redacted. Have it your own way. I'm not going to waste any more valuable time arguing with a boorish high school dropout who doesn't know what he's talking about. You, and other unreasonable people like you, ARE the problem Wikipedia has with editor retention. Not bots. I would probably have got more of an intelligent response if I had tried to have this conversation with a bot. — not really here discuss 19:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"high school dropout" At least that gave me a good laugh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply to your message

Hello there,

Unfortunately the page was deleted. The main author that built the page was not affiliated with the page. The organization completed some of the photos and added data that that user would not have had. As a journalist I understand how to write from a point of view that is un-bias. I am hoping the page can be restored and can be edited from third party individuals like myself?

Jamesgunnrth (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)jamesgunnrthJamesgunnrth (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jamesgunnrth: The main author was yourself, no? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

To be completely honest I don't remember the exact username however I do know they had no affiliation with that organization. It was not started by the "rockthehills" account that everyone seems to think it was! haha I am also getting comments from another editor stating that we have received no press on the event so therefore it is not worthy of Wikipedia. I'm not trying to cause any issues :). I do know the event and I can assure you it was covered by many prominent Ontario television networks and newspapers. Hoping you can restore my faith in Wiki Editors! :) Have a great evening!

Jamesgunnrth (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)jamesgunnrthJamesgunnrth (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Jamesgunnrth, got any links to articles in these prominent newspapers? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I am unable to link to CTV News (www.ctvnews.ca video clips talking about us on-air as they don't do that in Toronto, nor the Weather Network. However I can link to the local papers as they are the only ones that post some of their articles online. If you don't mind me asking, do you reside in Canada? I feel that a person who knows how media works in our Country (even better: The Province of Ontario) would be better able to be to judge the size of the event. It is attended by various provincial political figures and is also a prized project that the Halton Region supports. I have pasted some links below that have our festival mentioned in them. Hope this helps!

http://www.theifp.ca/search/all/?q=rock%20the%20hills&location=haltonhills-on&sort=rel http://www.edge.ca/2015/08/17/young-empries-releases-new-single/ https://theheartofontario.com/calendar/events/view/rock-the-hills

Cheers,

Jamesgunnrth (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)jamesgunnrthJamesgunnrth (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Jamesgunnrth, I don't reveal my location because of privacy issues but am familiar with Canadian media as part of my work on Wikipedia (CBC, Globe & Mail, National Post, etc.). That being said, none of the links show notability for the event as they are simply directory listings. Please read WP:NEVENT, particularly, "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK). Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information is often considered to be routine reporting." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Well with those criteria our festival will never be on this site (along with thousands of others). ahah! Too bad trolls like you think they know everything about EVERYTHING! Hahah Your unemployed life alone sitting behind a computer must be real nice. If you ever need a delivery of Cheetos or fast food let me know buddy! Also: I am a jouralist with a large network and can assure that you know nothing about the media scene in Canada.

On a serious note I have found some flaws on another wiki article that you might be qualified to fix. See wikipedia's article on: Obese You might want to edit you and the other editors photos in.

Cheers,

- J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesgunnrth (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jamesgunnrth: you might find this site better suited to the edits you are interested in making. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 00:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Whatta day on your talk page. I hope that these delicious strawberries can help to offset the ridiculous insults that have been hurled at you by those that have no idea just how much of an asset that you are to WikiP. Cheers MarnetteD|Talk 00:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey thanks MarnetteD. As it happens, I think I have some pineapple and strawberries in the fridge. Have to eat some later on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Second that. Good block on that guy, btw. "I have the right as a citizen of Canada" indeed. And Wikipedia has the right to block you, ya maroon.  :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 00:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

MMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Enjoy em. MarnetteD|Talk 00:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection

There are already request for these, but if you are around, mind protecting Washington Nationals and Bryce Harper for a brief period? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, two days each. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Awesomeness! Thanks a bunch. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

A little "word"

You might want to have a word with the user in this diff [7] before he continues new page patrolling... He seems to have a false sense of advertising. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

And tagging, maybe.... RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 16:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52: Started the conversation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider page protection

There is now a tentative consensus at Talk:BBC Canada amongst three editors, yet the IP user continues to revert by adding clarification templates. Mdrnpndr (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Also note that this user has been deemed disruptive on many other pages. Mdrnpndr (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Mdrnpndr, protected three days per my note on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus not to explain obscure terminology. "Mdrnpndr" is simply lying, as they did before in their request for page protection. 201.220.244.237 (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you meant user:Mdrnpndr. (But you were trying not to ping that user, weren't you? Sorry to blow it for you.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  21:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The IP user has been identified as being part of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP; and is busy trying to start multiple arguments today. (See comments by Ritchie333 on my talk page.) Also see edits to Chicken, Alaska today, and over the past few weeks. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  21:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Seems to be a habit of theirs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I am busy as always trying to improve articles. I am frustrated as always by editors who revert for no reason, lie about me and falsely accuse me of vandalism, because they don't understand encyclopaedia writing and they think Wikipedia is a game where the object is to discriminate as mindlessly as possible against anonymous editors. 201.220.244.167 (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop mindlessly edit warring and you might actually get somewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I make considered edits which improve articles. You and others mindlessly revert them and then attack me. A bunch of morons working together can, if they really want, keep articles in a deficient state where they are baffling to those unfamiliar with Canadian broadcasting jargon. But you don't destroy anything like all the good work I do so I win, in the end. 201.220.242.177 (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have rangeblocked the Best Known For IP's latest source of internet access at Telefonica, Santiago for a month. He already has one, possibly more rangeblocks active on Wikipedia:Database reports/Range blocks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

VxFC yet again

Special:Contributions/2.96.189.207, thanks JoeSperrazza (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza, blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism at Millennials

As an admin, could you undo an edit that "can't be undone". See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millennials&diff=680386758&oldid=680386473

The editor went through the article and changed a bunch of dates that are supported with reference. Thanks.

Never mind, but if you could warn the editor that would help.

2606:6000:610A:9000:D52D:1294:44E9:4E3D (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the last little bit of disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Swiss Global Air Lines destinations: apologies Reply

Dear NeilN, Please accept my apologies for overzealous tagging of the page Swiss Global Air Lines destinations. I see there are many such pages that, on reflection, are useful reference for airline passengers. Thank you for your work, Jamessinarau (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

sinarau, thanks for recognizing the tagging was overzealous and thanks for your efforts with checking pages. And hey, nice article on The Red Onion Jazz Band. I've listened to some of their stuff. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism at Mujaddid

Hi, please unprotect this page. You are supporting vandalism!!! Take a look at the Talk page or the article's edit-history, and compare my version with the suggestions and ideas in the talk page. THANK YOU.BiKaz (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

BiKaz, calling good faith edits "vandalism" only gets you warned not to do that. Using verses from the Quran to justify your editing [8] doesn't help either. This is a content dispute and you will have to make your case on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: "calling good faith edits vandalism"?!! I've already posted my opinion in the talk page. And I did NOT remove Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I don't know what they want exactly?! But what I am sure about it is that they will keep reverting my edits, and then ask for protection because edit-warring!BiKaz (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Relief India Trust

@NeilN: I want to bring your attention to this page again. Since the name of the organisation is Relief India Trust but a user is editing its name deliberately as Scam India Trust. The user 27.7.232.68 is new to wiki and has started on Relief India Trust. It seems as if user has come just for defaming the organisation without any proof or references. You can once check on what is going on and why they are deliberately adding Scam India Trust. Looking forward for your reply.Vinay Jayanth (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vinay Jayanth. You can warn the user against vandalizing and if they persist after a final warning, let me know or report to WP:AIV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Grey DeLisle pending changes

NeilN, could you explain the pending changes call on that article? The amount of vandalism is pretty light. In fact the _last_ thing called vandalism appeared to be just an edit by someone who was trying to add useful information and screwed it up (she apparently is the host of "combination lock" a new TV show). Any my edit (IP edit removing tags) was also a screwup where I removed a lot more (I really have no clue how, I'm a fairly experienced editor and I've no idea what happened, I later made the edit correctly so hopefully it was clear _that_ wasn't vandalism). That leaves 1 maybe 2 cases of actual vandalism in the last month. Seems a bit light for page protection of any type. 108.73.162.59 (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is a target of a serial socker who continually adds hoax information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'm not seeing it in the recent past. But thanks. 108.73.162.59 (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Combination Lock is the hoax information. I should have made that clear. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the fact it was in our article confused me. All the same person. Thus WP:RS. My bad, thanks. 108.73.162.59 (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Marlene Favela please help me

Hey Niel about Marlene Favela wikipedia page...please niel help me restore the information and unprotect the page please.. I wish you can see this message and help me Add the information I edited in Marlene favela page. please help me as an administrator. I'd be forever grateful if you help me and use the information I put and customize it like how awards are supposed to be written in Wikipedia... the information is reliable. As a Marlene favela fan I feel ashamed of the page especially that she has only one award recorded there. please help thanks niel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejezie Swanky (talk • contribs) 11:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ejezie Swanky. I see you've posted to the article's talk page which is good. Another editor has replied with his concerns about sourcing. If you address those, you can probably move forward. As an aside, please don't edit the article using a fan's viewpoint. Your edits should be neutral and encyclopedic in tone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Niel!! I admit I was wrong. I didn't know how to use Wikipedia then. But can you help me restore my edit and I'll bring out reliable sources of my information to the Wikipedia page ! I'll bring the proof here to your talk page and thanks for your reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejezie Swanky (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ejezie Swanky: Please don't post sources here. Please post them on the article's talk page where the other editor can see them and discuss them with you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

YTURZAETA

Thanks for the blocks. I was not fooled; YTURZAETA probably freaked out after the first warning and generated a couple of socks. GAB^Hello! 14:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Next time, I'll make my sarcastic tone on the vandal's talk page more apparent. Cheers, GAB^Hello! 19:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

GAB, I got what you meant. The all caps in my response was just mimicking the vandal's style. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Kelechi Iheanacho

Hello Neil. please could you protect Kelechi Iheanacho before IP edits get out of hand... JMHamo (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, 2 days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

JMHamo (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandal

If you are around, if you could jump on 207.62.246.202 that would be very much appreciated. User talk:207.62.246.202 --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The IP was blocked by another admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You can get blocked BEFORE you might be blocked?

But still, I was sooooooo close! Krett12 (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Krett12: Occasionally, yes. In this case it was clear the article was being vandalized by a bunch of kids so they all got blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Wildcat

hello, i keep editing the page because cats have no predators. i can't let it go due to autism, so i will keep trying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.159.114.22 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you cannot stop yourself, I have stopped you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

You were very timely in following up on my WP:AIV report. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

User Ferret is harassing me

He follows me around George123456781 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@George123456781: Please don't edit other users' user pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@neiln he edits every edit I do even the real ones that are truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by George123456781 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@George123456781: Like this one? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry : Relief India Trust

Hello @NeilN As you recommended i opened a SPI against suspected accounts editing Relief India Trust here is the result Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KatherineWatts. This is a dispute where the one party using promotional (paid !) news article (as Source) which are biased and serves a particular interest (mildly put commercial and in reality close to fraud and extortion in practice) that's why we are seeing a lots of disruption and allegation in that page by disgruntled and harassed users. Although the criticism is lacks a proper source for the time being excluding it severely undermines the tone and its editorial integrity.

All those sources are questionable in their neutrality which the article relies on its promotional tone. This kind of practice is common in Indian peninsula : You can infer from a recent uncover of : Axact using same kind of telephone extortion by Diploma_mill. I request you as the spi investigation pointed out and previous article creator and authors are confirmed socks this article needs a cleaning for the sake of neutrality and common sense of its promotional tone.

All those promotional identical news sources are telling one part of the story, wheres those long distance telephone extorting calls are another tell. This article is in hand of a bunch of socks where they found a loophole how to advertise where people trust Wikipedia as a source of authentic information. --DChinu (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

DChinu, posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Feral Cat

Hi - Since you were the one who blocked User:TheFeralCat, thought you might like to know they are back doing the same edit warring at the same articles under another IP [9]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Yes, blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For being proactive at WP:AIV and on-wiki generally. JustBerry (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements.

NeilN somedays I just patrol the Eranbot suggestions and look for copyvio (e.g., the one you helped with [10]). I try to not be too heavy handed on editors - especially new ones. Regrettably, we are not getting the bot to stay running and updating as much as we'd like. Support (i.e., occasion use) from experienced editors like yourself would help our cause. --Lucas559 (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Lucas559. Am I right in thinking I can't run this bot manually against an article? I was looking through articles in Category:2012 novels and a lot of them seem ripe for a copyright check. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

NeilN as a non-programmer, I am not sure how much effort would be involved. The bot checks all "recent changes" over a certain byte threshold (about 35 words). You could force the bot to scan your old articles by making a strategic edit that looks like you changed +35 words. For instance, just changing a word in a paragraph and then copy and pasting that same paragraph often looks like a 'big' edit to wiki. Then wait... The bot runs RCs every few hours, but has to wait on the third-party Ithenticate to do it's part. We borrow their technology and, thus, are last in queue. On the Erabot reporting page [11] you could then control-F to search by article or sort by Wikiproject (you need to download the script for that function to work). Mirrored sites would be a big issue with old articles. Lucas559 (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

God Hates Us All

Hi there. Can you change the description on God Hates Us All to ninth studio album (instead of eighth, which currently is) from the opening sentence. It seems that the number was erroneously changed, as the discussion says otherwise. Thanks.--Retrohead (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Retrohead. There seems to be some dispute about that and when the article was promoted to WP:FA the description read eighth studio album. [12] I can't edit through full protection to change that. My advice is to ask on the talk page if the change is now undisputed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit wars

As a sixty-five-year-old, these wiki procedures are rather mysterious to me, but could you renew this? (Protected "Heathenry (new religious movement)": Edit warring / content dispute ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (expires 15:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))

Frankly, one person has hijacked the article over the last two months, renaming it and reversing all edits except his own. I think we need a month or two of peace to restore equilibrium. Thank you --ThorLives (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@ThorLives: Looking at the article history, it's not just one editor who is disputing your changes. If you cannot come to an agreement on the talk page, please consider WP:DRN where you'll be expected to focus only on content matters. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That second editor is some sort of associate of his. Ogress, the other editor, never edited the page until the wars began. --ThorLives (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives, Ogress had one edit to the article in 2014 so it may be on her watchlist. Plus, the article was mentioned at ANI so that's a surefired way to have editors take a look. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Very well. Thank you for looking into the problem. --ThorLives (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@ThorLives: It is on my watchlist, and I am not aware of ever having edited alongside @Midnightblueowl: before, who incidentally appears to use she/her pronouns. I'd note here that your constant concern for editors' credentials and your self-importance as a PhD, while admirable, is not necessarily relevant to the topic. Ogress 01:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to ThorLives' accusation, User:Bloodofox is not an "associate" of mine. They are simply an editor who happens to take an interest in this article and who appears to share my views that a number of ThorLives' suggested alterations to the article are problematic. Ogress is quite right that I prefer female pronouns, but I do not expect ThorLives to pay the slightest bit of notice to that given that they have repeatedly engaged in Personal Attacks and 'Outing' (as well, of course, as disruptive editing and edit warring) with absolutely no sign that they recognise that this is wrong or intend to stop; that's why I took this issue to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how I am an "associate" with anyone on Wikipedia, whatever that is supposed to mean. I've seen plenty of nasty clique behavior on Wikipedia over the years, but I am not a part of one and my involvement with this page has generally been minimal due to limited time. I am glad that this page seems to finally be getting the attention it deserves, however. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks, as you've done so often, for protecting an article that's been heavily vandalized. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. The followup took a lot longer than I expected as the deletion nomination wasn't correctly listed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:California wildfires

Can I ask why you locked the page instead of just preventing non-confirmed users? This seems a pretty clear case of an anonymous user repeatedly removing content. They were informed multiple times to discuss the changes on the talk page but instead chose to keep reverting multiple user's reversions. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• this is a pretty case of an user Zakman repeatedly duplicate the years in the different sections trying to make a huge navbox instead of one-section clear template. 109.108.251.119 (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: There's zero discussion on the talk page by either side. It was either protect or hand out multiple blocks. Please also see my talk page post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

I happen to come across the barnstar while checking out another section of the talk page; I definitely agree - you definitely do a lot on WP:AIV, etc. to make sure things are in line. Thanks for your hard work. --JustBerry (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Just realized the edit you thanked me for was the barnstar. My pleasure! --JustBerry (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

david irving

Please don't edit war. And please don't undo good faith edits without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.233.83 (talk • contribs)

Replied here. And I strongly suggest you read WP:BRD before messing about on a good article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

DAVID IRVING edit warring warning.

Your recent editing history at David Irving 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 get 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. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN talk to me 02:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

   If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

A copy-paste job? Seriously? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I only put relevant warnings on you page because of your conduct. That they happened to be copy pasted is incidental. They are relevant to your behavior. I ask again, please undo your revert of my good faith edit or I'll take this further. Also I'm still learning the html style of wikipedia. Please don't be frivalous.

No. And reading WP:BOOMERANG might be helpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

thank you. i read it. please now explain why you reverted a good faith edit without comment. If you don't I'll have to report you as you really don't seem open to reasonable discussion.

Guidelines

Please explain your reasons for not following guidlines regarding the David Irving article. Unless you supply a good reason I shall go ahead and make improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.233.83 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, read WP:BRD. You want to make a significant change to introduce some false balance. That's not WP:NPOV. And it's not up to you to decide what's a good article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I read it. please read about not undoing good faith edits, especially without comment. Furthermore as a new contributor, please show me where I was supposed to see that it's NOT up to me to decide whether an article is good or not. i read it. it's bad.

I want to make a small change to stop the article reading like zionist propaganda. You seem reasonably intelligent. Try looking again without ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.233.83 (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Read it again (and note my reverts had edit summaries). Good faith or not, your edits were just rehashing the old "Irving is not a Holocaust denialist" trope that SPA's try from time to time. Also, linked for the third time: WP:GA. It outlines the GA process. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

conflict of interest

the instructions on this site are rather difficult to understand, it has just been dumped on me this morning and I would just like to know where I can find simplified instructions on how to declare conflict of interest on editing pages, i just spent time going through the citations to make sure the links weren't dead only to have everything wiped out again

i'm looking for some help here but all i am getting is a smack in the face

Envirodefence (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Envirodefence, it's in the requires disclosure page, partially reproduced below:

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Britannia Hotels

Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ISO certitication confusion

I'm gonna have to call {{confusing}} for your comment here. I agree for the pic thereof, but not sure about the dick therein. DMacks (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

DMacks, monitoring some of Wikipedia's sex-related articles over the years has probably made me somewhat jaded. I see something like that, sigh, try to do what needs to be done without letting the image burn a hole in my brain, and move on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Mihir Shah

Hi NeilN,

I am writing to ask about the issues regarding the wiki page - "Mihir Shah". I provided credible external citations to back up my article but I understand that there are important issues with it. I will be glad if you can point out what I can do to improve the article and prevent it from being deleted.

Thanks and best wishes, Vidhya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidhyahere (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vidhyahere. The article is not currently nominated for deletion but if it is in the future, you need to show the article has sources that demonstrate the subject is notable. WP:BASIC is key: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Do any of the current sources fit that bill? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil,

Thank you. Sure, I will work on adding more sources of the type you mention, this week. Is there a way you could also remove the tag that says, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.". I know I am the major contributor to this article, but that does not mean I am close to the subject. I just happened to be one of the people editing this. Will you be able to remove this tag if perhaps multiple people contribute to the article?

Thank you and best wishes, Vidhya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidhyahere (talk • contribs) 18:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vidhyahere: Okay, I'm taking you at your word that you have no conflict of interest and have removed the tag. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil,

Thank you very much! That is great. With respect to the comment, "This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia"; If we change and correct some grammatical issues, will you be able to remove this tag? I will get back to you soon after these corrections.

best wishes, Vidhya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidhyahere (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vidhyahere:, yes, I will have a look. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil,

I am working on the language editing - it is in progress. Meanwhile, I have some details on the credibility of the media sources I have cited. I want to assure you that they are independent and highly valuable sources in India. Do these help to remove some of the banners on the top of the article? Here is a list:

The Hindu- The Hindu is an English-language Indian daily newspaper published since 1889. According to the Indian Readership Survey in 2012, it was the third most widely read English newspaper in India. As of October 2014, it is printed at 17 locations across eight states of southern India: Bengaluru, Chennai, Hyderabad,Thiruvananthapuram, Vijayawada, Kolkata, Coimbatore, Madurai, Noida, Visakhapatnam, Kochi,Mangaluru, Tiruchirappalli, Hubballi, Mohali, Lucknow, Allahabad and Malappuram; The Indian Expres: It is an English-language Indian daily newspaper founded in 1932. It is published in Mumbai by Indian Express Group. In addition, the Express group publishes 5 other newspapers including the Financial Express for the business community in India and worldwide; The Economic and Political Weekly- The Economic and Political Weekly, published from Mumbai since 1949, is an Indian institution which enjoys a global reputation for excellence in independent scholarship and critical inquiry. Economic and Political Weekly is indexed on Scopus, “the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature”, which is prepared by Elsevier N V; Oxford University Press: OUP is the largest university Press in the world and publishes in all academic fields, from multiple offices across the world; UNRISD Palgrave Macmillan: The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) is an autonomous research institute within the UN system that undertakes multidisciplinary research and policy analysis on the social dimensions of contemporary development issue;

best wishes, Vidhya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidhyahere (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vidhyahere. Sources look good. I've replaced the tags currently on the article with one - like resume. A couple points: The article has a few instances of Dr. Mihir Shah or Dr. Shah. These should be replaced with just "Shah". Also, the content needs to be tightened up as it reads too much like a CV. A good way to do this is to remove things that don't have secondary sources. For example, "He is a Member of the International Steering Committee of the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE)." Is that important to anyone else besides CGIAR and Shah? If so, a secondary source should have covered it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Magnetogenetics

per Jytdog advice[13] please redirect to optogenetics, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sock again

Hi. Your semi-protection of Shoe fetishism expired, and the IP vandal is now attacking it as User:Lop345.[14][15] KateWishing (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

KateWishing, it's a strange situation. Previously, the IP was adding quasi-gibberish and I would have no problem blocking for that. Now, however, all they and the registered editor are doing is adding different dubious sources and they're not block evading as far as I can tell. And the registered editor is almost autoconfirmed so semi-protection would be ineffective. I will semi-protect to stop any potential socks but you're best bet is to post on the article's talk page, outlining issues with the sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Qed237

Sorry for dragging this into the vandalism page. I just have no idea how to handle this guy anymore. I've reported him to admins and they won't do anything. All he does is spitefully revert pages that aren't 100% correct, even when he knows to correct them. It is despicable behavior and the fact that he is being implicitly supported by the admins who have gotten involved makes me want to quit editing. There's obviously no point to attempting to contribute here. Eightball (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Eightball You think this kind of message is okay? Perhaps people would listen if you learn how to communicate. Qed237 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, could you please talk to him to behave and discuss properly, now User:Eightball is even shopping for help as I was told here by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Qed237 (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Mrmike1695 - sockpuppet investigation. Any interest?

Hi NeilN, you started an ANI about this problem user earlier in the year, and he was eventually banned. He has been using multiple accounts and IPs since. He has a very distinct style and subject area focus. I started an SPI on his other accounts, but it is moving slowly and Willondon doesn't want to get involved at this time. Would you be interested in weighing in/ having a look? Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

JesseRafe, I prompted the SPI clerk (but poor Vanjagenije seems stretched pretty thin). Let's see if we can get a CU done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree, I saw how that user is doing most of the work, but I provided the diffs and know Vanjagenije saw them because s/he moved them to the right place. Just waiting for it to move along, as Mrmike is continuing to be a thorn in many a-side. Thanks for dropping in on it! JesseRafe (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

Hello. At what point is it ok to close out this discussion with a consensus. Been up for a few days with very few responses. But all 3 have been supporting it. Also, when it is time to close it, what template should I use to archive it? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: RFC's typically last thirty days unless there is clear overwhelming consensus or agreement to close early. You could also try implementing the change and see if anyone objects. As you participated in the RFC, you shouldn't close it. BTW, Alakzi has been indef blocked at his own request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

offensive

Hi Neil, please check this edit summary [16]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, there is more [17]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

User blocked now. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, by SpacemanSpiff. BTW, it's a good idea to also revoke TPA and email for these socks or the abuse will continue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd blocked and taken care of the mainspace stuff, if Thomas.W wants that treatment applied on his talk page, one of us can do it. I'll take care of TP and email now, wasn't aware of the sock background. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• @SpacemanSpiff: Evlekis gets drunk and bored every Friday evening, so this was just his usual pathetic Friday "fun". Thomas.W ^talk 19:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad to know that there's more than one reason for a block I made! —SpacemanSpiff 19:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Axial Seamount IP Again

The Best-Known-For IP is using 186.9.128.73 to edit-war further at Axial Seamount. Also, see here.

Thanks, GAB^Hello! 21:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

GAB, blocked, articles semied. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much! GAB^Hello! 00:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for looking after my talk page. A true fellow editor - your diligence and hard work in fighting vandalism is much appreciated. JustBerry (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

3 poles

Thanks for your help with page protections at Richard Parks and Pole. Similar edits from the same IP range continue at Three Poles Challenge. I'm not sure where to report this? Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I've updated Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP with the recent 4 IPs I know of. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Burninthruthesky. You can report further appearances at WP:ANI or WP:AIV and link to the LTA report. You can also report here and I will take a look if I'm active. Basically, my practice is to leave the IP alone if they're making uncontested edits but immediately block if they start reverting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Good to see an effort being put into sensible policy enforcement. Many thanks. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Help on Tommy Sotomayor page being constantly vandalized

As you can see this editor is constantly vandalizing the Tommy Sotomayor Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:2B62:7885:A522:FCD4:8B4E:A18E

Here is the history of this page where you can see these vandalisms have to be changed back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Sotomayor&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Sotomayor

Can you please help stop this? It keeps happening, thanks! Neptune's Trident (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident, blocked. Please let me know if they return under a different IP or when the block expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Neptune's Trident (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Barrhead

Should this revision be deleted/hidden? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Quixotic Potato - done, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

V x f C

• Today: Special:Contributions/86.149.12.206
• Yesterday: Special:Contributions/86.149.11.139

Thanks, as always, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza, blocked the latest one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/151.226.184.94 - Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Shut down. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

And again, Special:Contributions/92.25.65.202. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Edward Winterhalder Edits

The piece of information I am trying to add is from the official website of the creator of the show (a notable person) directly referencing the statement following it. I believe the person reverting it (from similar IPs) is the subject of the article himself as he appears to use the page for self promotion. What should I do next rather that keep reverting his edits? Nikko11 (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nikko11. You can use Talk:Edward Winterhalder to discuss your change. I see someone else has already posted on the topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will post there. Nikko11 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism at Oliver White.

Could you semi-protect the page please (if not already done). I've just had to revert and remove a lot of vandalism from the page, and it looks like it's ongoing. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Skamecrazy123, semied two weeks, PC-protected 6 months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like there's a separate article for the YouTuber at Oli White, though it's currently tagged for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks C.Fred. If the article survives we should probably add a hatnote to Oliver White. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There's evidence of coverage at Oli White, so I've declined the speedy, and I've added the hatnote to Oliver White. Both articles are on my watchlist now. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

C.Fred, take off protection, you think? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I say leave it on and let it run out in two weeks. I don't have faith that the average unregistered teen editor will read the hatnote. :) —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

C.Fred, ...while eating cactuses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

How to request 1R notice?

How do I request that a 1R notice be placed at the top of an edit window for an article that is being overreverted? Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, if the topic is under discretionary sanctions, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The topic is not controversial, only the conduct of a single editor. The protocol of approaching him in a neutral manner is risky because efforts in the past by others have all been met with poo flinging. Checkingfax (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, 1RR won't be put in place because of one editor. I could advise you better if I knew what the article was. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, NeilN. The page is Cooper Union. All of my non-controversial, minor, good faith edits have been reverted by editor Beyond My Ken. Beyond My Ken translates to I'm 'Smarter than You' in British English. Here is a link to a less than civil exchange regarding edit reverting. Checkingfax (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, I've interacted with BMK before and he can occasionally be gruff. However the conversation you point to happened almost three years ago and there's been no discussion since last May. Looks like you're having a MOS dispute? Is that correct? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No. BMK has reverted *all* of my edits. I pointed you to the worst interaction I came across on page-1 of the CU Talk page.. I scanned BMK's userpage and it is an extensive personal Manifesto about how he expects others to edit. Checkingfax (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, how about posting on the talk page, not directly addressing BMK, but explaining why your edits improved the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. Checkingfax (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Fwiw, when someone starts a procedural vote against BMK, I can chime in with my less-than-welcoming experience on Cooper Union as well. It's a real WP:OWNERSHIP issue. Sad it's affected so many and nothing's been done yet but I guess you're like me and have better things to do than wend through the bureaucracy. — LlywelynII 09:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Jolly nice to see you having a fine old time poking the bear. Have fub fun (on second though) fub! BMK (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Lenore Skenazy

So, you think that truthful, referenced information is vandalism? Apparently it doesn't agree with your viewpoint which is totally against what Wikipedia is about. Looks like it's time for you to discontinue editing if your personal views override facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.83.48.77 (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think copyright violations are copyright violations, --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations? Methinks you are sorely mistaken an obviously shouldn't be editing anything if you think referencing news articles are copyright violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.83.48.77 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Referencing news articles is fine, but copying passages word-for-word is a copyright infringement. Hats off to NeilN and/or other editors for catching and fixing it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC

It appears you are mistaken Fred. The edits deleted the information entirely, and as other articles here on Wikipedia that are not edited contained the information. It appears that you all are opposed to the truth, which is against the principles of Wikipedia. The Nazis would be proud.

---

Thanks to IP pointing out the Lenore Skenazy article I now know I was raised Free-Range. My parents were 50 years ahead of Ms. Skenazy. Rewrite the rape tidbit and it is good to go on Wikipedia. Checkingfax (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

IP block

Could this IP please be blocked. They did not heed to multiple warnings and received a final warning. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind NeilN, but I got to this one first. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 15:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC, less work for me! Thanks! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Peace, here to go through what you said I did.

What did I do, that was personally commentary, that was not like the line that I just deleted and then replaced wording it as written in The Qur'an - this might seem like personal commentary however all I did was remove a sentence but then add what The Qur'an says in my own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.193.224 (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"what The Qur'an says in my own words" which is problematic but you also cannot gut a major, important part of an article just because you think it doesn't have sufficient nuance. [18] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

[[[You were originally talking about the article about God in Islam. As for this wikipidea article, I removed these because 1. They clearly show a bias, why would someone post things like 'apostasy, slavery....' when this is basically only about 5% of what the madhabs mention. It should contain much more information on this specific madhab. 2. The information they give is so plain, one sided, sharia isn't so simple, for instance scholars when judging people for hudud you can cancel the punishment if the person says that they didn't do it, or if there is doubt on it, but this isn't mentioned in the post making it one sided. This is supposed to be unbiased right? So show what the tradition says, not this, this is so plain. Sorry if what I say sounds rude in anyway but this is literally twisting information, hiding information to trick masses to think one group of people believe in things they don't.

Here is some more information on it if you want:

“The harsh punishments imposed under Islamic Law (though less harsh than those prevailing in Europe until comparatively recently) are the expression of principles which cannot be changed to suit our convenience; what matters, however, is not that the punishment should be inflicted whenever appropriate but that the principle should remain intact. The Prophet told his people to ‘avert penalties by doubts’, and any stratagem which averts the penalty without impugning the Law is legitimate. The tale is told of a lawyer in Harfin’s time who rose to wealth and eminence after devising a subtle legal argument which saved the Caliph from having to charge his own son with adultery. The Westerner might say that this cunning lawyer earned himself a fortune by twisting the law to suit his master; the Muslim, on the other hand, approves his conduct in that he found a way for the Caliph to show mercy without offending against the majesty of the Law.

The severity of the punishment for adultery marks the gravity of this offence against a society based upon the integrity of the family and its delicate web of relationships. The existence of the penalty makes the necessary point, but its application is made almost impossible – except in cases of voluntary confession – by the proviso that four unimpeachable witnesses must have observed the act in detail and must submit to being flogged for perjury if the case is still not proved. Flogging is specified as the penalty for a number of offences, but the Law does not specify what instrument is to be used, and in the early days of Islam it was often nothing more damaging than a light sandal or the hem of a garment; this was still technically a ‘flogging’, the point was made and the Law was upheld. A thief may have his hand cut off, but not if he stole from genuine need or because his family was hungry, or if he stole the property of the state.”

— p. 185, Islam and the Destiny of Man, Charles le Gai Eaton]]] - ip

If you think other notable views are missing then please add them, with appropriate sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

And do you understand why I removed them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.193.224 (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Because of your opinion that the section is unbalanced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It mentions 5% of Islamic Beliefs, not fully, in the most plain way, saying this is what Muslims Believe - this is honestly not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.193.224 (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You have at least two options - you can add more on Shafi'i (not general Islamic) beliefs as I stated above or you can propose deleting the entire section on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I sent it thanks for your time. 81.105.193.224 (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ceiling fans

It looks like someone is trying to get autoconfirmed, and is building a YouTube Ceiling Fan video template.[19] Not sure I need to say much more than that. Scr★pIron^IV 21:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV, thanks for the note. Floquenbeam blocked the David Beals sock, I nuked the page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

More trolls on Tommy Sotomayor page

We've got more people vandalizing the page, this user:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.194.88.147

And these users from a few days ago and a couple weeks ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.204.111.244

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.50.103.74

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.50.103.74

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.153.236.7

Here's the page history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Sotomayor&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Sotomayor

If possible, could you please help with this? Thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident, I've started protection at two weeks. If disruption starts again after protection expires then please report to WP:RFPP or post here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

22 September 2015 - help in dealing with a vandal

Hello, you helped recently in blocking a vandal on America's Next Top Model (cycle 22). We have a new one (User:Jpiippo1) who is probably the same user you blocked two days ago - but with a new name/account. He has already had three of his edits reversed as vandalism on this page. In addition, he has gone through several past seasons of ANTM making unsourced changes. Most of those articles apparently have watchers who have already reversed his changes but others need to be checked. Anything you can do to help? Thanks, SchoolMarm101 (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

SchoolMarm101, blocked one week. If any other editors show up, let me know. Would be useful in preparing a SPI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Another IP block request

This IP received a final warning. Has not heeded to any warnings. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That and/or semi protection for Seth Curry would be ideal. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: IP blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

AdviCe

Re: your closing comment he's carried on as before. Blanking messages, accusing me of vandalism for posting them, refusing discussion, and even reporting me to the AN/I Talk page. I assumed that was an accident at first: but now I wonder if, having been advised to desist from logging suprious reports to the incident page, he is attempting to evade those warnings by posting to talk instead. Advice appreciated. (PS my involvement only began over some offensive userboxes on his page (see discussion on my talk, here.) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#talk_page_vandalism.2C_User:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi. Contemplating further action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Anand.ndtv (talk · contribs)

Can you keep an eye on the editor and his IP socks' edits at Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao Yojana and Save girls articles (which I just realized are duplicates)? Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Voyage60 (talk · contribs). This is an "edit-warring only" SPA. I tried to talk with them [20], but received no response. Perhaps they have a point, but without talking this looks like intentional disruption. This might be also a COI problem since they edit nothing except a single BLP page. I am telling this because you gave them previous warning... My very best wishes (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

My very best wishes, blocked 24 hours for their textbook edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Calculus

Hi NeilN-- Thanks for contacting me. A disturbing "edit war" is indeed what I'd describe is exactly what is happening, here, and, frankly, I want no part of it, but the important 'Calculus' article can't be left as it is, though I refuse to fight further. I left academia partly to avoid this sort of thing, and have no particular interest in being involved in any further such fighting. I only have so many hours left to live. But the person who's placed him or herself in charge of the article...well, I make my argument you should care about this article enough to send in some other, qualified, scholar, math and history expertise, please, if you can find such a person and enlist them, to fix the situation. Actually, rather than waste your time and attention complaining about any specifics, I will leave it there. But the 'Calculus' article can't be. It's too important. It's just...I don't do stupid academic spats, like I said. I hope you find it worthwhile to examine the situation, and, better, that the truth will out, either way it falls. Just, you know, reasonably soon. ThanksRandall Adhemar (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Randall Adhemar, I've noticed you refer to yourself as a scholar more than a few times. Wikipedia:Expert_editors#Advice_for_expert_editors is probably worth a read. Also, even if the material you added was properly sourced, much of it it is too trivial for the lead which is supposed to be a summary of the body. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Randall Adhemar. You can not cite WP as a source and can not insert that much text in a summary of the page on something that has been described differently in the body of article. However, assuming that Newton indeed discovered Differential (mathematics) in 1666 (that must be sourced to books on history of science), it seems pretty obvious that it was him who authored Calculus, and Leibniz only further developed the method. Work on the body of the page first, get sources and get consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I see you around quite a bit on what I can imagine is a slightly tedious part of mopping up (UAA/RPP), so I wanted to say thanks :) samtar (msg) 13:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't figure this out

Hi N. The Niger River (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) showed up on the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. As I looked at your protections I couldn't figure out why. In the logs I see the change of protection and the addition of pending changes protection. The PC protection seems okay but there are a couple oddities in relation to the regular protection. First, when you added the protection template you put an expire date of Sept 26 but the line in the log for that action doesn't have a date rather it has the word indefinite in parentheses. Next, when I get to the editing field There is no pink box above the field telling me that the article is protected. Now I know that PC protections do not cause that pink box to appear but regular protections do. Hopefully it is something simple. Thanks for your time and thanks for protection the Tim Burton article. MarnetteD|Talk 14:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I used Twinkle to change an indef semi to an indef PC so I have no idea why it added that tag. Also, there was an extra {{sprotect|small=yes}} tag already in the article. All fixed now, I think. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. My work with these has taught me much but there is always more to learn. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You've already blocked one of these accounts

User:Mouad911 and User:Moumou101 have been making similar disruptive edits that deal mostly with geographic entities. I trust somebody will look into this. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile, sock blocked indefinitely, master blocked one week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Barack Obama Sr.

I added properly sourced information to the entry and had it promptly reverted TWICE within a very few minutes.

I don't have any idea why some of the editors have such huge ego problems, that they insist on preventing corrections and additions to pages.

In the immediate case, I added the date of marriage February 2, 1961 of Barack Obama Sr to Stanley Anne Dunham. The source site contains photocopies of immigration documents filed by Mr Obama upon which he states the date of marriage. 946towguy (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

946towguy, your source, WorldNetDaily, is frankly garbage and is not considered a reliable source, especially for anything to do with Obama. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That is your editorial opinion, which is not based on facts. You obviously allowed your bias to prevent you from actually looking at the source material, which are unquestionably accurate photocopies of official U.S. Government records obtained by FOIA request. If you disagree with the documents released by the government, you should note that in the talk section.

In any case, the revert was improper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 946towguy (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

946towguy, actually, not my opinion. [21], [22] and other discussions at WP:RSN. Also, look at WP:PRIMARY (assuming you believe that WND is somehow the only organization in the world that magically got access to these documents). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The author makes reference to these same documents to explain the lack of certainty of his birth year being either 1934 or 1936. If you are reverting my edit, then you must also remove that statement as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 946towguy (talk • contribs) 00:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

946towguy, that's a reviewed secondary source which is a reporter from the Boston Globe, [23] not a birther website. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it is a tertiary source. The author is citing a reporter, who looked at the same documents that are available on that and several other websites. The White House has not disputed the validity of the documents in question, which are secondary sources when posted on a website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 946towguy (talk • contribs) 01:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

946towguy, you're welcome to find a source that has the same quality for this and this. It's not WND. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I see you have a bias against the WND news site. I make no complaints about many of the sources on Wikipedia which have a severe leftist bias as long as the underlying information is correct. The plain truth is that documents released under FOIA speak for themselves and it is up to the viewer to draw their own conclusions, accepting or rejecting the accompanying commentary. Here is a site with the complete immigration file and very little commentary. http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 946towguy (talk • contribs) 04:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the FOIA disclosure for Barack Soetoro, Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro. http://www.scribd.com/doc/74212035/Obama-Immigration-Records-FOIA-requests — Preceding unsigned comment added by 946towguy (talk • contribs) 05:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The above mentioned documents contain: The divorce certificate filed by Stanley Ann Obama against Barack Hussein Obama for, "Grievous mental suffering inflicted upon Libellant by Libellee," signed by Judge Samuel P. King of Hawaii on 3/5/64, and finalized on 3/20/64 with the amendment of a grant of sole custody of Barack Hussein Obama II to the mother, with reasonable visitation by libellee and reserved right of child support; The marriage certificate between Stanley Ann and Lolo Soetoro; as well as many other relevant items.

Finally, in the article on Stanley Ann Dunham, footnote 7 is used to cite the same marriage date.

946towguy, again, please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. Anonymous users uploading legal documents fail both. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion. If the source in footnote 7 (tertiary source) of the Dunham article is sufficient to support the date of marriage, then the same citation is sufficient in the Obama Sr article. So, I should be able to make the edit to the Obama Sr article and quote the same source as the Dunham article as they would both be either sufficient or insufficient.

The url (http://www.scribd.com/doc/74212035/Obama-Immigration-Records-FOIA-requests) that I cited is a publication of a secondary source. The original research of the primary sources was completed by the staff of T. Diane Cejka, Director of FOIA, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, U.S. Dept of Homeland Security on July 29, 2010 in response to a FOIA request by a Kenneth Allen, of Tuscon AZ. Further documents at the URL, which I am not citing here, were compiled in 2011 as the original research of Paralegal Specialist Melissa Watermann DHS/CIS/NRC (melissa.watermann@dhs.gov).```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 946towguy (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

946towguy, you can try those arguments regarding scribd documents at WP:RSN. I doubt you'll get very far. If you want to use the sources from the Dunham article, I have no issue with that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Tropes vs woman.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tropes vs woman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Calculus 2

Hi NeilN-- Thanks for contacting me. Below is what I intended to write yesterday, but which I don't think went through. What I actually wanted to say was that I noted you'd taken it on yourself to take a look at the page--for which attention I thank you--but that I feel you are (half, I guess) in error. I agree that the too-big-summary of the calculus controversy did not belong, as it was, in the header to the Calculus page (I figured that was the task to work on tomorrow). But more importantly, I disagree that the article doesn't need a brief but accurate statement on Calculus's origins to start off the description--and in the article as reverted, you don't have that. Which is to say the history statement is either wrong or inadequate, and I feel that needs attention.

Revision/addition, 11pm Sept 25th: I noticed you wrote on the page itself, but haven't yet had time to look at and address the details of your response, other than noticing that you took a very dim view of, as it were, my 'side' in this dispute--looked like largely on procedural grounds (I didn't use 'the talk page'? Which talk page would that be? The one I was initially invited to, or the one I was told to go to after the fallacies started piling up on the first talk page--we may differ in that I don't hold the preferred procedure of a given journal, field, or encylopedia to be a primary issue after a certain point, as opposed to, you know, just getting to the truth; you can always make sure the citations are lined up and augmented afterward, that's a minor issue; neither Leibniz nor Newton discovered Calculus by citing properly, after all. But I digress. And of course understand that editors have to have different priorities as regards rules)--and went decisively against me. I can't promise I'll ever be able or willing to respond adequately--I have my duties in print in the outside world, and, as I've been trying to explain, really have absolutely no desire to be involved in this or any similar conflict. But, fair warning, you can ignore me for now (and probably forever), but I've documented the various interactions as regards all this in my own database, so to speak. So it may come up again at some point, whether here or elsewhere. I'd rather not, but your Calculus article header is still wrong, and I find that unacceptable in the long term, and it seems to me that the sociology of Wikipedia culture may be declining, which is an even larger issue. I probably won't have time to beat about this any further in any forum, but I wanted to let you know, again, as a sort of fair warning, in case there's any action you'd like to take. I promise that if I write something up to go into print about this, I'll give you the opportunity to be fairly quoted and in the appropriate context regarding potential issues raised--but, again, it's likely I won't have the time, so I'd treat this as a minor concern. Best wishes and etc, and have a good weekend. -"R. Aldhemar", Sept 25th 2015.

A disturbing "edit war" is indeed what I'd describe is exactly what is happening, here, and, frankly, I want no part of it, but the important 'Calculus' article can't be left as it is, though I refuse to fight further. I left academia partly to avoid this sort of thing, and have no particular interest in being involved in any further such fighting. I only have so many hours left to live. But the person who's placed him or herself in charge of the article...well, I make my argument you should care about this article enough to send in some other, qualified, scholar, math and history expertise, please, if you can find such a person and enlist them, to fix the situation. Actually, rather than waste your time and attention complaining about any specifics, I will leave it there. But the 'Calculus' article can't be. It's too important. It's just...I don't do stupid academic spats, like I said. I hope you find it worthwhile to examine the situation, and, better, that the truth will out, either way it falls. Just, you know, reasonably soon.

Thanks Randall Adhemar (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Randall Adhemar, your initial post went through and I've already replied: User_talk:NeilN#Calculus --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

NeilNNeil,

I didn't mean to imply that it hadn't--merely that the roughly 24 hour between writing and posting might have been responsible for a technical glitch (as it were) that accidentally deleted those posts. I'm not good enough with computers to know if that's technically possible--but I don't see how I could otherwise have been responsible for the deletion/damage. Thus, I deduce, perhaps wrongly, that it was the editing delay and my own lack of technical knowledge that caused the problem. Apologies. -R.A.Randall Adhemar (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Generation Z

Hi, could you unlock the Generation Z article? The editor who locked it made the lock for way too long based on a single IP who was the only one making the same unreferenced changes over and over again. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:E963:8D23:826F:7197 (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

See here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I've unprotected after consulting with the protecting admin but please try not to edit war. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:C515:B17:9595:53C6 (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Feud with Derbundeskanzler

Hello, NeilN. I would like to apologize for the disruptive debate with Derbundeskanzler, regarding The Backyardigans' country of origin. What seemed to be a formal debate has turned into a fight, and we are both very sincere about our actions.

We have come to a decision that the series will be deemed Canadian-American. After viewing this article from a press release, I now realize that a majority of the series is owned by Nelvana, a Canadian studio. But with my points, Derbundeskanzler and I have agreed that the series is also American, thus revising the series as Canadian-American, than American-Canadian on the page.

Again, our feud was comprised of argument and whether who was right or wrong, and we are very remorseful.

A message by Derbundeskanzler will follow.

BackyardigansKaibigan (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear NeilN,

I am truthfully sorry for the disruption caused by me and BackyardigansKaibigan. After much consideration and the discovery of a press release stating that most ownership of The Backyardigans belongs to a Canadian company, we have decided on what is right for the page and no further disruption will be made regarding the series' country of origin. I hope that you could either revise the page to what it should be, or lower its protection, so that the article can be accurate. Once again, I apologize for my actions. Derbundeskanzler (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

FACE:B00C collateral victim

addresses with FACE:B00C in their range are used by internet.org app service and not "geologically localized" in that a person in south asia can get allocated an address for a time which will be later cycled to any person in EU or NA. blocking entire ranges is too much collateral damage. please look deeply into this. block the sock accounts, not ip ranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs)

@Mahfuzur rahman shourov: I have no idea why you're telling me this. I don't think I've done a rangeblock on that address. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

checked the page on sockpuppet investigation for some "najaf ali bhayo". you and dmacks are the admins I found at first glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The range is actually 2A03:2880:3020 and if it's some kind of proxy service for Facebook, it should be blocked. Pinging DMacks as they performed some of the blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly as NeilN said. DMacks (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Could this user please be blocked. They are being very disruptive, not communicating and not heading to warnings. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

DaHuzyBru, blocked three days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for the help at Keke Geladze and my talk page. Admins have to put up with some crazy stuff sometimes, and I really appreciate what you do. clpo13(talk) 15:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

clpo13, thanks. The ones I feel for are new editors or editors who work peacefully on their quiet little area of Wikipedia and get sucked into these situations, having no idea what's going on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor 2

I regret to inform you that a problem user (Versus001) whom you blocked and was blocked again remains disruptive. This user follows me and deletes my edits using specious reasons. Example,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=682890986

It is a well known fact that there were reports of a State Department bomb on September 11, 2001 but that memory is now being lost due to children born after that date or who were very small then. Wikipedia can preserve history.

Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, please don't bring open ANI threads to other pages. It just wastes time and can get you accused of admin shopping. I am sorry things don't seem to be going your way, but sometimes you really do have to step back and listen to what uninvolved editors are saying. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not shopping because I have not notified anyone of this following and reverting harassment. As far as that train attack article, it would be better if everyone was told to stop editing that article for a month. I would gladly comply if those bad editors were asked the same request. Instead, I voluntarily (and without coaching) stepped back from that article and those 2-3 aggressive editors falsely claimed consensus and gutted an important section of an article that I didn't write (someone else wrote it). Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, it's obvious from the ANI thread that you and Versus001 have continual content disputes. If you want sanctions against Versus001, you'll have to propose them there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't want anyone blocked. I just want to live in peace and not be harassed and followed around. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, interaction bans also need to be proposed at WP:ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that Versus001 will read this. Would you kindly ask all parties to be on their best behaviour? I will comply with your requests. This could avoid a prolonged fight on ANI for an interaction ban. You can merely write some words of wisdom here. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, I didn't notice it at first and therefore didn't use it as my reasoning, but the info you tried to post was already mentioned in the section. Here is the following paragraph from the Events section of the article:

"At 9:42 a.m., the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded all aircraft within the continental U.S., and aircraft already in flight were told to land immediately.[99] All international civilian aircraft were either turned back or redirected to airports in Canada or Mexico, and all international flights were banned from landing on United States territory for three days.[100] The attacks created widespread confusion among news organizations and air traffic controllers. Among the unconfirmed and often contradictory news reports aired throughout the day, one of the most prevalent said a car bomb had been detonated at the U.S. State Department's headquarters in Washington, D.C.[101] Another jet—Delta Air Lines Flight 1989—was suspected of having been hijacked, but the aircraft responded to controllers and landed safely in Cleveland, Ohio.[102]"

Either way, I was not meaning to be disruptive. Versus001 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

IP blocked

Can we lose the talkpage access of that IP you just blocked, not sure their comments are constructive. Amortias (T)(C) 19:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: Done. Really reminds me of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Some London IP's in there but nothing in the 90.* range. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision Delete Requests

I've got two revision delete requests to make, both on privacy concerns.

• [24]

• [25]

By the way, thanks for the help earlier in dealing with that troublesome IP editor. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

NottNott, done. Thanks for catching these, especially the first one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

90.198.x sock

Don't you think it would be more helpful to range block those IPs trolling on WP:ANI? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Yes. But both rangeblock calculators are down and I have a good feeling that any rangeblock would be way too wide to be acceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Earth system science issue, and your note to terradactyl

Hi - First, my apologies, I don't know the Wiki rules so well, and didn't even know what canvassing was, so perhaps you can help clarify all this a bit more for me: yes, I was writing just now to some of the editors who dealt with creating and editing the section for which I just requested protection, from long before I had anything to do with it. My assumption was that those editors would be interested in the conflict going on, but didn't think that this equated in any way non-neutrality about the actual material involved. Is it considered biased, from Wiki's point of view, to assume that users involved in creating the material, and presumably therefore knowledgeable about this material, would be interested in the expunging of their material from the entry?

As far as the material itself in the section in question goes, I believe that I actually have a more neutral point of view on the relationship of Gaia theory to Earth system science than the few editors who have been highly motivated to see the material deleted from the article. I am admittedly not neutral, however, on whether I feel this material should be included in the article - clearly I do not, given that I spent a great deal of time editing the section, and it clearly seems highly germane to the article, with world-renowned figures commenting in various ways on the relationship between these things - but that desire for inclusion is not against any of the neutrality concerns of Wiki, is it? Aren't the point of view concerns of Wiki about the way in which material is expressed with neutrality? Clearly, material cannot be expressed with neutrality if it is expunged! I have created a section that is very well-referenced, and that provides a wide range of viewpoints, from those claiming that the two, Earth system science and Gaia, are largely synonymous, to those claiming that they are quite distinct.

As the talk page shows abundantly, I have consistently asked those editors removing the material to instead include their own material showing their point of view that the two are not closely connected, if that is what they feel and they can provide properly sourced material saying so. Please note that I have studiously avoided removing any other editors' work - I rarely hit revert except when the prior edit has been nothing but a subtraction of my own work. I don't believe in destruction of other points of view! Here are some of my comments on the talk page from just this week, citing Wiki rules on this, as far as I understand them:

Hi, BatteryIncluded - Btw, just to expand on the lack of appropriateness of what Prokaryotes et al are trying to do......this is what Wiki says:

It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. [5]

If they have some other point of view, they should feel free to express it!

Again, I hope that you can help clarify my understanding of the way this all fits in with Wiki's rules, if I have misunderstood them. Terradactyl (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Terradactyl. If you're going to notify editors of a discussion then you need to notify all potentially interested editors, not just the ones that you think will support your position. Also, the notifying message must be worded neutrally, not advocating your position, as your messages were doing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Neil - Thanks much for getting back. Actually, I'm a bit confused still, and wondering if you could look into this a bit further. I don't know what position you think I take on the relationship between Earth system science and Gaia theory. Indeed, among the range of authoritative positions on this, from those seeing them as identical, to those seeing them as distinct yet overlapping, I am more or less undecided, frankly. What position on this could I have possibly expressed through what I just wrote to the editors who initiated the section? In terms of whether I think the section on the relationship between them should exist, again, that is a very different issue - if it is germane to the subject and well-referenced, it should not be removed, correct? To do otherwise is against Wiki policy, right? Now, if you have some very famous people saying "X and Y are the same thing," and other famous people saying, "Well, X and Y are NOT the same thing, but interrelated," is it not clear that it is germane to subject X (and to subject Y!) that this interrelationship be discussed in its article, with a full range of views of what that relationship may or may not be, as expressed through well-referenced sources? I have not yet seen any valid argument for the removal of the material. I am sure you noted that my citations were from the primary academic textbooks for Earth system science used in university curricula, from statements from the likes of NASA's Director of Planetary Sciences Division, etc.

Keep in mind, moreover, when you speak of my writing to "all potentially interested editors," the actual history of the article and the section at hand: The section began shortly after the article was started, in 2011. The section then went through very few significant changes, really none at all, until, boom, in November of 2014, Toby Tyrrell, someone who has published the only book of recent times harshly critical of Gaia theory, removed it all himself, calling it "irrelevant." Thus, all the editors involved in the section were those few I wrote to yesterday (none of whom seem to be actively editing at Wiki these days, in any case), and then me and those others involved in the current dispute, all of whom are fully aware of my opinions on the article and the expunging of this material. So I don't see who else there should have been.

I would have assumed that the administrators of Wiki would want to help the situation, which is why I reached out and asked for protection of the article. There happen to be just a few ardent, aggressive Neo-Darwinist editors dealing with the article right now, aside from me. Of course, all of their comments will say that I am the one who is "biased" or against NPOV, etc, etc, needless to say.

But I ask you this: when the most widely used academic textbook for university-level study of Earth system science (Kump, Kasting and Crane) has discussion of the interrelationship near its opening, and first teaches students about mechanisms of Earth system science through something taken from Gaia theory (Daisyworld, used as the title of the book's chapter 2), what exactly, in your opinion, would be the justification for NOT having a discussion about the range of views on the relationship between Earth system science and Gaia theory in this article? Remember, I have simply been asking other editors not to remove the section, and to instead add their own edits to it.

I look forward to your response, and thanks so much again for your time and attention!! Terradactyl (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Terradactyl, as an example you wrote to editors, "If you care about this material, it could surely use more editors who don't feel the need to expunge "Gaia" from the discussion!!" A neutral notification would have simply consisted of, "There is a discussion regarding Gaia on Talk:Earth system science you may be interested in."

Administrators will use their tools to protect pages from disruption but are precluded from weighing in on content as "admins". That is, for content matters they are treated as regular (albeit experienced) editors. This is to prevent them from gaining any unfair advantage when deciding content. In this particular case, I have more restrictions placed on me because of WP:INVOLVED. I can't use my admin powers and weigh in on content for the same matter. I can advise generally on Wikipedia policies and guidelines but can't say, "you're right" or "they're right". Editors seem to think there should be some material on Gaia but not what is there currently. Can you propose a revised version on the talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, Neil - Yes, OK, I see what you are after, and I'll change that (although there won't be any other notifications like those of the other day, in any case). So, not just neutrality about the information content of the subject itself, but a more general neutrality about the process of Wiki as well. That isn't what I had understood, but it makes sense. I'll try........

If you get the chance to look at the Talk page, which only had a few sentences when I started posting there earlier this summer, you see that lots of ink has been spilled over this, much of it mine......

Cheers, Terradactyl (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi

Could Nat Fyfe please be semi protected. Just won a league MVP award and is being bombarded by IPs and new users vandalising the page. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

DaHuzyBru, Three days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Adnan Sami

Hi Neil, Hope you are doing fine! I saw you declined my request of semi protection, my reason for semi protection is just to stop act of Vandalism on Adnan's Profile. If you see all the famous Bollywood actors pages are Protected for ex salman khan, aamir khan etc. Adnan Sami is in the same league and due to recent controversy related to his citezenship, he is exposed to too many trolls and vandalism. With due respect i will request you to reconsider the same. have a nice day ahead vaibhavthedestroyer--- 13:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vaibhav.times. Please look at our protection policy. Articles are not protected preemptively and there isn't enough recent disruption to merit protection. If you look at the section above this one, you'll see an article which has the level of disruption necessary for protection. [26] Also, can you please fix your signature? It must contain at least one link to your user or talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Spinnin' Records

Hello, Sorry to bother you, but I have noticed that you have placed a note on the article Spinnin' Records stating to only include individuals with their own article (it seems as though this is due to a disruptive editor). However, I feel that for the completeness of the article, all artists should be included. Would it be possible for you to remove this notation? AnonymousMusician (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi AnonymousMusician. Another editor added that note, not me. However it is consistent with our WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline. Wikipedia articles don't aim for completeness but rather a summary of what is notable. You can add people without articles if you also provide sources to show they are notable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Advice on what to do about User:Westleft?

Westleft (talk · contribs)... What do you think would be the best approach for dealing with this editor's troubling editing? I'm all pumped up to report this editor at WP:ANI now. First, I need to gather more evidence. I'd already given the editor a stern warning months ago. And since that time, this editor's problematic editing has continued. I wouldn't trust this editor to edit even an article about a children's book. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I would probably pick three recent problematic edits and ask Westleft to explain them. If you're not satisfied with their explanations then ANI could be the next step. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wait to see if Westleft replies to my latest post on his or her talk page. And no need to WP:Ping me, Neil, you know I've watched your talk page for some time now. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, force of habit :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment!

Would love you to comment on this discussion about what qualifies as a current wildfire if you have a moment. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zackmann08. Where is the discussion that triggered the RFC? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion arose from a disagreement between myself and another editor. Rather than get into a reverting war, I figured I would start an RfC. (see this edit for example [27]). Tried to post the RfC with as neutral a tone as possible and waited for someone else to vote before I voiced my opinion. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Action needed

Hi Neil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mohombi_Nzasi_Moupondo Thanks. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Acroterion got them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Detroit Fire Department

Can you please help me and give me some advice? Literally every other fire department page on Wikipedia has had the section that lists Closed/disbanded fire companies removed from their page. It is an established convention. Listing out these stations violates WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and has been outlined in the Project (see: WP:FIRE-STRUCT). Yet an anonymous user with an ever changing IP address continues to come in every few weeks and revert the changes bringing this list back. The latest time, I reverted their edit, ONE time, and they immediately accused me of edit warring and re-reverted my edit: [28]. I've gotten myself into hot water before here and would really like your assistance. I have tried talking to the user, no response.--Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

what is wrong?

many muslims asked you to remove the picture in prophet Muhammad's(peace be upon him) article. the reason for us is it is not appropriate and can consider haram. i though there is respect in the belief of the religion in this website and there is respect in the viewers as long. i am 100% sure nothing wrong when the pictures removed. Simpleabd (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Simpleabd, I see you are edit warring with multiple editors on multiple articles. Please stop now or you will be blocked. Wikipedia articles are not written in accordance with religious beliefs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

why change topic? i am just trying to contribute here. i am not trying to disrespect the article. Simpleabd (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Simpleabd, but you are disrespecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which, on Wikipedia, supersede the Quran or any religious beliefs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Fringe Beliefs

Thanks for the heads up NeilN! I was only trying to be more fair toward other beliefs about the beginning of life. I want to help other people make a more informed decision about their worldview and I will not force a choice on anyone. Evolution has not been conclusively proven so I was trying to make the article not sound like it was. Thanks for helping to make Wikipedia an educational and clean place! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milku3459 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Milku3459, evolution is not about the "beginning of life" so right off the bat, you have a problem. And yes, mainstream scientists believe the mechanisms of evolution have been conclusively proven. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me quote directly from the Wiki.

Evolutionary history of life "Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed. The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions. The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA and the assembly of simple cells." Evolution is not all about the beginning of life but part of it is. I don't think all scientists agree on evolution. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/ http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php I'll try to edit more less sensitive topics first. Maybe then you will trust me. Milku3459 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

comment: If evolution really is about the origin of life, then how come people do not need to know what the identity of the first life form was in order to study morphological trends among successive generations of trilobites or fish, or to breed chickens and orchids?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Milku3459, mainstream scientists, not fringe theory pushers or ones who have no relevant expertise. A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is worth a read. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you please add a monthly OKBot update to these two website articles on Wikipedia

On this article, The Numbers (website):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Numbers_(website)

If you open the article for editing as you see in this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Numbers_(website)&action=edit

You will see in the infobox website that it lists it's Alexa rating as being updated monthly by OKBot, but I've been checking this article from time to time and it has NEVER been automatically updated by OKBoT, I've been having to update the month Alexa stats by hand, can you fix this so OKBot DOES update this section of this article automatically each month:

|alexa = 53,289 (September 2015)< name="alexa">"The-numbers.com Site Info". Alexa Internet. Updated monthly by OKBot.

Could also update this PopMatters article to also have OKBot update the website Alexa statistics for each month as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popmatters

As you can see in this link when you try and edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PopMatters&action=edit

The website infobox lists Alexa as having OKBot updating it's new Alexa settings each month, and the bot hasn't been updating the statistics for the site each month, again, I've had to do it by hand with editing:

| alexa = 26,315 (September 2015)<name="alexa">"PopMatters Site Info". Alexa Internet. Updated monthly by OKBot.

I'm not sure if you're the one to ask about fixing this, thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neptune's Trident. OKBot was blocked in 2014 for messing up articles. [29] Its operator, OsamaK, doesn't seem too active. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks anyway! Neptune's Trident (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Voyage60

That SPA is warring again.-Lute88 (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Lute88, blocked again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

thanks...-Lute88 (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Another warrior

I don't know if this is in your competence, but there is anohter one, different style 2RRs per period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Againstdisinformation .-Lute88 (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Lute88, if you're talking about Human rights in Venezuela I've already posted to the talk page and another admin has fully protected the article. However sanctions against that editor will probably need another ANI thread. [30] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

List of monarchs by nickname

You protected the page List of monarchs by nickname from a persistent vandal, the protection has expired and the anonymous vandal is back with his insertion of "Tut the Nut". Please could you reinstate the protection or perhaps devise some other means of discouraging the vandalism. Thanks Dabbler (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dabbler, PC protected another six months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Question Concerning 1 Revert per 24-hour period

User:NeilN, Hi. I have been informed that all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). I understood this to mean that we cannot "undo" another editor's edit more than once in a 24-hour period. But does this also mean that if a certain editor was displeased with one aspect of my edit, and deleted it entirely, that I cannot come back and make the correction according to his directives (reason for deleting)? Or, if I re-worded my original statement so that the general text differs from the first, would that also be considered "making two reverts" in a 24-hour period? I am in need of this clarification, since an editor on the WP-page West Bank has addressed me on my personal Talk-Page that I may have infringed the rule of one revert per 24-hour period, when, in actuality I only reworded my edit to alleviate a certain difficulty. Please check my edits on the page West Bank. Thanks. Give advice.Davidbena (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Davidbena. On a WP:1RR article when an editor reverts your revert and indicates why, it's best to talk to that editor, propose your tweaked wording, and get their agreement before editing the article again. You did break WP:1RR (inadvertently, I know) as you are reverting back in the same concept. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. So, should I delete my edit, and open-up a discussion about its relevance?Davidbena (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Davidbena, yes, I think self-reverting would be the wisest course of action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Done.Davidbena (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Miller

Thank's for fixing my mistake. Was trying to revert the vandalism and obviously reverted something I shouldn't have in the process. Appreciate you cleaning it up! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Refiling for semi-protection

Hi, NeilN! Just leaving a quick message to let you know that I did understand you meant that I need to re-file this page, I've just decided to wait and see if the other two I filed about get semi-protected. If not, there's no point in re-filing the third. Sorry again for my error, I know that must have seemed like an odd request to you (especially since that 2010s page is such a minor one). I will be more careful in the future. Thanks, again!Cebr1979 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, no need to apologize. Far from the oddest thing I've seen at RFPP :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30