Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:05, 3 September 2016

Unless I specify otherwise, any uninvolved admin may undo any of my admin actions without checking with me first if they feel my input isn't necessary. NeilN

If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. NeilN

Archives

Archive 1: Aug 2005 - Oct 2007 Archive 2: Nov 2007 - Jan 2008 Archive 3: Feb 2008 - Mar 2008 Archive 4: Apr 2008 - Jun 2008 Archive 5: Jun 2008 - Oct 2009 Archive 6: Nov 2009 - Dec 2009 Archive 7: Jan 2010 - Mar 2010 Archive 8: Apr 2010 - Mar 2011 Archive 9: Apr 2011 - Apr 2012 Archive 10: May 2012 - June 2012 Archive 11: Jul 2012 - Jan 2013 Archive 12: May 2013 - Jul 2013 Archive 13: Aug 2013 - Sep 2013 Archive 14: Oct 2013 Archive 15: Nov 2013 - Dec 2013 Archive 16: Jan 2014 - Feb 2014 Archive 17: Mar 2014 - May 2014 Archive 18: Jun 2014 - Jul 2014 Archive 19: Aug 2014 - Sep 2014 Archive 20: Oct 2014 - Nov 2014 Archive 21: Dec 2014 - Jan 2015 Archive 22: Feb 2015 - Mar 2015 Archive 23: Apr 2015 - May 2015 Archive 24: June 2015 Archive 25: July 2015 Archive 26: August 2015 Archive 27: September 2015 Archive 28: October 2015 Archive 29: November 2015 Archive 30: December 2015 Archive 31: Jan 2016 - Jun 2016 Archive 32: Jul 2016 Archive 33: Aug 2016

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Confused

You just edited about Non-Free content. Is this about an image on the Donald Trump page? Ititanthompson (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ititanthompson, yes it is. It's a copyrighted image and I've deleted it. --NeilN 04:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump

The disruption and pointyness is continuing, in spite of the warnings you have given at the talk page and on the editor's talk page: . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, any advice would be appreciated. The disparaging label is supported neither by the two cited sources (which the editor admits in his edit summary) nor by talk page consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Two day AE block. --NeilN 20:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

1RR

Could you please give me your opinion as to whether these two edits by User:Gouncbeatduke violate 1RR: They certainly seem so to me, and I know that I'm not the only editor who has been trying very hard to avoid similar edits that would violate 1RR. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, it's probably a technical violation of WP:1RR. If you want them sanctioned over this you'll probably need to head over to WP:AE. I will likely not block over initial changes to completely different material. --NeilN 04:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Then this one editor can completely rewrite the article and I can't undo it. No one can. I'm not going to pursue this further. I am de-watchlisting the article immediately.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant "No one can" is not accurate. Over a thousand editors are watching that article. 99.9% of them can revert. --NeilN 04:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Inactive editors tend to remain that way. Anyway, I don't intend to continue trying to edit in good faith while other editors collect diffs for my planned topic-ban, and slander me without consequence. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That user has now added the POV tag for a fourth time, despite a growing consensus at the talk page that it doesn't belong there. I reverted the fourth addition and warned them on their talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:MelanieN. I intend to stay away from that article at least for the time being. I feel that User:MastCell (after being canvassed) has made serious and false accusations against me at the article talk page. Although I have denied the accusations, I have no desire to be in a flame war that may be designed to get me topic-banned, which is an outcome that User:DrFleischman anticipated long ago at that talk page. Another problem is this: when extensive discussion results in multiple different compromises, a single user is currently allowed to come along and un-do all of them without regard to 1RR (even if the talk page discussion hasn't been archived yet). If that kind of thing is a technical 1RR violation, then I feel it's dangerous for me to engage in that kind of behavior myself, and yet I'm helpless to prevent that behavior by others. So the whole thing is just very vexing, and I'm staying away for the time being.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That's an empty accusation of canvassing. Sad! NeilN, FWIW, here's a bit of background on Anythingyouwant's 1RR inquiry. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's an empty statement, especially in view of what ensued. What's really sad, it seems to me, is when a user decides to consider a good faith 1RR report against him (which was later withdrawn) the basis for treating the filer of that report as an "enemy". I hope that's water under the bridge.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman, is it water under the bridge?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#The_NPOV_of_the_article_Donald_Trump. Discussion is good, but the editor may be headed for a topic ban if they continue making posts like these: , --NeilN 05:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have pretty extensive experience with this user - and that their edits on some other hot-button pages have been even closer to the edge than the Trump ones. Thanks for continuing to keep an eye on these articles and their participants. Much appreciated. --MelanieN (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Question about topic-ban

Hi Neil. I see that you Topic-banned Gounc from Trump articles from July 26 to August 26. But Gounc edited that article a lot during that period. Now Gounc appears blocked for a week, but not for violating the one-month topic-ban. Can you please tell me what's up with this, and why Gounc was able to edit the Trump pages during the apparent one-month topic ban (including the edits that I started the preceding subsection asking about)? Thanks. The whole thing is confusing to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, that was an error on my part. I copied the text from another topic ban I did (ironically, for an anti-Clinton editor) but forgot to remove the signature and re-sign when I tweaked it. I actually topic banned Gounc today. --NeilN 23:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I see, thanks. So the topic-ban has a wrong date-stamp, but it's all archived. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Dalian Atkinson

His death was confirmed by the police, so please stop vandalising the page. Norum 10:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Norum, I was about to post to your talk page after you reverted Rayman60. Do not ever call reverting unsourced BLP information "vandalism". --NeilN 11:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What else can you call it if the two of you were reverting confirmed information a number of times? Norum 11:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Norum, you've been editing here for far too long to not know about WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP. If you want to add information about a death, you need to provide a cite along with it. This provided no such reference. --NeilN 11:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I did. I provided the Sky News link. Norum 11:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Norum, look at what you reverted as "vandalism". Was there a source in there? --NeilN 11:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

If you look at my 11.55 post, it does show link there. Saying this, now I can actually see where the confusion is coming from since it reads that the victim is believed to be... and ..has been locally named as... Norum 12:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Here. Norum 12:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, why do you keep using someone else's revert? Norum 12:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Norum, because, as I said in my initial post, I was going to tell you that your edit summary was unacceptable for that revert. --NeilN 13:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

frivolous RFPP stuff

Hi - take a look at the last RFPP request I declined, as it's from a guy you blocked for something similar. I don't even know what's going on with this dude because that was nonsensical. I'm inclined to reblock for an extended period for disruption at least and indef as NOTHERE at most, but wanted your thoughts. Katie 13:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Katie, I would probably block for a month, indicating the next block will be an indef. --NeilN 13:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I did try, and will continue to do so, but I agree this kind of disruption is unacceptable. Best wishes and thank you. Poltair (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Keep it up! Cheers. Wario-Man (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wario-Man, thank you! --NeilN 01:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Superman

Thank you for your quick respnse User:NeilN. After everything multiple editors reported at the initial ANI, and desite my hopeful talk-page note here, the Superman editing history shows 20 undiscussed edits by User:BaronBifford, including wholesale removal of text, at least one contentious addition, and then edit-warrng over it here.

This is heartbreaking. I have been a supporter of his quality work for a very long time. But for me, his behavior tips the scales. It is exhausting to me and other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Do white edits matter?

I noticed that a white editor made two reverts in two minutes, in two separate sections of the article and in clear violation of the one revert per 24 hour revert rule for the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=734622411&oldid=734622291

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=734622291&oldid=734622262

As they are a white editor, and you only block or ban editors if they are black on brown, I am aware it doesn't matter. If a black on brown editor does the exact same thing, I will be sure to let you know, so you can ban them. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That'll do it. Extra silly because you must have missed this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

And has any white editor been banned? A Banned Brown Editor (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't know, don't care. You are judged on your edits, not anything else. --NeilN 20:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have topic banned Gouncbeatduke for one month. --NeilN 19:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor blocked by Bishonen. Dat Guy_Contribs 20:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Neil and Bishonen. This kind of comment is absolutely beyond the pale. (How in the world are we supposed to know what "color" an editor is anyhow?) --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm more of a peach myself, though a bit of the tanned side at the moment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I can smell it. Can't you? Dat Guy_Contribs 20:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Some rare editors have "This user is x" infobox on their user page for whatever reason. If I see one of those, I'll forget about it five seconds later because it's not remotely something I need to retain. After ten years here, I can only recall offhand the "color" of a handful of editors, either because I've seen their photos often enough or because they've suffered harassment due to it. --NeilN 21:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that so many users (apparently including Gounc) assume that everyone here is white. Or American. Or male. Or whatever their particular stereotype for Misplaced Pages editors is. How does Gounc know that those other editors they complain of are "white"? How do they know that you or I aren't "brown"? How do they know the ethnicity of the four (that I know of) editors that have been topic banned? They don't. They just assume - stereotyping. And then they accuse you of discrimination based on their assumptions. --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the only piece of personal info I've ever disclosed here is "I am not American" because I got fed up with being accused of editing with a Democratic/Republican POV. There have been other assumptions made that had me rolling my eyes and going, "if you only knew..." --NeilN 21:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Here's me thinking only dogs get banned. -Roxy the dog™ bark 22:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Peace and copyright question

Hi again NeilN, I've read on your page here that you know a lot about copyright. Can you confirm / disconfirm that screenshots of wikipedia pages that do not include the mediawiki logo are copyright-free? Is there a protocol for attributing a screenshot? Also, I'm puzzled as to why OFT is showing up (so beautifully, the text is brilliant juxtaposed just so). Is this magic?

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJill_Stein&diff=734657413&oldid=73461491 I would very much appreciate your insight on this question, if you have a guide to the perplexed... Best wishes, SashiRolls (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I've fixed the license on Commons. Not sure what you mean by "OFT is showing up" --NeilN 01:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Peter Hurd's text (or somebody's text with Peter Hurd's name on it) on Optimal Foraging Theory appears at the link above, or here: ♒ ☮

SashiRolls, ah okay! You've got the ID of another page in the oldid parameter of your link. See, for example, this where I entered a random oldid. --NeilN 01:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The oldid is missing a digit. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJill_Stein&diff=734657413&oldid=734614913 is what you're after. - NQ (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages sho' is a complicated place. One serendipitous back space, serious? Thought I'd been hacked :P ... Sorry to trouble you with that, it was much better reading that way, gives perspective to the lost "battle" on the page. Thanks NQ & NeilN! SashiRolls (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Hi NeilN, Apologies for the interruption. If you're around, could you have a look at the edits to User:Seraphimblade and either add some protection and/or block, as and if appropriate? - Ryk72 00:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Ryk72, dealt with for now. --NeilN 01:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi protect request

Neil can we get a semi protect on List of current champions in WWE?? We have an IP who is jumping IPs placing a custom blank image on the article after its been removed several times. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

One week. --NeilN 03:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:NaserBanaqeeb + paid editing

I noticed that you asked the above user about undisclosed paid editing, I have asked him the same. I won't put details here, as I know we are not supposed to reveal personal details about any editor, however with a few simple google searches, I came to the conclusion that this user represents an online marketing organization, and is a paid editor. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks....

... for untangling the protection at List of agglomerations by population. Your interpretation was correct, I intended to use PC. I'll blame the script I was using; apparently it tagged the page with a PC tag but actually applied semi. --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Kenny Loggins vandal

Hi NeilN, you recently protected some article targets of the Kenny Loggins vandal. However, they have been coming back on different pages. Would you consider semi protecting or pending changes for these pages: Roy Orbison, Template:Kenny Loggins, Indecent Proposal, Grand Theft Auto V soundtrack, The Music of Grand Theft Auto V, Roy Orbison discography. Thank you Sro23 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sro23. Laser brain applied a short protection to the first article. I've applied a three month semi to the rest. --NeilN 03:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong??

I have removed a link and reference twice now from Knight_Rider (1982 TV series) as the website it refrences is no longer valid. Yet two different editors have put it back. Why are we leaving outdated and unavailable references on an article? I have explained this both times yet no one is listening and I'm not about to get hit for edit warring by changing it again. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knight_Rider_(1982_TV_series)&curid=43274&action=history

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Have you read WP:DEADREF? --NeilN 03:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes sir I have as the article is suffering from WP:link rot which is what I was trying to fix. The reference link in question takes you to this page http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ia9c51f5ef29150aa83bf8dab9a5cb9de which shows the article is not there, which would make it dead linked. I am on my phone because my laptop is down and I know where I can get better references so I removed the dead ones went to add new references and couldn't because the 2 editors got revert happy which caused edit conflicts, no I couldn't add while I was removing on my Droid it locks up when I have more than 1 tab open on chrome so I was trying find the new reference copy it open the article and add it back.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", there are two easy solutions to this. 1) Add the new ref in the same edit you remove the dead ref. Or 2) In your edit summary indicate you will be replacing the ref in a subsequent edit. --NeilN 03:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

They have now added an archive of the original site instead of just putting a fresh source that works with out having to link an archive or a site that doesn't exist.Clearly no one wants to better the article and I can't add as I remove because my laptop is down, this stupid phone keeps locking up when I open more than one tab, I give up. Sorry I bothered ya Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP Violation & Violation of DS

Hi Neil, Can you please take a look here? In addition, to the DS violation I mentioned there, I believe it would also be considered a BLP violation to restore unsourced, contentious content to a BLP. I have no idea what User: Volunteer Marek is talking about with his accusation regarding me trying to "sneak in" the phrase "until a screening process has been perfected", but it seems to be irrelevant. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Neil, I just spent half an hour researching this mess so you wouldn't have to. 0;-D This is about the Donald Trump article. It appears to be a misunderstanding, on User:Volunteer Marek's part, of a revert request made by User:CFredkin. As you can see on VM's talk page, each is accusing the other of reverting. Here's what I think happened: VM made a multi-part edit described as "undoing some of the no-consensus changes", in which he removed part of a sentence (at the end of the last sentence of the lede) and also added two sentences to the "Trump expands" section. CF posted on VM's talk page asking him to revert that edit. CF said the edit was improper because it restored two sentences that CF had removed from the "Trump expands" section. VM misunderstood and thought CF was referring to the part of a sentence VM had removed from the lede ("until a screening process has been perfected"). He thought CF had added that phrase and was improperly asking that it be restored. That phrase had actually been added by User:Zaostao and had nothing to do with CF. And in any case it wasn't that phrase that CF was objecting to; it was the restoration of the two sentences. My suggestion to VM is that he self-revert those two sentences, before he gets nailed for restoring contentious material. Your mileage may vary. --MelanieN (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm confused, what are the two sentences? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it the sentence based on the Philadelphia Inquirer? Then I'm confused as to why CFredkin is claiming that is an "unreliable source", that seems way out there (the danged thing collects Pulitzers the way people collect Pokemons).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Look at your "undoing some of the changes" edit. In it you added two sentences to the "Trump expands" section. They had been deleted by CFredkin earlier in the day. He provides the links at your talk page. MelanieN alt (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

One begins "It performed poorly." The other is "The high roller suites." MelanieN alt (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I see it now. I removed the first sentence. That one was indeed based on a non-reliable source. I'm looking at the second one, gimme a sec. I'll probably remove it too, though I still want someone to explain to me how anyone can in good faith call a Pulitzer winning newspaper an "unreliable source" with a straight face. This looks like a WP:TENDENTIOUS attempt by CFredkin to WP:GAME the DS restriction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the following material hasn't been self-reverted yet:

References

1. Steve Swartz (November 11, 1985). "Holiday, Trump drafting terms to end rocky alliance over Atlantic City casino". Wall Street Journal.  – via ProQuest (subscription required)
2. David Johnston (April 6, 1991). "Deal protects Trump Plaza from bankruptcy". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
3. Terry Mutchler (March 10, 1992). "Two Trump casinos file for Chapter 11". Philadelphia Inquirer. AP.  – via ProQuest (subscription required)

Here's a link to the AP article that the Inquirer published.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Evidently, I said "gimme a sec". I'm reading the sources again. And "evidently" I also said "I'll probably remove it". Now, do you want to explain to me how in the world these are suppose to be "unreliable sources"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Johnston article. I haven't read any of these articles yet. I think the usual routine is to discuss it at the article talk page after the material is removed from the article. Then if there's consensus at the talk page to put it back in, it goes back in. Suppose the sources are reliable. Suppose they report something that's also reported by other reliable sources. And suppose the Misplaced Pages editor accurately reports what's in the reliable sources. Then the info goes back in if there's consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's all self-reverted now, except for "The poor results exacerbated disagreements between Trump and Harrah's,<ref name=swartz>{{cite news|title=Holiday, Trump drafting terms to end rocky alliance over Atlantic City casino|newspaper=Wall Street Journal|author=Steve Swartz|date=November 11, 1985|url=http://search.proquest.com/nationalnewspremier/docview/397993833/CE0F988D5C424FD9PQ/156}} {{subscription required|via=ProQuest}}</ref>"Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess the only thing I have to say here is, thank you MelanieN. --NeilN 13:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you to Anythingyouwant for following along and describing where we are in the process, so that **I** don't have to. 0;-D If CFredkin is satisfied, I guess the immediate matter is resolved and the content will be hashed out on the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Per a discussion at my talk page, I may have been misinterpreting this situation. I was under the impression that if content is removed from a DS article, it can't be restored without consensus. In this case, User:CFredkin removed content, so I thought User:Volunteer Marek was wrong to restore it. But I have now had it explained to me that this applies only to recently added content. Removing longstanding content is itself an "edit" as DS defines it, and that "edit" (i.e., the removal) can be challenged as contentious by reverting it (i.e., restoring the longstanding material). The goal is to promote stability of the article, not to privilege "removal" type edits over "addition" edits. That makes sense. So VM, I apologize for telling you to self-revert; wiser admins have explained the rules to me and I now realize that your restoration of the material was not a violation. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC) ping CFredkin --NeilN 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, except it turns out the material CF removed wasn't long standing; it was recently added. You probably had no way to know that. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User: MelanieN and User:Anythingyouwant for digging in. The disputed content was indeed recently added (almost immediately prior to my edit). So I believe VM's edit would be considered a violation of DS's. Not only that, User: Volunteer Marek committed multiple BLP violations with unsourced content in the same edit, and personally attacked me when I made what I believe was a pretty civil request that he/she self-rv. My favorite part of the whole bit is this edit where he/she finaly self-rv's the content (including this sentence: "Trump sold the Plaza in 2013 and it closed in 2014." which had absolutely no source at all) with the following edit summary: "I'll self revert this, but it's ridiculous to call these sources unreliable, AND without this information the information doesn't make sense." Very nice.CFredkin (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The situation is greatly improved with recent edits. However there are still some inaccuracies based on existing sources. I should be able to address them with a couple of additional edits. I'm going to try to do that, but given VM's historical interactions with me and his/her commentary here I think there's a non-trivial possibility that will result in more contention. If/when that happens I'm planning to remove the remaining new content and it can be hashed out in Talk.CFredkin (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for showing that the material was recently added, CF. In that case, your removal was appropriate, and VM's restoration was inappropriate so it's good that it's been self-reverted. I don't know how anyone is supposed to know when a particular bit of information was added, in an article with so many edits every day, and yet that information is crucial in knowing whether an edit can be reverted or not. I have a suggestion for you, CF, to head off this kind of controversy in the future: in your edit summary, say "removing recently added material" along with your reason for removing it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that would be prudent. I'll try to be better about including that in the future. ThanksCFredkin (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, I'm not sure how your prudence lines up with you violating 1RR , , especially with two completely different rationales which don't jive with each other.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I noticed those reverts. CFredkin, not sure what you were thinking there. --NeilN 23:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the article isn't under discretionary sanctions.CFredkin (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Revdel needed at minimum

on Alexander Soros, for pretty much every IP contribution today. I don't see this as an oversight issue but some of this stuff is grossly disparaging. Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN 17:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup! Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Drama at the Trump talk page

Neil, can you please take a look at this edit of mine. Four times the other editor has falsely accused me of lying at this talk page, and I am getting really tired of it. User:MastCell has edited this article this summer, so I assume these accusations are in his capacity as an ordinary editor. What should I do?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

How about an interaction ban? I already try to avoid this editor as much as possible, but I don't want to run away from every article once he shows up. I've already completely stopped editing articles about Clarence Thomas for this reason.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Replied here and you'll need to propose an IB at ANI with a fairly comprehensive and convincing set of diffs. --NeilN 18:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess I need a refresher.

Could you please explain to me either here or my talk page about what constitutes vandalism. I seem to be getting conflicting advise from you and other administrators through the years and I don't want this to happen again. We have editors try to do this in tennis articles and it's always been vandalism. A case would be like if we suddenly see Novak Djokovic career statistics blanked and redirected to another article we revert it instantly. If it happens again we tag it as vandalism, report the guy, and revert him on sight. Never a problem and I deal with it off and on. What makes this Cryptid article different? I'm not talking about my last edit (which I was going to self-revert but it got protected)... I'm talking about the blanking of the entire contents. Why is it vandalism in some cases but not others? Does it just depend on the administrator? Is it the type of article? Is it different if it's a new editor rather than an old editor? It really is confusing when not just part of the content is removed, but all of it. I read the vandalism topic and it seemed to support me so I'm more confused now. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), please read WP:NOTVAND. "Although at times the following situations may be referred to as vandalism, they are not usually considered vandalism as such. However, each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether or not the actions violate Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines." Here, you have bold editing and what you probably consider "disruptive editing or stubbornness". The opening section of that policy page also has, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." So you need to ask yourself, was the editor's intent to deface the encyclopedia or to improve it by turning a questionable article (in their mind) into a redirect. There's plenty of evidence for the latter and none that I could find for the former. As for tennis articles, I would have to see a specific example before commenting on it. --NeilN 23:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me chew on this a bit. I can see it the first time but Good-faith is very iffy once reverted and told. And I might say that while there may not be evidence for the former, I see scant evidence for the latter either. And that's not even touching on his falsehoods about me personally and how that might factor into me determining good faith. I just wanted to know in general. Intent is quite subjective but I guess it's better to err on the side of "good-faith." Thanks, I'll think about this some more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:68.132.32.203

Fresh off the evasion block and repeating the same edits. Seems static-enough to block for longer if it hasn't been reassigned in the past week. --Izno (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

One month --NeilN 00:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		With gratitude for all your assistance. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Nothing like waking up to see a bunch of vandal edits to my talk page, thanks for locking that down! RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Coco977

I'm not sure what to do about this editor. Despite having been warned about this matter, he's been going around to many articles, unilaterally changing 'RoC' to 'Taiwan'. I've reverted his edits. He doesn't seem to understand that an RfC or series of RMs would need to be held to effect such a change, and seems to prefer change by fiat. RGloucester — ☎ 15:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Warned against that particular kind of edit. --NeilN 15:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

that 86... 214 IP

THANK YOU for blocking this dude! I think every contribution that IP has made today is going to need RevDel at a minimum and potentially more. Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Julietdeltalima I've revdelled the obvious ones. --NeilN 16:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

much obliged! thanks again! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

P V Sindhu

Hi Neil, P V Sindhu is a South Indian badminton player who is Telugu by ethnicity. Certain Ip addresses are giving her family as Jat which is a North Indian Aryan Surname. Kindly check these vandalism that is being done by these Ip Addresses. These Ip adresses are notorious for mentioning the same ethnicity at other articles possibly creating vandalism. Her place of Birth in the officially entered Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2014 is mentioned as Secunderabad, a division of Hyderabad located in Telangana Region, India. Mencherla is a wrong birth place without any source indication. Kindly look into the matter and take necessary action. --Chintu89 (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chintu89. Please post this on the article's talk page - Talk:P. V. Sindhu --NeilN 16:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Protection removed. It shall be restored. Thank you --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 17:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello iam not unnecessarily editing the page pv Sindhu one editor has edited i talked about it with that editor and he agreed now another editor is editing as his wish. secunderabad is nothing but it is known as Hyderabad if u hv doubts please check sec'bad wiki page Padukati (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Padukati. Please look at your talk page to see how you can add a reference to back up your claim. --NeilN 23:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

References

1. http://g2014results.thecgf.com/athlete/badminton/1014180/p_v_sindhu.html

WP:REVDEL

You there? — RainFall 03:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Eh! Someguy1221 did that already. — RainFall 03:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Concerning The "Pete Is A Wolf" Vandal

Would this edit be the final nail in demonstrating that the vandal's account of Petermiketaylor (talk · contribs) is clearly WP:nothere due to his insane obsession and extreme reluctance to prove it?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr Fink, I've indefinitely blocked. --NeilN 06:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Given as how he's now reverted back to his old behavior of IP-hopping, should we upgrade List of fictional wolves to semi-protection?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr Fink, I've put on a short semi and extended the PC. Let's see how that works. --NeilN 20:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Sindhu image

I see, thanks for your message. So this image (https://www.flickr.com/photos/146254539@N08/28452108543/in/photostream/) -- the license on flickr is nor not accurate? i see that there is a similar reuters image, so you are probably right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalek2point3 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dalek2point3: Correct. And I have my suspicions as to who the Flickr account belongs to. --NeilN 17:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

YouTube licensing

I felt it was better to continue the discussion here. I found the "Show more" button, and also found the YouTube] Terms Of Service. And from what I can see there the standard YouTube license does not allow making screenshots from videos and uploading elsewhere (start by reading section 8.1 of the TOS and then section 5.1). Because section 8.1A of the YouTube TOS says "to each user of the Service, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such Content to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Service" (my emphasis), section 5.1L says "you agree not to access Content for any reason other than your personal, non-commercial use solely as intended through and permitted by the normal functionality of the Service, and solely for Streaming", and section 5.1M says "You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content". And since YouTube doesnt have a button that takes a screenshot and uploads it to Wikimedia Commons, making a screenshot and uploading it to Commons violates the TOS. Any thoughts? - Tom | Thomas.W 19:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W, can we move the discussion here as it affects all CC-licensed content on Youtube? BTW, I know the Commons hosts complete Youtube videos. --NeilN 20:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I have already moved it there. - Tom | Thomas.W 20:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible harassment account

It looks like some has created a harassment account against TheBellaTwins1445. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/KaşarTheBellaTwins1445 was created today it looks like and has done nothing but revert TheBellaTwins1445's edits. If I'm not mistaken the name alone violates Misplaced Pages policy. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", you are correct sir. Blocked. --NeilN 23:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank god I'm not alone Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) thank you so much, actually do not even understand what was he doing, he don't even speak my language so I don't have any idea of that thank you really much.TheBellaTwins1445 00:18, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

Our Lady of the Angels School fire

Hello NeilN,

As you know, this article has had problems for years with IP editors trying to add the name of a (then) 10 year old boy who was a suspect in setting the fire but never charged or convicted. There are no reliable sources. You semi-protected it a little over a year ago, and the disruption started again as soon as it expired. Can you extend it? Thanks. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: 2 years semi with indefinite pending changes this time. --NeilN 23:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Brooks Institute

Hello NeilN Im new here and don't know if this is the correct place to responded to your requested information regarding users Themrmxyzptlk (talk) & 104.32.227.109 (talk). removing information on the 'Brooks Institute page. This user keeps removing a notable alumnus from the notable alumni section. Please advise how we can stop this user as our school is closing and we would like to keep the integrity of the school alumni. I apologize if I am adding this in the wrong section of your page, you can tell me where these request go in the future and I will follow your given directions. Sourced link from the school https://mfa.brooks.edu/studio-wall-project-the-third-effect-matt-revolter/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medarand1 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Medarand1. Regarding "High level of IP vandalism in the from of a IP/User that keeps constantly removing sourced information and hasn't stopped since last week." - First, removal of unsourced information about a living person is never vandalism. All challenged material needs to be re-added with a source. Second, following from the first point, the information had no source. I will place instructions on your talk page on how to add one. --NeilN 00:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

IPv6 socks of M Rob1119

Assuming this gets lost. New range is 2602:30A:2CF6:D169::/64 but looking at 2602:30A:2CF6::/48 seems like only M Rob1119 is in that higher range right now. You previously blocked 2602:30a:2cf6:afd9::/64 in same /48 rangeGeraldo Perez (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez /48 range blocked a month. --NeilN 02:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks for your help and perseverance within the past few days! Zero 10:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Revdel request

Last 3 edits on Sro23's talk page could probably use some revdel'ing. Dat Guy_Contribs 15:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Got the last one. --NeilN 15:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton

Thanks Tvoz/talk 03:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Johnsc1277

This "unblock request" was the final straw. I have made the block indefinite and revoked talk page access. Favonian (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Favonian: Inevitable, really. --NeilN 14:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

SPI on Harner COI SPAs?

Semi-ing the page has probably taken care of it, but it's a perennial issue. Wondering if there's a point to doing an SPI or checkuser on the named accounts, if nothing else to start a paper trail. Thoughts?

Recent accounts that have edited with the same promotional agenda and admitted COI:

• Loganscott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Spirittruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Bashamfour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

And older ones with same patterns (one an IP; there are other IPs lying around as well). The named account in particular, Anomazee, went through talk pages removing any critical discussion of the subject.

• 2601:9:2F00:417:3615:9EFF:FE2F:B454 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Anomazee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

- CorbieV ☼ 18:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi CorbieVreccan. The first two can be checkusered, the rest are too old. I'm wondering if the accounts are meatpuppets in the form of his students? --NeilN 20:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed on all but the first two being stale. Added them because of the pattern, which may prove more relevant in case they're smart enough to evade. The three most recent have all indicated they are editing on Harner's behalf (diffs on the COI notices I put on the Harner talk page and on their talk pages), with the most recent account, "Loganscott", seeming to imply that he is Harner, per the diff I left in the last warning. But as all have either discolosed editing on Harner's behalf, seemingly referred to themselves as Harner, or used the royal "we", I think it's fair to treat them as meats at best or, just as likely in most or not all of these, a sockdrawer. I realize now I should have just put this all at SPI, but I'm tired and not braining that well today.

More diffs, old WP:Nothere SPAs to more recent:

• Anomazee COI declared as they removed all criticism of Harner from talk pages here: "We are researching the source of this somewhat persistent falsehood"
• Bashamfour COI declared here: "I am an independent consultant for the Foundation for Shamanic Studies and Michael Harner. My consulting services, for which I am compensated..."
• Spirittruth COI declared here: "I have replaced Michael Harner as President of the Foundation for Shamanic Studies and am in touch with him. We wish to set the record straight about his career"
• Loganscott COI declared in their edit summary here: "(Changes made by Michael Harner)"

- CorbieV ☼ 22:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

No Edit Warring Violation?

No violation on Nazi Gun Control Theory article? How so? My edits have been removed, again, for no good reason except the editors' bias against the theory that the page is supposed to be about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.20.133 (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell has two reverts. You have three. Neither of you have broken WP:3RR but you are closer. And posting to your talk page likely won't attract anyone's attention. Suggest you post to the article's talk page. --NeilN 19:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but edit warring is "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". It is my contributions that have been overridden, not Grayfell's. I did not override anyone's contributions. I contributed several hours worth of carefully cited neutral-point-of-view material. My contributions have been deleted/censored without any just cause. Now a Misplaced Pages administrator is accusing me of almost starting an edit war? I insist that my edits be restored immediately unless they violate the rules of editing wikipedia, and if they do violate those rules, then please explain which rules were violated and please also remove all of the non-neutral opinions of the opponents of Nazi Gun Control Theory, such as the claims that Nazi Gun Control Theory is "preposterous" and "counterfactual history" that appear in the opening paragraphs of the article, if the opinions of the proponents of Nazi Gun Control theory cannot also be communicated alongside the views of the opponents of the theory. Grayfell is violating the wikipedia policy of neutral point of view by only allowing the perspective of the opponents of the theory that the page is about to be posted on the page, and by preventing the views of the proponents of the theory from explaining what the theory theorizes somewhere in the article about the theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.20.133 (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Your contributions changed other editors' text. Revert 1. You then reverted twice to your preferred version. Reverts 2 and 3. --NeilN 20:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This editor is continuing where user Tempus Loquendi left off (although that editor's 3RR block already expired). Before that, 184.155.110.2, from somewhere else, was making similar edits, with multiple editors reverting. I'm just the one who got reported and vandalized, lucky me. Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

User IP address 24.119.20.133 has also accused me of edit warring for the Nazi Gun Control article on my talk page. this is the response I gave to him:

"I am certainly not edit warring, but you may be. I simply removed your overly-aggressive, non-NPOV, unsupported edit. I see user Greyfell has also had to revert your edits--twice. Please DO edit the page, but you must first take such an aggressive position to talk, AND you must provide in-line references for your claims that come from legitimate source (e.g., not blogs).99.242.108.55 (talk)"

I think if user IP address 24.119.20.133 takes it to talk, this can be resolved.99.242.108.55 (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the most recent attempt to resolve the edit war that has been waged against me without just cause, NeilN. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Nazi_gun_control_theory&diff=735598532&oldid=735598160 I encourage you to join the conversation and act as a mediator. Please come demonstrate you adherence to the Misplaced Pages principles of neutrality and the free flow of verifiable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.20.133 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Your insistence on having this conversation in two places is becoming disruptive. No admin is going to make content decisions for an article they've made admin decisions on.--NeilN 21:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Colorful language

In case you missed it, the Trump talk page now includes an assertion that this BLP is "sending out racist remarks to those who are predisposed for that and longing to hear illiberal, autocratic tones from their 'Führer'".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. How hard is it to understand that you can't spout your personal opinions, especially if you're casting aspersions, on a BLP talk page? --NeilN 03:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. David Brinkley once said "Everyone is entitled to my opinion". It's a common sentiment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi protect request

Can you semi protect WWE Universal Championship please IPs are running rampant on it and it's getting out of hand.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Two days. --NeilN 03:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, maybe they will give up by then lol Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Toni aureada

Hi NeilN. I saw you blocked Biofrance per WP:NOTHERE. Just for reference, there is a Toniaureada who has a draft about Toni aureada in her sandbox. Both accounts have edited similar articles and there is also some similarity in the kind of posts they make on user talk pages. Do you think this is a WP:DUCK? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. At the very least they're meat puppets, having worked on the same hoax articles. Blocked indef. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN 14:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I only stumbled accross them because of some problematic files one of the accounts had uploaded to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Range block

Hi, looking at the range block report I see you recently blocked the 51.171.156.0/23 range. If you look at the history at Sean Dyche, there have been multiple IPs in this range making unconstructive edits. As I know next to nothing about range blocks, could you take a look at this and act accordingly? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Mattythewhite, reblocked range for one month. Hopefully they'll move on. --NeilN 21:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Arb comments

Thanks for listing the edits you made to MH's talk page. Upon closer inspection it appears you were just trying to help resolve the issue. I'm sorry my comments came across as accusative - it was not my intention. This case is very frustrating to me, and I hope no one comes out of it with a lessened outlook wrt contributing to Misplaced Pages. I was and am still worried that people could target admins they don't like, but I will have to try to trust arb com to see through attempts to game the system and do the right thing. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Mr Ernie and yes, as arbcom is not bound by community consensus for these types of decisions they can cut through the bullcrap, so to speak. I do think these types of cases are valid; if they weren't, we might as well remove WP:ADMINCOND. --NeilN 21:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Ahmadsw

Thanks for dealing with the Ahmadsw socks earlier. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Basically a VOA

New user Pittman440 is basically a VOA but not obvious enough yet to report to AIV. Can you take a look and if you agree, block as appropriate? He has only edited on the article John Newton (the guy who wrote "Amazing Grace"), putting in blatantly false and blatantly racially charged text: , . Previously (today) edited as an IP, making those same edits: . . Has been warned twice, once by me on user-talk , once by another editor on article-talk . Can you deal with this? I don't currently feel like taking it to ANI since it's pretty new and ANI is a hassle. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender:, Pittman440 is edit warring (gave them a warning) and adding unsourced information and possibly POV editing but I can't call them a VOA. I'm not familiar with the subject so I can't call their additions blatantly false, especially when I did some research and came across this So what they're adding might be plausible. If they continue to revert, let me know and perhaps add a quick note to the talk page. --NeilN 14:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Newton was a slaver for many years, and even remained one for two years after his initial religious conversion. That's all already fully documented in the wiki article. That's not what the user was adding. Thank you for adding the edit-warring notice to his talk page; since he's already received three notices I don't think he needs any more, and I'll let you know if he persists. Softlavender (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm...

Just going to leave this here, since you seem to be the last active admin on EW3. From the looks of it, this admin is fairly evidently engaged in an edit war. May want to police up your boy. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

John's a reasonable and approachable editor. I usually drop a "Please be careful of WP:3RR" note in these cases. --NeilN 19:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

To be clear "police up" means essentially "pick up after" or "watch out for". TimothyJosephWood 19:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Request

@Ritchie333: Please stop accusing me of things I've never done ("censor criticism of the block", "harass John") when you refuse to allow a polite, measured response. --NeilN 22:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Another Favor to Ask

You don't suppose I could ask your help in getting another one of favorite targets of the vandal behind blocked user Petermiketaylor, List of Ice Age characters, semiprotected to keep him from editing to keep his original research nonsense out of that page?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr Fink, one year semi as the article just came off a six month semi. And the dinosaur guy and the wolf guy are the same person? Seriously? --NeilN 01:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he is. The whining comments made in response to people reverting his original research identifications in the Ice Age characters page are identical to the whining comments he's made edit-warring at fictional wolves, fictional cats, Disney's Pete, and I believe at some of the Walking With Dinosaur pages.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm --NeilN 03:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm--Mr Fink (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:John

In your opinion, is there any difference between the huge removals of content by the above editor on the Citroën 2CV article, and the content that I removed, that resulted in large amounts of people screaming for sanctions against me, in ANI? I'm hoping that he doesn't get a free pass because he's an admin. (it made me laugh a little to see that he was an admin, based on his conduct and attitude, I guess that I would be suitable for adminship as well.) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Either way, I've reported him for edit warring. From past experiences, in which I've reported editors who know the right people, and have been here a long time, I'm not exactly hopeful of this being dealt with fairly, but I can live in hope. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, FWIW, I would have closed the report in the same way, as it's the same situation as this. The "being an admin" aspect should not be addressed at WP:ANEW as we can't really place WP:ADMINCOND blocks there. Not sure what's in the water right now but Arbcom is already looking at one admin conduct case and accepted a second. Don't know if they have an appetite for a third if that's where you're headed. --NeilN 15:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be a bit hasty based on the brief interaction that I had with him. Perhaps he is awesome 99% of the time, and I was unlucky to be there for the 1%. I guess I was a little disappointed to see an admin acting in the same manner that had admins/editors screaming for sanctions against me. But, is it worth following up? No. I'm sure if he is really acting in an unsuitable manner for an admin, someone more connected, and less confrontational than me, will notice it and deal with it. Oh. Thanks for the reply. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Need assistance, many mistakes...

So, I've been working on a draft to supersede a non-existent article that existed only as a redirect. It didn't work out at all for me. I thought it may be due to the redirect so I move the redirect away from the original space to User:Mr rnddude/Research/Battle of Histria 2, it's empty content because it only existed as a redirect. I then tried to move my draft again but it still wouldn't let me. I then moved my draft from my user space to draft space; Draft:Battle of Histria, and then from there tried to move it to article space, and still no. So, rather than play around with this any further I've come to you. Things that may need doing, well delete User:Mr rnddude/Research/Battle of Histria 2 and the redirect of User:Mr rnddude/Research/Battle of Histria, then move the draft into mainspace... if that is possible. The draft is Draft:Battle of Histria. Sorry for the wrecking ball attempt at a move there... mea cupla shouldn't have tried to invent a solution where one is unavailable. I also checked RM, I'm not sure they deal with RM's for userpages to mainspace. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

To remove cross-namespace redirects (one should never move or redirect article titles to anything but article-space), use the WP:R2 tag {{Db-r2}}, and the redirect will be speedily deleted. That will allow the draft to be moved to article space. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Softlavender, wilco and a good lesson for the future. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, you put the tag on the wrong page; it needs to go here. Then put that page on your watchlist, and when it gets deleted, you can move your draft there. Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I, didn't even realize that's where it went. Wilco, again. And thanks for helping me out here Softlavender, this was a far bigger mess than was needed. Should have tried to have it deleted first, I completely forgot that moving a page leaves a redirect from the old one. Absolute potato. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

To repeat, don't ever move an article title to anything but another article title. You should never have moved it to your own userspace. Softlavender (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to create a solution to a problem without thinking it through. Won't happen again. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the deletions NeilN, much obliged, I have moved my draft to mainspace. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, yes I edit conflicted with you on the move :-) I've deleted the draft redirect. --NeilN 11:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, hopefully next time I'm here it'll be for something more intelligent. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest

Doc's just started up this contest about topics and articles covering Classical Hollywood cinema. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks.  — Ssven2 10:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Balochistan conflict

Hi Neil, an IP hopper has been edit-warring at Balochistan conflict again 82.132.243.133, 82.132.185.169. Looks suspiciously like Nangparbat. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, one year semi-protect to stop that nonsense. --NeilN 01:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The Lorax

Can you please set Pending changes or semi-protection on this article, however you see fit? Normally, I'd take this to RFPP, but it involes the same user that you just recently blocked. Thanks. 2607:FB90:A483:DB2D:0:49:E14C:7201 (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's okay for now but I'll keep an eye on it. --NeilN 02:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you have a look........

Could you have a look at and tell me if I'm wrong when I think this is a dirty sock of BB. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", too soon to tell if it's a good hand account. --NeilN 14:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Salt request comment at RPP

Howdy, Neil. I saw your comment at the RPP board about Blue Magic Records . It's actually been created five times, twice under Blue Magic Records and three times under Blue Magic Reocords. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@GigglesnortHotel: Derp, I actually protected the misspelling and then got distracted by something else. Protected Blue Magic Records now. Thanks for checking in. --NeilN 15:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! GigglesnortHotel (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism report (Alt-right page)

Alt-right

• Alt-right (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Full protection: Mass defacing raid imminent

A white supremacist group from 4chan plans to make various changes to the alt right page in the near future if they have not already. They are doing this because they believe that after Hillary Clinton makes a speech, people will search this page up. They want to spread as much misinformation as possible to show them in a positive light despite whether the information they add is truthful or not. I cannot add a link or a picture to prove it, I am new and it is not allowing me to do this for reasons unknown to me. The raid is originating on 4chan, which is blacklisted, so I cannot link that page. I tried posting a screen cap as well, but it would not let me and gave me error messages I don't understand.

"Do any of you guys have a wikipedia account that has made over 10 edits on wikipedia? We need to deface the Alt-Right wikipedia page immediately after Hillary's speech but it's semi-protected. https://en.wikipedia.org/Alt-right"

This the OP of the thread made on 4chan, you should be able to find the thread if you google this exact quote. The thread will be archived for a day or so after it expires. A word of warning though, this website has NSFW content that may be disturbing to some viewers, view at your own risk.

I advise that this page be protected to save trouble and time. I would be obliged to post a picture and a link if I were instructed how to do so without being denied access.

Thank you,

BlackusN (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @BlackusN: 4chan is a baddie, but according to the protection policy, the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection. Dat Guy_Contribs 16:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

BlackusN, DatGuy is correct (see WP:NO-PREEMPT). However if disruption you describe starts happening then I think extended confirmed protection would do the job well. --NeilN 17:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

BusriderSF2015

User has been unformally warned about personal attacks and adding unsourced info, I did unformal as I thought it was just a simple misunderstanding but I got response, I responded with which caused me to remove part of my own comment that I corrected , which got response. I left it at that and thought nothing more about it as clearly this talk was pointless until these edits removing content for no reason "note his comment for removal instead of a valid reason and note it has since been pointed out it was doubled on the page and removed by another user with the reason" and tonight reverting another editors Grammer correction which should not have been done. I was going to issue a formal warning this time but I think it is ill advised after the last time I tried to talk to them. I have a feeling this is going to turn out bad in some form, Suggestions?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarMachineWildThing (talk • contribs) 03:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Dropped a note here. --NeilN 03:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note:: Looks like you got the same I did from Bus, welcome to the flamer club =) Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 09:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", he's been warned so... --NeilN 12:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

IP section

Thanks can you block IP please they are vandalising articles and keep reverting me after I fix them.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Please look at the WWE Universal Championship's talk page before you blindly block me for being an IP. It will quickly become apparent that WarMachineWildThing is the WP:OWN-driven vandal, nobody else. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not blocking anyone yet. Neither of you are vandals and both of you are edit warring. The key question to ask is if a person unfamiliar with the subject could be looking for articles listed in the hatnote. You may want to ask this question at a centralized project page. --NeilN 03:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus was reached in Wrestling Project for that info. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", then it would be really helpful if you linked to that discussion. --NeilN 04:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Working on it that's why I'm trying to get ahold of other editors in the Wrestling Project. It was decided before I got here Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Edit war between 185.54.163.137 and WarMachineWildThing on World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) vand and own claims. Jim1138 (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Jim1138, I agree, yes, see my second post in this section. NeilN 04:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No evidence of any consensus claimed by WarMachineWildThing. Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling history scoured; nothing found. WarMachineWildThing is simply reverting valid edits as part of a WP:OWN agenda. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 and Crash Underride can prove this IP is vandalizing and it not an edit war, They would know where the consensus is. IP is now following me on here to user pages harassing me. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I'm defending myself against your appalling accusations. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", editing against consensus is not vandalizing. And, as you are trying to characterize them as a vandal, it is natural they watch your edits. I think you would do the same if your positions were reversed. --NeilN 04:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Both of you, is Misplaced Pages going to break because the hatnotes of a few articles aren't perfect? If not, I suggest you grab your favorite beverage, relax, step back, and let other editors weigh in during the next day. --NeilN 04:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable, but not all of us have a life outside of the internet. There's a lot hinging on this, and I'm not being in any way facetious. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

All right, why is there a lot hinging on this? --NeilN 04:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I won't make this therapy hour. All I'll say is I can't back down now. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have never edit warred, I have never vandalized, I have followed everything to the letter and came to you when I wasn't sure. This IP has been reverted by me, another user and has been told there is a consensus by another user for that to be on those articles. If you honestly think NeilN that I am not being truthful with my Editting history then you block me. I can't find the consensus in the Wrestling Project, I have reached out to other editors that would know about it and where it is. I know it was reached before I was here. You do what you need to do. Clearly by comment after they were told there is a consensus I see what this is about, so if you truly feeling I edit warred or OWNED then block me.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", you know I think you're a good editor. But I don't think you can say "I have never edit warred". No experienced editor can. Heck, as I've reverted multiple times on more than one occasion I could be seen as a serial offender. I have blocked the IP not for vandalism but for making statements like the one above and continuing to revert. --NeilN 04:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have never warred Neil after 2 reverts I have come to you for your advise and to see if I am wrong, I wasn't wrong this time and I know the consensus exists. I have been made out to be a liar and accused of OWN and edit warring and I am not a liar or a vandal or an OWNER, so with that said just block me because this when thing has now destroyed the credibility that I gave worked to earn for 6 months, that IP did that shit on purpose and their comment proved it. I reverted a similar edit on one of the title pages earlier by an editor who gave the same reasoning and I wish I could remember which one. This was done on purpose. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", okay now I understand why you're upset. First, it was the IP who was making ownership and vandalism accusations, not anyone else. I think you can ignore those. Second, and most important, edit warring does not mean you broke WP:3RR. Edit warring is just a series of back-and-forth reverts. If an editor reverts a couple times, and their reverts are not covered by WP:3RRNO, then they are edit warring. Almost everyone gets into that situation once in a while. --NeilN 05:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Then block me Neil, I did what I knew was right. I have been involved with 3 damn ANI over OWN behavior why the hell would I do it? I wouldn't and didn't. My credibility has been destroyed and I know somewhere that damn consensus exists. Doesn't matter anymore, I was setup period and it worked, nothing I say or do will will ever be trusted again. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", why would I block you for doing what almost everyone else has done? Nothing has been destroyed. If you continue on editing as you have been, you'll find nothing has changed and your fellow editors will treat you the same. You might attract a few more trolls because of posting here, but ignore them. --NeilN 05:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Won't be attracting anything as I will not be editing. I'm not a liar and I can't prove it because I can't find the proof.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", I know you're not a liar. Anyone who counts knows you're not a liar. --NeilN 05:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note:: I appreciate what you said Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 09:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have users pissed at me because of the havoc that IP caused on their user pages when I went to see if they knew where that consensus was. 6 damn months down the drain, he was vandalizing those pages by removing that information that had a consensus and I stand by that, I've never even had a damn warning missed to me in 6 months and over 1000 edits and now because of all of this I am now made to be the very things I have fought against. I was set up and it worked. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

is the other IP it started with that I had reverted and told not to remove before this second IP started, I knew there were 2. I was set up, the comments on both IPs removals are exactly the same. It was done on purpose to get it to look like I was the problem and was in the wrong, when I wasn't. is where another user they targeted reverted the first IP too for those removals, the same user who agreed about the consensus on the talk page, and same user they made the comment too about us ganging on IPs before you banned them, this was all a set up. There is the proof, same person 2 IPs that one back in knew about The Wrestling Project, that info on those articles had been there before that. The second IP never made an edit until they targeted me. Their flipping socks of someone setting me up I knew it Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sri Chinmoy page: 'Controversy section' - response to your points and a question for you - thanks.

Hi there NeilN, thanks for your note on the Talk page of the Sri Chinmoy article about Wikipedias policy about not segregating off information into a 'controversial' type section. I would like to ask about Wikipedias policy or opinion about non biographical opinion or claims about a person in the biography section of an article? Please as you are a Misplaced Pages administrator could you give an opinion/advice on the second half of the paragraph on the Sri Chinmoy page in the biography section that starts after reference (53)with the sentence 'In 2009 Jayanti Tamm published....perceptions'. I feel the information there although cited is not actually about Sri Chinmoy's life and not appropriately placed for a biography section. Any suggestions would be very welcome and thank you in advance. I also asked softlavender the same question but would very much appreciate hearing from an administrator. Thank you.Spinach444 (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sock blocked by Bbb23. --NeilN 12:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Formal warning

Per ,may I change them now since I discussed it on the talk page and there is no response for a week?--Coco977 (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Coco977, do you think proposing a change for a wide range of articles by making one post to one lightly watched article is sufficient? Of course not. Find an appropriate centralized location and hold a RFC. RGloucester, any suggestions? Or is this duplicating an already existing discussion? --NeilN 12:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought we are suppose to discuss it locally before opening an Rfc(Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment#Before_starting_the_process). By the way, it is clear that the consensus is using "Taiwan" for the election articles in the previous RFC, and there are no new discussion for a week, could you help closing it?--Coco977 (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal does not affect one article, it affects many articles. Therefore a local discussion is inadequate. And there's no need to close the RFC early. Another admin can close it when they feel it's appropriate. --NeilN 12:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Alulim

Just to let you know that the IP you were reverting here was a sock of blocked editor Til Eulenspiegel. Doug Weller talk 11:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks, will keep an eye out. --NeilN 12:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A little harsh?

Don't you think you might have bit a newcomer on the block of 2602:306:CF43:9850:227C:8FFF:FEE8:B16C? After all, he only had one warning and it was from cluebot. I may not have seen something you did, but is a block really needed after 1 level 1 template? Joel.Miles925 (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Joel.Miles925: There is some OS stuff but, according to this edit summary they probably warranted the block. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'm curious, Joel. How did you run across this block of some random IP from a month ago? The IP hadn't edited since then, but did edit 11 minutes after you posted this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious, so I'll ping. User:Joel.Miles925. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Floquenbeam Are you sure the timestamps weren't wrong? I posted this after I saw his edit come through the abuselog and noticed the block after one warning. That is definitely strange though... Joel.Miles925 (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is the correct answer. Strikes me as odd to see a random edit in the abuse filter (which was obviously vandalism) at 18:00 (which did not make it onto the page), decide to investigate that IP further, notice there was vandalism in July and a block after the second edit, see how many warnings they received, see who made the block, but not bothering to see what the edit was that caused the block, and then post a question 3 minutes later at 18:03 asking why the block was made. But I suppose stranger things have happened. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes well, the point is moot since they now have a one month block after receiving a warning on their talk page here. Note; whatever they did at Jeff Roland has now been revdeled. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

They did trip filter 680 a few times before managing to edit some other pages. clpo13_(talk) 18:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

All I know is that wikipedia timestamps can be very strange sometimes, and that even cluebot sometimes misses warning editors like this one.

Also, User:Floquenbeam, as Mr rnddude said, that edit has since been revdeled so I had no way of knowing what that edit was. Cheers! Joel.Miles925 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Joel.Miles925, if a human had caught the edit instead of Cluebot, the IP would have gotten an only warning. Continuing to edit the BLP, and probably continuing the unacceptable editing, got them blocked. --NeilN 21:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Why attack users like User:Foleo and User talk:Kasif the great? You will be reported if not clarified the justification for this decision

Why attack users like User:Foleo and User talk:Kasif the great? You will be reported if not clarified the justification for this decision — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:1380:1000:6E00:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

See each editors' block log for the reasons. , Not sure why you're posting here. --NeilN 00:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Although thank you for drawing attention to your edit warring (blocked for that) and an article in need of ECP. --NeilN 00:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

D'OH! ;) _Muffled 15:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You are kidding right? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 00:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I strike my previous question as clearly they were dead serious and did not know of what they do. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 00:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

-- Dane2007 11:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN 11:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hakim Ziyech page protection

Hi there. Would you be able to give page protection to Hakim Ziyech? It has seen persistent IP vandalism for months, if not years. Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Widr protected for a week. --NeilN 04:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Adressing the page Nikola Kuga

Hi NeilN, yesterday i sent a page protection application because i tought the orphan thing on top of the page was vandalism. After reading everything, i saw that i was mistaken. Afterwards, you sent me a message that the page could be deleted because i was talking about myself, which i was not. I was talking about a professional basketball player that i personally look up to, and i had the sources to write a page about him. So what i am asking you now is, will the page get deleted or will it stay in its place? Impuls20 (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Impuls20, what did you mean when you wrote, "the page that is very important to me and my career"? As to deletion, does the subject meet this criteria: Misplaced Pages:Notability_(sports)#Basketball? If so, the page most likely won't be deleted. --NeilN 13:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, When i wrote "the page is very important to me and my career" i meant that it is very important for me to have experience with Misplaced Pages and so that my boss knows that i have knowledge with Misplaced Pages. It is very complicated, but if you wish to know more, you can contact me via my e-mail adress. Nikola Kuga also fits the criterium. Impuls20 (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Impuls20, I recommend you read WP:COI and WP:PAID and see if they apply to you. --NeilN 23:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump request for close

Hi Neil. Are you willing to assess whether there's consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements or if not find another experienced editor who is? I thought of you since you've been playing admin on that page from time to time. (But perhaps not editing, so maybe uninvolved?) I added an entry at WP:ANRFC but noticed that there's a huge backlog there. It would be nice to get some closure on this matter before the November election, ha. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I don't think me handing out blocks and bans and dictating content by closing such an evenly split RFC (it could go either way) would be a good idea. Perhaps you could entice Bishonen (although I'd like to see Bishzilla doing the close) or Euryalus? --NeilN 19:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, will do, and thanks for the recs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Happy to do this in next day or so unless anyone beats me to it, though a Bishzilla close would be both messier and more satisfying. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman and User:Euryalus, I hate to be the skunk at the garden party, but a close at this point would be very premature, IMO. The RFC was only started four days ago, and there continues to be active discussion and interest. I think this one should remain open at least for the default duration of 30 days. I for one just got back from a five-day vacation of hiking, biking, and swimming in Maine (yippee!), and so have not had time yet to fully participate in the RFC beyond objecting to having footnotes put into the lead (I still have no idea if Dr. Fleischman is willing to forgo footnotes in the lead). Moreover, depending on what I find, it may be useful to more-widely publicize this RFC, given the extraordinary nature of the proposed edit to the lead of this very high-profile BLP (i.e. "Many of his statements...have been...false"). Incidentally, this RFC is about the lead, whereas a separate talk page section is discussing a draft section of the article on the same subject, and I regret that the discussion about the lead could not await the outcome of the discussion about the article body (which the lead is supposed to summarize), but I guess that's the way it is, and I am willing to fully address both matters simultaneously and independently. But could User:DrFleischman at least "please clarify the proposed sources in the RFC statement" as I have already requested, so that readers can understand what the proposed sources are beyond the two that are acknowledged to be insufficient?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: You are correct, I didn't check the opening date when I posted the above (though of course I would have done so before proceeding to an actual close). The RfC should absolutely remain open for the traditional period, unless an overwhelming consensus develops before that time. Please hold over my volunteering offer to the appropriate date in September. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Whoops neither did I. I've seen it pop up on my watchlist so frequently that it seemed the RFC was running for a lot longer than it has been. --NeilN 01:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys, I didn't realize there was a traditional period. What is that period? I saw the discussion slow down, with the only remaining discussion being mostly bickering among editors who had already cast their !votes, though I see there are a couple of new !votes today. Personally I think the consensus is fairly clear at this point. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, thirty days for a RFC is traditional. --NeilN 00:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman, if you are unfamiliar with basic rules around here about RFCs (and about canvassing), then I'd suggest you be more hesitant to accuse others of gaming the system, score-settling, and the like. I take offense at these unsubstantiated accusations, and I get the feeling that you want to use them to build some kind of case. Please don't. I'd like to work with you cooperatively.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the canard about me canvassing MastCell. There is a difference between a substantiated accusation and an unsubstantiated accusation. I think most admins are familiar with that concept. As for building a case, I have no interest in doing so at this time, but I do hope to see you put a little more effort into improving the encyclopedia instead of scheming against your perceived opponents. If calling you out on your shenanigans helps that cause, then sobeit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your personal attacks against me started on August 9 when you said (falsely) that I hijacked a thread and was headed toward a topic ban. And it's been pretty much non-stop since then. I don't believe for a minute that you're unaware of WP:NPA (or unaware about the standard procedures regarding RFCs and canvassing). Go ahead and have the last word if you like, or perhaps User:MastCell would like to do the honors.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You're going to have a hard time convincing your fellow editors that there's a personal attack in there. Please don't go down that path. You and I can still work together collaboratively. I just wish you'd stop with the empty threats and demonstrate a little more good faith. Neil, let us know if you'd like us to move this discussion elsewhere. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Duplicates: Section 5 of Presidency of Barack Obama and Section 4 of Barack Obama

You were the first to oppose my merge request. And indeed, a complete merger would be in conflict with the articles of the former presidents as they also have these "Presidency"-articles. But there is better separation. Compare Presidency of Barack Obama#Policies (71 kB) and Barack Obama#Presidency (since 2009) (109 kB): They are duplicates. --Fb8cont (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fb8cont. The answer is to judiciously trim and condense content in the main article. --NeilN 19:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Lucas Pérez

Do you think it's time for another protection to this article? Cheers. MeowMoon (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi MeowMoon. Semied for one week. --NeilN 19:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Saint Petersburg

Hi, I was surprised to see your closure here because the issue hasn't been resolved. Did you mean to just kick it to SPI, or did you not see my comment, or ...? This is an exceptional case of a crazy person edit-warring exceptionally crazy stuff into Misplaced Pages for at least six years. My favorite is "The redshiftedness of the Mongoloids and the blueshiftedness of the Jews imply that they are the broad Epimethean and narrow Promethean parts of the same funnel-shaped gravity well". The range blocks have expired and need to be renewed. An SPI can linger for weeks until receives attention. If you'd rather not deal with the issue in the ANI thread, would you please reopen it? Manul ~ talk 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Manul, I thought I had dealt with it by blocking the current IP. It seems you are asking for a long term rangeblock of 91.122.0.0/22. You might want to approach HJ Mitchell directly and see if he thinks the collateral damage is acceptable. --NeilN 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Passing the issue to HJ is fine, but in that case the close should say something to the effect of, "Contacting HJ for renewing the two expired range blocks," and then he should be contacted. I spent some time gathering those links because I'm trying to help Misplaced Pages deal with this long-lasting problem. It doesn't help to close the thread and ignore it. Manul ~ talk 22:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Good Articles, something odd going on

I found this morning that a new editor of about a month with 1,000 edits and no known GA contributions is trying to tackle 11 GA reviews simultaneously. I believe that they have only ever made a single GA nomination that quick-failed after being reviewed by Miyagawa here and which they hadn't actually contributed to. Of note the editor themselves acknowledges that they are new to Misplaced Pages. Rather importantly, they have completed a single GA review on the 2nd of August here (which they passed) which would have failed had I, for example, done the reviewing for lack of citations, just skim the article, Tycho Brahe and tell me it's GA worthy with at least four whole paragraphs that aren't attributed to any source. It's an article that could and should be GA, but, one that is far from it even with the 103 current citations. Not to mention, possible copyright violation here (I reckon its a false flag based on the source and wayback machine) but the editor didn't even comment on it when doing the review. I'm not sure how to proceed here, I want to assume good faith, but, the editor may need to attempt mentorship and be wary of taking on anything GA related until they have at a minimum one GA themselves. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr rnddude. Step 1: Talk to the editor, outline your concerns (which I share), and ask them to withdraw from reviewing GAs until they have more experience writing GAs (or at least limit themselves to reviewing one GA with a mentor). Step 2: If that fails, take your concerns to Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations to get community input and consensus. Step 3: Initiate a GA reassessment of Tycho Brahe. It's mostly well written but I could easily spot content that needed inline cites. --NeilN 22:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, I came to your first on account that two of the GA reviews that they have taken on-board to review are my own nominations. Hence, I consider myself an involved party. I'll start up a discussion on their page and request that they withdraw from the reviews. Which, I need to ask a second question, how precisely does one close a review without action that wouldn't automatically delist the nomination? or would they need to be resubmitted for review. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, the second paragraph of Misplaced Pages:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_4:_What_to_do_during_a_review has instructions on what to do if a new reviewer is needed. --NeilN 22:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, I'd never needed it so hadn't even noticed it was there, I'm currently drafting up a comment for the Emir to look at on their talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, Neil, assuming that the reviewer withdraws (or is not capable of reviewing), it's actually cleaner, if the GA review page has been opened but the review hasn't been started, to put in a speedy delete request on that review page. We also do it when review pages have been opened but abandoned before the review was started. (Once the page is deleted, we then adjust the GA nominee template on the article talk page so its status is empty and remove the transclusion of the just-deleted review page.) This is not the first time a very new user has either nominated a huge number of articles at once (easier to explain to them and then to revert the nominations) or opened reviews on a huge number of articles. If it's a bunch opened without initial reviews, it's actually easier to deal with. Usually, however, you have a user who quickly fails or passes a handful before we realize what's been done, which is harder to unwind, but when the review clearly isn't competent, we just undo them and put the nominations back into the reviewing pool, since we discover it within the day. In the case of Tycho Brahe, since it's nearly four weeks ago, I'd like to suggest that an individual reassessment be done: there are already twenty-odd community reassessments mostly just sitting there, and an individual reassessment can be done in a far more timely manner. Let me know if you have any questions, or if I can help with this batch of review pages. Incidentally, if the review has been started in any significant way—if there are useful suggestions—then the page should probably not be deleted; rather, the changing of the page number and the rest is the way to go. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, thank you for the pointers! --NeilN 03:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, you're most welcome. I noticed that Emir of Misplaced Pages withdrew from six of the ten new reviews earlier; I've just tagged them with speedy deletion templates. Since you're an admin, I believe you could delete them right now if you wanted to. The six are:

• Talk:Flag of Southern Rhodesia/GA1‎
• Talk:Sigismund Báthory/GA1‎
• Talk:Bohemond III of Antioch/GA1‎
• Talk:Przemysł II/GA1
• Talk:Caracalla/GA1
• Talk:Martin Gilliat/GA1

Thank you very much, if you see these before some other admin does. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for doing the deletions so quickly, NeilN. I've adjusted the six article talk pages so all the nominations are ready to proceed again using page=1. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Neil, odd and off-topic question not worth making a new section for, so I was just looking at my edit counter and noticed something odd. I have a single admin action of protecting a page, out of curiosity, which page have I supposedly put under protection (can this be checked)? and what a strange thing for me to have done. I picked Lugnuts at random, who has 500k edits, and note that they have not performed a single admin action ever, so I find it odd that I, with 2.6k edits, somehow have. I also looked at yours, and geez have you made some admin actions, about 9,000 total with 4.5k blocks. Sorry for the random question, but, if it's not a false flag and I am actually being attributed as having protected a page, probably best to either revert me or re-attribute it to the appropriate party. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(watching) You are one of the chose ones! You can see the entry in the protection log here. When you move a page, the protection gets carried over and it gets recorded in the log against your name, that's what happened here. If it's any consolation, non admins are deleting pages as well, be glad you didn't do that! - NQ (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Bahaha, that is hilarious, well, at least it's not because I did something stupid and that actually needs reverting. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, NQ. --NeilN 02:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In the 450 days you've been an admin, you've topped the charts with over 2500 page protections. MusikAnimal comes second with just half of that. I'm sure someone, somewhere, quite possibly, is thankful for your shoddy admin work as well. - NQ (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

NQ, that's... kind of crazy considering I was away from mid-December to the first week of June. --NeilN 03:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Presuming that you weren't here for 6 months * 30days = 180 days out of your total 450 days as an admin. Thus, leaving 270 active admin days. That you have 4500 total blocks as an admin. Just blocking alone you're blocking ~17 people a day. Do you do anything besides enact blocks, protect pages, and delete pages while you're active? Also presuming I've done all the math here right as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, participate in noticeboard discussions and RFCs, look at recent changes in articles on my watchlist, help other editors, and actually read articles :-) --NeilN 08:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Electricbassguy IPsocks/blockevade

Pretty sure these two are socks considering their edits to the master's page. Special:Contributions/2600:1:8A7C:1FBB:4506:8D58:535C:6023 & Special:Contributions/2600:1:8A5D:B464:E591:73BB:9D0B:AB1E. Posting here because you appear to be online, recently (21 August) blocked some of his evading-IPs, and per "not feeding trolls"/RBI. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

AddWittyNameHere, I enacted a short rangeblock and indefinitely protected the user page. --NeilN 22:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's hope they'll get bored and waste their time elsewhere now. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed RFC

Hi NeilN,

I note on your closing marks you mentioned "This is not the proper venue for an RFC that would affect hundreds of articles. It needs to be held on a central discussion page and widely advertised." I entirely agree with this, could you kindly assist me by providing a proper venue, which would be widely advertised to tap into the talent of the many intelligent editors on Misplaced Pages. I feel that some rules to govern articles of this type to conform with WP Policy NPOV would give articles of this nature a consistent, and globally accepted view from an encyclopedic POV. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Eng.M.Bandara before you proceed further, the last two RFCs you've opened have been closed quickly. The first had a spectacularly poor premise and resulted in this apt comment, "...question sincerity and purpose of this patently foolish RFC. If serious, submitter should be required to carefully read WP:RS and be warned that further use of poor quality sources will result in a block". The second was marred by your trolling-like posts and also had editors bring up WP:RS issues. What are you going to do to curb your disruptive editing? Your proposal would affect articles of the recently deceased which are under discretionary sanctions so a repeat of Talk:Murder_of_Anita_Cobby#Consistency_with_Homicide_articles is likely going to get you topic banned or blocked. --NeilN 13:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well propose a simple primary question, should Misplaced Pages endorse judgments of all jurisdictions globally? If the answer to that question is no, is the use of the term "murder" an endorsement of that judgment. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 14:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Eng.M.Bandara, you should frame your proposal based on our titling policy, WP:COMMONNAME. --NeilN 14:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

May I comment? Eng.M.Bandara, it is not an issue of "endorsing" a judgment. It is merely reporting what is now common knowledge. Could you please explain why you are so troubled by the use of the word murder? I don't know where in the world you are from, but as far as I know all English-speaking countries have a crime defined as murder. I'm further sure that most non-English countries would have a crime that would translate into murder. The definition varies slightly by country (and by state within countries), but the basic premise is the same all over the world; murder is killing with the intention to kill. In the case of Cobby, there is absolutely no doubt that it was a murder; one offender even plead guilty to the crime. I understand you want to see the use of neutral terms and that is admirable. But calling a murder a murder is not a biased point of view. In Cobby's case, it was proven in a court of law on the basis of expert evidence and eyewitness testimony. You cannot get more certain and more neutral than that.

But to be clear, I do not want to continue the argument about the Cobby case. I want to understand why you are against the use of the word murder in articles where it has been proven that there was a murder. Neil, if you do not want this on your talk page I will move it to Eng.M.Bandara's page. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi AtHomeIn神戸. Discussion is fine here. --NeilN 02:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution NeilN and athomeinkobe, I have not forgotten about this discussion, I was very busy lately with my professional life. In my spare time, I do intend to review that policy, and make a proposal here, once the proposal has been properly formulated, I would appreciate if NeilN could assist me in placing it at the proper venue.
To answer your question athomeinkobe, it's not about legal proceedings in Australia, and their outcome. If you want to write that the "local court's claimed the homicide of cobby to be a murder, with the reference that is fine. But in say something in Misplaced Pages voice, there must be strict adherence to NPOV policy. Otherwise, we must also include other opinion evidence such as https://www.google.lk/search?q=murder%20as%20natural%20selections&rct=j And we can get into a big debate about the number of ways to classify cobby's homocide. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 11:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)No we don't. To ' also include other opinion evidence' would oft be to give WP:UNDUE. Unless they are backed by WP:RS, as the Court's judgements are, in which case they are also in wikivoice. _Muffled 11:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTHESIS which directly impacts your contention. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In essence, material not specifically about the article's subject cannot be used. --NeilN 12:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree more with what NeilN has stated, what are your thoughts about the inclusion of a subheading in the Murder article with references to sources which claim that Murder is an example of a process of natural selection. With regards Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I hardly consider comparing the claim from a single source, originating namely from a court localised in one jurisdiction and comparing that to the mountainous global evidence for evolution, or the evidence to say the earth is round. Theirs a big difference between claiming the earth to be flat as an opinion and to claim homicide to be a murder. I think it's just purely ridiculous to compare this to the flat earth theory and claim undue weight, they are on entirely two different levels 'mathematically'. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 12:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You can do a bold edit to the Murder article or take it up on its talk page. I'd advise providing multiple high quality sources. --NeilN 18:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Did a bold edit on the page, and added a template for more information. As you seem like a competent individual, any further assistance in improving that section would be appreciated. section--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 09:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Eng.M.Bandara: Your first source is hardly "high quality" and your first edit summary is misleading. If someone removes the section, you will have to justify your addition using the article's talk page. See WP:BRD. --NeilN 10:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I connot dispute your assertion, however as you maybe aware I am quite busy with my personal life, I would grealy appreicate if you could help assit improve that section, as you are already familiar with the subject of dicussion. I will assit to improve in my spare time as much as posssible. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 14:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think that fringe view of murder is important enough to be in the article, you're going to have to be the one defending it and finding proper sources. --NeilN 14:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Image Issues

Hi,

I have one question. Can i use the images from this http://www.rajyasabhatv.com/ website. Last time you have said me to ask someone before use of images from 3rd party websites. So i am asking. Can you please confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn richard1 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dawn richard1. Most of the images have credits like "Photo: AP/PTI" and so are copyrighted and cannot be used. --NeilN 15:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Refund

Could you (or any active admin who sees this) restore User:NQ/sandbox/temp please? - NQ (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @NQ: done. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! - NQ (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy Wiki-Birthday!

Hey, NeilN. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Woodstop45 (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Cosby Black History

Hello NeilN This is a request for you to look, comment and possibly place an edit in the Bill Cosby biography about his contribution to the Black History anthology TV series from the 1960's (see talk page). Per your request more RS have been placed there and the TV series found significant coverage in the NEW York Times of the day. It was viewed by 22 million people and the producers credit Cosby's participation as what led to the Emmy for a history documentary. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

Um ... help

I dont do Twinkle, or warnings because I'm not competent!! I've spent thirty mins trying to warn a couple of users at Paul Fix (racing driver). Could you look, spend a minute perhaps. thx. Roxy the dog™ bark 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, now a competent user has chipped in. -Roxy the dog™ bark 19:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

;) things are happening. -Roxy the dog™ bark 19:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Roxy the dog™, I'm hoping things are done. --NeilN 20:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Potential Vandal on the Sino-Vietnamese War Page.

Hello NielN

It seems someone is back vandalizing the page again. This user MaxPrem only made two edits and he removed reliable source. I reverted the article back to its original format where the result was agreed on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:MaxPrem&action=edit&redlink=1
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sino-Vietnamese_War&action=history

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a mistake, buuuut...

Hi Neil, thanks for your email. It was not a mistake, but now that you mention it, I didn't know it was a problem! So I'm grateful to you for bringing it to my attention, and as I think about it more, I can see why it would be undesirable. I'll research some more for my own edification. Thanks for keeping me on the train tracks--it shan't be an issue going forward. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit-War at Yom Kippur article.

Please review his stubborn reversals & lack of logic & reason. Also see the associated Talk page. Txs. Purrhaps (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Purrhaps, please wait for Debresser or other editors to respond to your points. Also, is there a reason why you are placing your signature above your posts? --NeilN 06:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Balloons (2016)

Did you look at the history? Looks like a sock. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, it's more complicated, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gubbaare and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gubbaare the deleted article which is the same as Balloons 2016. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 1 Se[ptember 2016 (UTC)

And that was created by a definite sock! CU coming. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doug. There's probably a couple socks on the article but that makes it a G5 (if you think it was created by a blocked editor), not a G4. The AFD was cut short. --NeilN 15:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I know. Waiting to see if there's a plausible explanation from Preetiahluwalia. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Croatian inventions and discoveries

Based on your recent protection of this article, can you please also block Still minded (talk · contribs); as a sock of User:Filipz123, which was the account that edited the article prior to your protection. Thanks. MeowMoon (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Sro23, do you think this is Filipz123 or Europefan? --NeilN 01:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely Filipz123 (the Croatian/Balkans thing is a giveaway, whereas Europefan is more focused on Germany). Sro23 (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history on the article, previous socks that were recently blocked were of Filipz123. An example was a CU confirmed account blocked not too long ago. MeowMoon (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks. --NeilN 01:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

They are now back with this IP: 24.114.52.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). An example sock account of this user editing the similar article can be seen here. Possibly a protection on Hair clipper too? Thanks again. MeowMoon (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

MeowMoon, blocked and protected. --NeilN 02:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh... Also based on the editing history, do you think Skirt should be protected as well? MeowMoon (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, one month. --NeilN 09:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

My talk page.

Firstly, thank you for reverting the sock IP. He seems to have developed an interest in me/my edits/my talk page. Secondly, would it be ok to have my talk page & user page semi protected, please? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I stalked here and protected the pages. Widr (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You stalked well. Thank you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

--- out for Harambe editor

Not sure if you are following them but you may want to remove their talk page access. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Need Your help to resolve the issue

Please help to resolve claims, provided by Winkelvi and Smartse in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/Ilias_Psinakis. Once, a year ago you already helped to solve. I have given all the relevant sources.LS 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talk • contribs)

obsessed

Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:5C8B:856F:FDF6:3076:9476:CB36 is obsessed with something -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Reverted. — RainFall 11:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC Bio

Hi Neil, this ongoing RFC was not listed under BLP bio, but only under BLP pol. Please advise how I can get it listed under both, at this point. I'm not sure how to do it. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)