Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeilN (talk | contribs) at 15:26, 18 April 2017 (→Likely block evasion by User:Matthewcarleton15). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Archive 34: Sep 2016 - Jan 2017 Archive 35: Feb 2017 Archive 36: Mar 2017 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 Picture of the day Lime Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus Archive More featured pictures

Block evasion "Human like you"

You recently blocked and for block evasion of indef blocked user "Human like you" who is a notorious for using multiple sock puppets. Now the same user is active again as (edits similar to recently blocked ). The user editing on the same page with the same agenda is most likely another sock puppet (their edits were reinstated by 176.33.54.33, again edits similar to , also adding material sourced to 'Daily Sabah' like "Human like you" used to do ). 84.187.147.161 (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked as socks. --NeilN 05:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: It seems the same user is now active again as in the same section of the same page pushing the same POV: (the insistance that the police was mounted, the picture caption and at the categories (taken from Turkish pro-Erdogan pro-AKP propaganda) of the uploaded file ). 84.187.151.87 (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Same again, now here. Thanks for your efforts. 84.187.153.169 (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN and Black Kite: And again, now here and here. 84.187.144.76 (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN and Black Kite: Again here. 84.187.149.64 (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN and Black Kite: Again here and here. 84.187.157.110 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This is non-obvious to me and there's no SPI page I can refer to. You should either create one or post on Black Kite's talk page as they seem more familiar with the sock. --NeilN 15:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I posted it to Black Kites talk page and added some evidence linking the IP to "Human like you". 84.187.157.110 (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Edits regarding Muhammad's Appearance

Hi NeilN, I would just like to talk to you about my edits on Muhammad which were regarding his appearance. I believe it is not properly describing Muhammad according to the authentic historical sources. I deemed the source as unreliable, as it went against the established primary sources passed down from history, the 2 most authentic books of Islamic tradition, or hadith, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. I have explained myself fully in the talk page which you can read. It also contradicts itself, where it says "not fat" in the beginning, and then "stout" afterwards. Add to all of that, the author actually changed it after I first presented a flaw in the statement, which you can view between the edit history from when I first presented the topic on March 2, if I am correct. Look at how it has changed from an edit in it after the date regarding the flaw I presented. This is really important because this is the leader of Islam, with over 1.7 million followers, and the fastest growing religion, and wikipedia is an easy to use site which everyone reads, so it will give an inaccurate description to many people. I hope you see my reasoning and allow my edit to be set as you are an administrator. Thank you for reading this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdullahwaMuhsin (talk • contribs) 00:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi AbdullahwaMuhsin. First, and most important, I am editing that article as a regular editor, just like you. You have much say over article content as I do. Second, you should be making this argument on the article talk page where other interested editors can see it. I see your subsequent post has been replied to by Eperoton. --NeilN 05:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What is the point of a sandbox?

Why can we not have a place where new users can try stuff out! Its crazy to think that they will understand a deletion of their first try at work on wikipedia. Surely if it isn't actually illegal then they should be allowed some latitude in a sandbox. Victuallers (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: They're allowed a fair amount of latitude. But that does not include keeping spam, advertising, attack pages, BLP violations, copyvios, etc. --NeilN 16:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Obscenity, WP:Soapbox too. And if they create an account, they will have their own personal sandbox, which by and large are ignored. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

OK I think its unreasonable. But lets pretend this makes sense in this case. Can you restore the page and I will paraphrase the thirty or so words as I care about new users for Misplaced Pages. Sure if they had copied something that was more than "fair use" then it might make some point. However I suspect we are not going to agree on this one so as I say let me paraphrase the thirty words. Victuallers (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: First, please refrain from removing properly placed warnings from talk pages. Second, no, I'm not going to re-restore the copyright violation you restored. You really do need to brush up on our admin policies and guidelines if you think that's acceptable. You can get the text which was entirely copied from here. --NeilN 16:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism by Hyilix (me)

Hey, I was just trying to help Misplaced Pages by doing a study on how long it takes for vandalism to be fixed. If you wish to block me you may, but I was trying to help Misplaced Pages, not harm it. Hyilix (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Hyilix

John Sculley

Hi NeilN. The page protection on John Sculley has expired and Diane0524 is back at it again. I was going to revert, but is seems to involve BLP stuff, so I'd figured it would be best to check before re-adding it. You blocked the account before, so maybe you wouldn't mind taking a look at seeing if there's anything to the claim she's making. If this is just continued disruption, then maybe NOTHERE is becoming more trouble than it's worth, especially since the articke was protected to stop socking. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It's editor's discretion but it was me, I would probably leave the material out unless I could find sources that indicated the lawsuit succeeded, the lawsuit had unique notability, or that it was a notable event in Sculley's life. --NeilN 23:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a peek. I'll pass this on the BLPN to see if others feel the same way. She is claiming to be his wife, which may or may not be true, but even COI editors can remove BLP violations per WP:COIADVICE. Even though she's been blocked and reverted before, it might be better to play it safe to see what the community has to say. I'll post a Template:Please see on her user talk to let her know. If a consensus is reached that she disagrees with and she continues the disruption, then she can't claim she wasn't informed of the consequences. How does that sound? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just remembered WP:COIN#John Sculley, so apparently you have advised her of proper process before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly, it's not a BLP violation per se but a matter of editor opinion as to whether or not the important enough to be in the article. If you think it is, posting to BLPN to get more opinions is a good idea. --NeilN 00:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The only reason I feel might be a BLP violation is because the edit sums being left when the content is removed. They say claim the information is "contentious", "hurtful" and "false". It really may be more of a case of "I don't like" than a BLP violation, but the editor (editors?) removing the info seem to feel differently. Personally, I don't think it is, but I also think the content will continue to be removed every time it is re-added. Maybe BLP is premature at this point, so I'll try the talk page first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism spree

Hello. Would you mind blocking 2405:204:650B:7D1:0:0:1FE4:D0A1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see their contributions and talk page)? There's a report at WP:AIV but nothing much seems to happen there. - Tom | Thomas.W 16:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN 16:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Why was the quote from the book I inserted removed

Why was the quote from Dr S'D'Montford's book removed - She has written about 20 books on this subject - How do you like your citation done -I dont see uniformity - I see lots of different forms, including informal quotations in many articles - Please explain.. 20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Shambhallah20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Shambhallah (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shambhallah: "She is the author of over 10 books and 5 DVDs, editor of 4 alternative magazines of which she is the editor in chief of Macgick and ESP.(journal of The Ethical Society of Psychics). Shé had over 35 years professional experience working as a psychic in Australia, US, Sth Africa, NZ and Asia." That "Dr" S'D'Montford? Please detail where she got her doctorate from (and in what) and what academic credentials she has. --NeilN 20:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Basically, Misplaced Pages would consider her a reliable source for approximately nothing. , --NeilN 20:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Please put my edit back.

Namasté,

Please place my edit back onto the Kevin La Beast page. It was missing updated information. If you do not want it to be edited, tell someone to step in to let it became a blocked edit page.. Pt0wN973b0iI (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pt0wN973b0iI: Stop messing around. --NeilN 04:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett

The page suppresses opposing views by being guarded by people who have a history of using personal attacks this dif as well as throughout the archive. Subuey (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Subuey: If you're providing a single diff from a year ago on a totally unrelated page then your accusations of ownership aren't going to be taken seriously. --NeilN 18:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You only mentioned half of what I said. Subuey (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały's only argument is to put words in people's mouths, and his recent comments clearly show a disdain for the subject matter. Subuey (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Subuey, the last time you came here I said the diff you provided was basically useless. You unhelpfully pointed to the archive. Now, again, no diffs. You need to provide diffs and show how Sławomir Biały is being disruptive. --NeilN 20:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought you had been following along. How can I point to the archive? It is closed. I can paste this, from the archive "Quack, quack, says the duck. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)" Subuey (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not write or sign the above statement about the duck, although it appears that someone has falsified my signature with the intention of making it seem as if I did. Edit: I see that after writing this, Subuey has corrected this misunderstanding. But I note that he is quoting something out of context, though of course any reasonable editor can go and hunt back through two years (!) of archives and find the actual context of the quotation, and they are very likely to agree with the statement in the context it was made. As far as I am aware, however, it was in this enigmatic edit summary, by Subuey wherein this particular species of waterfowl appears to have entered the discussion. Also, I would point out this edit to @Jim1138:'s talk page, which seems to fit the same overall pattern of disruption, modifying talk page discussions and falsifying what others have written. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Subuey: I semi-protected the article earlier so it's on my watchlist. I'm not following the day to day conversation except when an edit summary indicates things are going off the rails. "Pointed to the archive" means "referred to the archive". You have now provided two diffs. I have no idea what the first one is supposed to show. The second one is problematic. Sławomir Biały, what source are you using for your "systematically misled the media, for personal financial gain, in every other aspect of this affair" claim? --NeilN 03:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The first shows how he automatically assumes the subject of his response (viewfinder) is arguing about relativity. His good faith is questioned, since this has happened continuously in the archive (again can't use diffs except for here ) . Subuey (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Subuey: You're grasping at almost non-existent straws here. Stop doing that. --NeilN 16:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

So we just have to deal with it? "they are very likely to agree with the statement in the context it was made" see above That's not cool. Subuey (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as the "statements" go, only one - the first, is remotely true and I would challenge proof of the other two. The Plait source is used, but it is blog.Subuey (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Kristine Barnett wrote a book in which she claimed that Jacob had developed an expanded theory of relativity that was validated by the physics community, that his IQ is higher than Einstein, and that he is in line for a Nobel prize. These are completely false statements, per the Edwards source referenced in the article. The Plait source, in addition, details why his claims to have disproved relativity are false. The extraordinary amount of media coverage of Barnett's supposed accomplishments were obvious fake news, supported by misleading statements from the Barnetts. I infer that the reason the Barnetts repeated claims like these on talk shows like Katie Couric, BBC Breakfast, and Glenn Beck, on the book tour was to promote sales of the book and to suggest booking Kristine for a speaking engagement which can be ordered through her website. But perhaps this inference goes too far, and the motivation is not necessary for the point I am making, so I have removed that speculation from the post. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Here because of ping. Subuey has been... unconstructive... at Talk:Jacob Barnett. For example, posting attacks in the middle of threaded replies (, ) is clearly disruptive. I reverted it now twice. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sydney FC page locked for vandilism

Thanks for locking the page, but you missed two, Vincent Péricard and Sebastian Carlsén have never been announced or linked with the team.

Thanks

morris (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Littlejib: Okay now? --NeilN 00:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes

morris (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft

Since you seemed to have mostly mirrored my sentiments at Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy, I would appreciate your comments and criticisms of this first draft of an alternative proposal. TimothyJosephWood 23:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Responded: User talk:Timothyjosephwood/Page protector --NeilN 00:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP shifting editor.

I understand. Since last December articles I've been involved with and my own edits have been hounded by a series of IP editors who are likely HughD. HughD was indef blocked from climate change and post 1932 US politics due to his behavior last summer and blamed me for many of his issues]. Starting late last year, before HughD's edit block had expired a number of low traffic articles I was involved with were tagged with often mindless fix-it type tags. The edits originally came from Chicago area IPs (HughD's Chicago connections are clear (member of Project Chicago and many area references ]). I became suspicious of the behavior and the IP's all changed to Amazon based proxies and started raise concerns. In all perhaps 40+ Amazon based proxies were blocked due to this IP editor. Recently DoRD became quick to block the Amazon based IPs and the editor shifted back to Chicago based IPs. The Chicago based IPs probably aren't proxies though they are typically public IPs. The Wordsmith looked into the mater and agreed that the behavioral evidence was very clear ],

There are two issues in place here. The first is that the IP is from a webhost, which has now been blocked per our usual policies. The second is that the behavioral evidence linking the IP with HughD is extremely strong. Aside from the pattern of pages he's been editing, certain grammatical quirks that HughD uses are unmistakably present. While I'm not a Checkuser myself, I'm fairly experienced in sniffing out socks and I'd say they're they same person beyond reasonable doubt, per WP:DUCK.

and ]

After a thorough investigation, we've determined that these IPs are the same person and likely HughD. However, there isn't strong enough evidence to mark it as confirmed. So, the investigation is being closed.

Once that was decided the IP's activities increased over the past few days. I posted to the S&W MP15 talk page on Jan 15th.] The first time any IP posted to the talk page (since 2010) was Jan 23rd ] (this blocked Amazon IP also posted to the GM chapter 11 page responding to a question I had posted). Since the 23rd 9(!) additional IP's have posted ]]]]]]]]] and 4 have been blocked. We've seen similar behavior at the GM (and talk) pages ]]. Because IPs are thrown away so quickly the only thing that really stops the issue is protecting the page. I understand that even though at least one CheckUser and an Admin strongly feel this is HughD they don't have an IP address to tie it to HughD. That said, is there a way to simply declare that the IP editor is disruptive as is? Yes, if this is HughD then he has violated his edit block and is topic block several times over (difs can be provided). But that doesn't help if the we are dealing with a new IP editor. However, if the IP editor is declared to be disruptive/a troll that would make it easier to request page protection when the IP shows up. Do you have any suggestions how I might deal with this? Thanks Springee (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I was pinged here, I'll say that I regularly block web hosting ranges. I have no opinion, however, on whether any of this is HughD or not. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Springee: I've looked into the matter more and blocked the latest IP for two weeks as per "these IPs are the same person and likely HughD" and the above. We'll have to deal with new IPs as they pop up. --NeilN 00:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand there is no perfect solution but thank you for the help! Springee (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Now yet another Chicago based IP is showing an interest in more edits of mine. The IP restored an edit made by yesterday's blocked IP. ].Springee (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. --NeilN 15:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with Springee that this editor has been disruptive. He has added neutral, well-sourced material and made worthwhile arguments on talk pages. It appears to me that @Springee: is engaged in a POV war rather than trying to legitimately reduce disruption. Felsic2 (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Felsic2, the editor is not being blocked for disruptive. They're being blocked for WP:ILLEGIT. --NeilN 00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Felsic2: And I'm completely unimpressed you failed to mention your involvement in this. --NeilN 01:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know I should include my entire history with a matter. I'll try to be more thorough in the future. Springee left out a lot of history too, despite his long entry.

Springee is going around saying that you've determined the IP editor to be disruptive, rather than illegitimate. Would the IP editor be OK if he logs into his previous username? Felsic2 (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Felsic2: Yes, he needs to log in. The sooner the better or else he might find himself blocked indefinitely for this kind of anonymous hounding. , The Wordsmith, all of Hugh's topic bans are indefinite, right? --NeilN 01:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we can tell him that.

If those are examples of hounding, then I've got a bunch of others, some related, to report. Here, User_talk:Miguel_Escopeta#Hounding, for example, @Springee: followed me to another editor's page, where I have have an ongoing complaint about hounding, in order to interfere. He has appeared on a number of pages I've edited simply to disagree or revert me. I've asked him to stop repeatedly. He's also followed the IP to entirely separate articles, so it seems to be a common pattern. Felsic2 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Appeared on a number of pages? Could it be that many of those pages are related topics that he'd already be interested in? In other words, if you started editing articles about Taiwanese horror movies or Angolan rappers, would he be there? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Felsic2: You missed the first word. Anonymous hounding. If you think you have a case against Springee for hounding then you can present it at ANI. I would tell Springee the same thing if they were complaining about HughD's logged in edits. --NeilN 02:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• It returns ] Springee (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

Hi Neil,

Thanks for the feedback.

What advise would you give me if I want to add these citations in the article as I believe they do add value to the piece?

Regards, SethSethMax (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@SethMax: Short answer: don't. See WP:REFSPAM. We look dimly on links, disguised as references, going to sites selling products/services. --NeilN 13:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Its a shame you feel that I am spamming the article. I links back to an evidence based well researched article. I am not selling product/services. Shame you disagree — Preceding unsigned comment added by SethMax (talk • contribs) 14:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@SethMax: Then you can cite the actual journals which published the papers and studies detailing the research. There's no need to cite a commercial site citing the research. --NeilN 14:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikilaj on Vladimir Plahotniuc

Hi NeilN, Thank you, I received your notification about me, as Misplaced Pages contributor, involved in a issue. In fact I don't know why I'm the problem )), I reverted back the information that other user had deleted, adding the necessary sources. Because the contributor that had deleted the phrase argued his action as poor sourced statement. What should I do now? I want to go ahead with my editing. Thank's Wikilaj (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Vladimir_Plahotniuc

guidance

Hello. Seeking guidance. Have used an other username before which I do not wish to use anymore on wiki, for reasons i do not wish to mention here. Is it possible to block indefinitely or remove the old username? Thanks--Anon=us (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)anon=us

I do not know how the link to Vladimir Plahotniuc appears on this note. I did not use it. I did not add it to this note.--Anon=us (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Hi Anon=us. You have a couple options. You can log in to your old account, send me an email, and I will block it for you or you can follow the instructions listed at WP:VANISH. --NeilN 01:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Need time to consider either option. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

How do i email you? Can you send the link. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

@Anon=us: Look for the "Email this user" link on the left hand side of this page in the tools box. --NeilN 23:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble. I just set up email address in my profile. I do not see email this user. Please can you guide step by step. I just could not figure out WP:vanish. Thanks for the help. Is it ok if I do this after a day or two? Am in a rush actually. --Anon=us (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Abuse of RfC process at Talk:Donald Trump

As you recently closed yet another premature or ill-formed RfC at Talk:Donald Trump, you may want to look into the OP's failure to WP:LISTEN. See Talk:Donald Trump#RfC for best sentence to describe status of Trump's presidency and Talk:Donald Trump#Which one of the proposed lede sentences will best describe Trump's current status as president?. I tried once more to tell them politely to drop the stick but he doesn't seem to get it… — JFG 15:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Ad Orientem closed the RFC and it's true, there's not a lot of difference between the new "discussion" and the RFC except for the RFC tag. However, how are editors supposed to discuss potential changes to the current consensus? --NeilN 16:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think the issue with the opening of the lead has been resolved (crossing fingers). Let's see how it goes and try, for now, to avoid unnecessarily adding to the drama. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess some of us are suffering from RfC fatigue… Over the last few months, we had 6 prior discussions resulting in the current lead sentence, documented in Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus. Recently, editors have been arguing whether we should mention that Trump is the current president, and that can be debated per WP:CCC, however some people are jumping on the story to rip up the consensus wording and basically start from scratch, which I find disruptive. Shepherding consensus is not an easy job! — JFG 16:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Is a cattle prod useful for shepherding? I worry about the quality of the wool.🙂 I think Ad Orientem has been doing okay here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. — JFG 17:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

In this case, I'm pretty sure the cattle would turn the prod upon the doomed herder. --NeilN 17:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

They already have. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Help me please

--NeilN talk to me Hello NeilN! please delete my personal Misplaced Pages page .... I'd like to remove my personal Misplaced Pages page because of several very personal reasons (privacy, personal security, economic issues, my current job position's credibility and stability). My page is the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/Matteo_Chinosi I am the subject described on this page and i don't want it at all. I just insered the following "cancellation line" at the top of the page "Template:Cancella subito" So please help me! I will be really glad if you can do it for me. --NeilN talk to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiprulez (talk • contribs) 15:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikiprulez. It's not "your" personal Misplaced Pages page. It's a Misplaced Pages article that contains no private info that cannot be found elsewhere. Articles cannot be deleted if editors deem you notable --NeilN 15:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Name change discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks

Please come participate in the name change discussion regarding the future naming of the Liancourt Rocks article. Thank you for participating! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nihonjoe. I'll keep a watch on the discussion but obviously won't be participating. --NeilN 17:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I figured. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Hi NeilN. I've got what's looking like a disruptive editor, who will not Drop the stick and keeps restoring a personal attack directed at another editor at my Talk page. I'm pretty sure this editor is autoconfirmed, so semi'ing my Talk page won't help. As of now, this editor's post has been reverted off my Talk page again, but I'm worried about if this editor comes back and tries to restore it again (though I guess they'll be guilty of Edit warring at that point...). Anyway, looking for ideas, etc. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Two admins saying basically the same thing should get the message across. --NeilN 18:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Motor vehicle ranking

In the spirit of WP:BRD, can we all agree to stop editing/reverting articles concerning the ranking of motor vehicle production and to try to discuss it instead. After we have some form of resolution from the discussion (or at least an edict from the administrators), then we can make the articles match to whatever the discussion resolved.

Furthermore, a discussion spread out over many talk pages is hard to follow and mostly results in the same arguments being repeated for no benefit. If it failed to convince anyone at one talk page then why would it convince the same people at another page?

I suggest we put the majority of our discussion at Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production.

This message has also been placed on the talk page of the other editors involved.  Stepho  talk  01:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: I don't think you understood my gentle nudge. Do not encourage this person to edit. They are avoiding scrutiny and socking and all article or talk page posts may be reverted on sight. --NeilN 01:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Thanks

Dabbler (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic group

Something odd here with at least one editor making changes that make no sense - see my edit summary. I'm not sure if one of the editors is a sock or not. Shashko is clearly editing in an area subject to DS and has had the alert. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Put Ethnic group on my watchlist and topic banned Sashko1999 from Macedonia for one year. --NeilN 17:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Good call. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You'll probably have seen this. There is no Belgian ethnic identity, there are the Flemins and the Walloons, two ethnic groups. And of course we don't call European Americans an ethnic group. I don't know what this guy's agenda is but he lacks the competence to even understand what he is doing - I presume, otherwise it is just vandalism. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks as per my prior warning. Next block will be an indefinite. --NeilN 15:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

intervention

Hi. Please see balija talk page. There are 2 editors keen on their version without sources to back up their claim. What do you suggest? The issue starts from here. As per Kautilya3 and Sitush, all Balijas are called Gavara in tamilnadu, which is not true. Gavara is only one branch or subcaste/ subsection of Balija. Please suggest an option / solution. --Anon=us (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Anon=us, you can go to WP:DRN but please be aware that Sitush is widely recognized as a go-to editor when other editors have questions about caste articles. --NeilN 18:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Will wait for Kautilya3 to reply first. Reg Sitush, i respect him. Also recognize nobody can be right all the time.--Anon=us (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Hi. Please see Kautilya3's reply. Is it not possible for admins to intervene first? Would you suggest going to WP:DRN directly? Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Opened WP:DRN. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Request

Can you semi-protect the page Misplaced Pages:WikiProject EastEnders/List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders to persistent long-term abuse. 123.136.107.12 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Two weeks. --NeilN 18:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

yor comment

If you look better you will see it wasn't me, but the other user--Kostas20142 (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: I'm aware. They said they were going to stop with the jokes but they haven't so they got a rather blunt warning not to do that again. --NeilN 19:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Alex Khimich

Neil, I see that you issued Alex Khimich an ArbCom sanction. You may wish to know that they are blantently ignoring the sanction and are now illustrating a disruptive manner at Talk:Russia–Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest#Neutrality (including incivility towards other users in some sort of anti-Russian way. And also being siruptive with their edits on the article too. Any chance of intervening, and maybe temporary protection of the article too, as I fear it is going to turn into one messy bloodshed. Cheers my friend! Wes Wolf  23:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: Things have calmed down somewhat, I think. I'll keep an eye on the article. P.S. I know "go crawl back under the proverbial rock that you came out from" is mild, but admins are going to look at that too if they're trying to figure out if behavior blocks are in order. --NeilN 03:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI re M briglia05

Hello NeilN. I hope that you survived April 1st. In dealing with a messy article copy/paste (see details here Misplaced Pages:Help desk#What to do with this redirect.3F) I saw your post here User talk:M briglia05#Please read. The editor has also created this Matt Works. I fear these actions, which have occurred since your post, indicate WP:COMPETENCE problems. I wanted to get your input on how to proceed in this situation. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 01:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: They were on their last warning so now they're blocked until they can explain how they will change their editing. --NeilN 03:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for thee update N. MarnetteD|Talk 04:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Think before you act.

You reverted my edit seconds after I made my edit. I was trying my hardest to repair the Naturopathy article, but you reverted it without thinking, clearly. Just look at that time frame! Sorry to be harsh, but that was intentional vandalism that I will not support. I am reverting such vandalism immediately. --SliverWind (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@SliverWind: You're heading for a topic ban. --NeilN 20:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet. Should have guessed. --NeilN 20:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternate talk page deletion

Hello, Neil. First, thanks for the heads-up on the ANI discussion. I'll have more to say over there. Thanks also for the edit on my alternate talk page. I have to ask, though, what the content was that you hid. My curiosity is getting the better of me. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: Emailed you. --NeilN 22:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was far worse than I would have imagined. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you have a word

Taking this to you because I don't want to make a WP:HAPPYPLACE case out of this, and you are familiar with the situation. Our friend IExistToHelp has taken to clerking the NPR user right board . TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

DENY needed

I think you might have handled the last case I mention somewhere. Please see Special:Contributions/Dxfcghjh. Per DENY, delete this if you like. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Widr got it, thanks. --NeilN 11:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Stupid Question

If disruptive edits, IE:adding duplicate information over and over after several warnings is not Vandalism, why does the templates for disruptive editting refer to it as Vandalism? Example: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at blank, you may be blocked from editing".Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 10:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: I'm not a fan of that wording. Can you suggest better? If so, let's head on over to Misplaced Pages talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. --NeilN 11:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't think of any better wording Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

*sigh*

Well, our friend Smalltime0 has just moved on to edit-warring the same material on another page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

sorry

didn't get pointed to the consensus, and couldn't find it. The sources don't support the stated position and other wiki pages use white nationalist and not supremacist. Spencer himself uses ethno-nationalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalltime0 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Smalltime0: It's not exactly hard to find: Talk:Richard_B._Spencer#RfC:_White_Supremacist_vs_White_Nationalist --NeilN 16:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I can see that now. The consensus is flawed, and I don't have time to lead the debate against it. Given that the strongest media sources are using opinion pieces to decry him as a supremacist rather than an ethno-nationalist is disturbing and discredits those sources. I'll stop the reversions, but please escape your echo chamber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalltime0 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Smalltime0: I don't care what he's called as long as it meets our WP:BLP policy. However the RFC had pretty clear consensus so any changes going directly against that current consensus are disruptive, especially on an article covered by discretionary sanctions. --NeilN 16:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for what you said at Talk:Too Much Too Soon (album). I have pretty much no experience in this kind of stuff, so I'm glad that you stepped in. Thank you! RileyBugz | Edits 16:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RileyBugz. It's difficult for anyone, even experienced editors, when two longstanding editors go at each other disruptively. --NeilN 17:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Men's Rights - Statement regarding white men

"Most men's rights activists in the United States are white, middle-class, heterosexual men"

That statement requires statistics, otherwise its an opinion. If it's an opinion it needs to be stated as such. Moreover, sources don't provide any type of study or statistics to back up claim.

According to the list of links to avoid, https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.

That statement is not verifiable, at least not through that link.

Redpill's purpose, not to be confused with the documentary, is to seduce women and have a specific view of women. If visited, it doesn't mention any Men's Rights. This is unreasonable conflation. Flamous7 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reference 33 gives a link to Katz's book that supports the claim (first ¶). References 42 and 44 give direct quotes. The claim they are not verifiable is incorrect. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Flamous7. First, you should be using Talk:Men's rights movement to discuss this as this concerns content. Second, raw statistics are primary sources. We need to use secondary sources like studies published by an academic press to interpret any statistics. Third, please see WP:ASSERT. Who is claiming that MRM activists are not mostly white, middle-class, heterosexual men? --NeilN 19:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I will definitely bring this up in that talk section in regards to your suggestion.

Kat'z book doesn't provide any reference as to where the statistic came from. In fact no statistics or studies are mentioned, only a statement. I agree, Secondary sources are indeed necessary, but the source has no reference to said statistic or survey. I tried finding a source that cites the statistic.

In regards to claim, if those books are accepted, then I can post my own such as sites such as avoiceformen or books from christina hoff summers disputing that, correct? (of course i would have to post in talk:mensrights first).Flamous7 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Flamous7, Summers may be a reliable source. AVM would be considered a self-published source and largely not accepted. --NeilN 20:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting an unbiased vote

Hi,
Your unbiased vote is requested here.

Thanks. —usernamekiran 20:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Usernamekiran. I'm not sure why you're notifying me when my last post to the talk page was 3.5 years ago, responding to a disruptive editor? --NeilN 20:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Because I believe you can perform a good judgement. —usernamekiran 20:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Some WTF from reddit

]

God, they should have kept that drawing game online. MikeTango (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Baines

Hello, was told this source, Jervoise Athelstane Baines, (1893). General report on the Census of India, 1891. Her Majesty's Stationery Office; ie., this ] cannot be used since it is Raj source. It is not the census but the report on the census. But Sitush calls it WP:Primary. Was intending to use it on all other caste articles too; to show represenation during british period with a short note on enumeration issues at that point itsef (in 1891) and classification issues thereafter. Sorry but wiki appears to contribute in keeping divisiveness. Editors only delete caste puffery; but do not show current socio-political representation as decided by communities themselves. Please take a call on Baines; whether it can be used across all of wiki.--Anon=us (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:98.207.85.229&diff=cur

I used Talk to suggest replacing the erroneous 'democratic' with 'republican' in the https://en.wikipedia.org/Susan_Rice article. I would appreciate if you can clarify why did you sent the referenced message? raduv@comcast.net ; Skype:pat20v — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.85.229 (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the IP that edited before you was close enough to yours that I mistook them for you. I intended to revert and warn for these edits. However your post still contravenes our WP:BLP policy as you provided no sources for a very contentious assertion. I looked and there were no sources that backed up what you posted. You are welcome to discuss but you need to state what sources actually say, not what you want them to say. --NeilN 03:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI

This rant about you was posted to my talk page. Just figured i'd let you know in case this needs any followup or action. Not sure who the IP is or why they're randomly posting this rant on multiple editors pages. -- Dane 03:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dane: Thanks. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_of_AE_block for the full story. They could have sat out a week... --NeilN 03:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Petplan_Australia

Neil, I came across this article and noticed it was flagged for deletion back in September 2016. Is this not an exceptionally clear case of Advertising?

I am surprised that it was not deleted instantly. I am 'pro corporate' - Misplaced Pages is an exceptional place for us to document corporations and their behaviour free from interference. "Petplan Australia" is not a legal entity. In this case the entry simply describes the features and benefits of a particular marketing brand.

As an Australian editor I would support its deletion. MarekJG (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@MarekJG: I tagged the article for deletion last September but another editor removed the tag which they have a right to do. It'll have to go through WP:AFD but since we have similar (mostly lousy) articles for the U.S. and U.K. it's a tossup as to what the outcome will be. --NeilN 05:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not talk to me?

Instead of omitting me from discussions, and trying to drum up support for a false accusation? I have repeatedly responded to the claim you are raising here—in private, I night add—and the most I can be accused of is not worrying about annoying, and occasionally confusing people. I am no sock. I edit from IPs, from my account, wherever I am, and there is nothing nefarious going on. Search for "Le Prof" as text, and see. Cheers. Real life and work calls. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: I suggest you re-review the situation. I omitted you from no discussions, did not try to drum up support, and made no claims. I just asked another editor why they were tagging your IPs as socks as I thought that was strange. --NeilN 11:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you for the reply. And apologies for any over-reaction. I had thought (and still think) that we are largely on the same page with regard to our emphases and convictions about content here at WP. Please note, I have updated the discussion that prompted me to drop in, and per the example of a UIC history professor who also apparently experiences the same autologout (and so also edits from a variety of locations), I have begun to identify myself at the various IPs from which I might be found. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Question

How to remove an editor from wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCouchsky (talk • contribs) 15:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@McCouchsky: If you're asking how to get me blocked, then I really don't have an answer for you that won't sound self-serving. For other situations, you'll need to provide details. --NeilN 15:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah. --NeilN 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A few random questions...

1. How did you make your username on your user page and talk colored?

1. Is there a way that I could just gain the block feature, not admin, if not when and what should I do before I nominate myself for adminship?

• Note: I do not plan on RfA soon.

Thanks CopernicusAD (t) :) 20:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please leave me a tb though I do. Monitor my wlist CopernicusAD (t) :) 20:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi CopernicusAD. The colored usernames come from wikicode you can put at the top of each page:

• For user page: {{DISPLAYTITLE:User:<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>}}
• For talk page: {{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>}}

Customize as required.

Only admins have access to the blocking tool. I'll re-state what another admin liked enough to quote at my RFA: "To become an administrator, stick around a couple years, make thousands of productive edits, participate in discussions, and gain the trust of the community that you know Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines and won't abuse the administrator tools." --NeilN 21:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you.§CopernicusAD (t) :) 21:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett 2

Now autism is being questioned. That is insulting User:NeilN:NeilN, both intellectually and personally. It is also a bit conspiratorial. I don't have a problem with the exclusion of autism. I do have a problem that the people who have control over this page are thinking like this. Subuey (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Subuey: The problem in this case (and documented in the article) is the mass media, when looking for a "feel-good" story, can be gullible idiots. Example. Would I use the term "alleged autism" in the article? No. But I also wouldn't sanction anyone using that term to make a non-disparaging point on the talk page as we have no WP:MEDRS-equivalent sources attesting to that diagnosis. --NeilN 23:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Requiring WP:MEDRS is a bit dumb. Barnett wrote a whole book on the subject, it was not some flippant media headline (and even if it was, where on earth would that have come from?). It is just comments like this: "Given that the Barnetts have systematically misled the media, in every other aspect of this affair, that gives us very good reason to be sceptical of their claims of autism Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)".

His mother has no medical qualifications (at least, none are presented in the article) so she's not qualified to give a diagnosis of autism. I do see some issues with the article that other editors seem to be ignoring so let me get involved. --NeilN 00:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like IP you blocked has evaded

NeilN, two days ago you gave a 60-hour block to IP 2601:805:400:E074:9D9B:28DE:ADEB:E664, who had been vandalizing various Dancing with the Stars article, initially to give Simone Biles higher scores than she actually earned, but then with increasingly wide vandalism.

A new IP with the same first four fields of the address, 2601:805:400:E074:132:101E:2210:89C3, showed up briefly last night, about 24 hours after the prior IP was blocked, and then again tonight for more extensive changes; both series of edits involved making Biles appear to have scored better than she did, with tonight's going much further afield. Since you were the blocking admin, and since tonight's edits are a couple of hours old and have just been undone, I thought I'd leave it in your hands rather than go to AIV as you recommended the other night for more immediate matters. Thanks for looking into it. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: The new IP has been blocked. I noticed the same activity actually on the DWTS articles. -- Dane 04:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Dane, it looks like this is a long-time vandal: there was a range block on 2601:805:400:e074::/64 for two weeks, which ended late on March 31; the IP NeilN blocked showed up 13 hours after that range block ended, and was blocked 35 hours after that. The new range block lasts for a month, so I'm hoping we're safe through early May. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I hope we're good too. I keep an eye on the DWTS articles as well though so i'm sure if it becomes an issue i'll probably catch it too. -- Dane 05:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Michael Christianson

NeilN, thank you for your help with this draft. I have gone and made the suggested corrections and cleaned it up. Your time is much appreciated! Wondering if you could help with suggestions for including a picture. I have been given a picture owned by the subject of the article but i've been unsuccessful in applying the image and not having someone automatically remove it as a copyright violation. Any suggestions? I'm pretty new to the process. Msboogaloo (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Msboogaloo: As you were typing this, I was accepting the draft :) For the picture, what license are you choosing when you upload? --NeilN 22:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: clearly not the correct one...probably easier to tell me which one I should select. LOL The picture is apparently one they had taken of him while at practice and he has the raw picture.Msboogaloo (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Msboogaloo: The photographer has the copyright then. The easiest way to do this is for the photographer to upload the photo to somewhere like Flickr and use a CC-BY-SA license. It can then be copied here. Otherwise, the photographer has to transfer the copyright ownership to you (via an email for example) and then you can upload it to Commons choosing a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license. --NeilN 00:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Great stuff thank you again for the help!Msboogaloo (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Msboogaloo:, you should probably read WP:COI too, and disclose if you're being paid for this work. --NeilN 00:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Nope, no form of payment. Just working on local celebrities here in Idaho... Msboogaloo (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ooops-

-didn't realise you'd left a similar message to me only a minute before- funny we didn't get a edit-conflict- take-care!- cheers — O Fortuna 16:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Four dubious reverts. Urgh. --NeilN 17:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, too, Fortuna. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You know this made me laugh

! I take it that's not a standard template message. As always, many thanks. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You're not a standard IP editor! --NeilN 17:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh that's funny. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Celestina007 (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Celestina007: You've been asked more than once (including by me) to tone your responses down. This is not toning your responses down. --NeilN 01:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Celestina007: Although I have been known to have a bit of a grump at NeilN every now and then, in this case I agree with him and think he's absolutely right. The general consensus is the text you added puts a lop-sided and recentism slant on the article that is not necessary. Ritchie333 09:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 you barely coming to tell me this shows that you care, and that's what I really needed at this moment Because what this "administrator" @NeilN did really baffled me, completely reverting an edit with good sources backing it up because he thinks it's "undue" I've learnt not to take these things too personal anymore because he really can do and undo. being an administrator makes him the law, do you have any idea how many potential quality editors we have lost due to such behaviour?? oh well, what can I say, In God i trust. Do have a nice day, thank you once more. Celestina007 (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have spoken to many people who have left Misplaced Pages or refused to join in the first place, and listened to their complaints carefully. It is the principal reason I became an administrator in order to do something about it. Administrators are not above the law and are fully accountable for their actions (and those at think they aren't tend to get featured in Misplaced Pages Review and Wikipediocracy where they get summarily tarred and feathered). Anyway, in this case, Neil removed it because we need to make sure that on biographies of living people, we write the article carefully and must ensure we do not make it look like a tabloid newspaper. I think Beyonce has probably seen it all by now, to be honest, but I have been on the receiving end of complaints by people who are upset their article looks like a complete train-wreck through no fault of their own. So we need to proceed with caution. Neil did not act in any administrative capacity, but merely as an editor, and I agree with his action purely on its merits. Reverting an edit is not personal - less than 24 hours ago one of my edits was reverted because I'd forgotten to remove some vandalism that was in an earlier edit; I didn't complain about abuse but gave the reverting editor a barnstar because they did the right thing. Ritchie333 10:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I don't know why you didn't join the discussion on the talk page before going to ANI (and still haven't done so). I explained there why I reverted you. --NeilN 13:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

edit war notice

Hi NeilN, thanks for the notice. I am fairly new to the editorial process of wikipedia and I appreciate you letting me know the guidelines and options. Mixelpix (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"abuse"

Had a feeling a few months ago there was some uh, behavior worth suspicion about an account and this recent debacle at ANI/AfD makes me think my gut was correct, will be interesting to see how it plays out. Anyway, hope you enjoy a beer, you terrible, terrible admin! Yes, I'm being purposely vague for...reasons.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Chrissymad, been an interesting couple days. Get hauled to ANI for edits, get hauled to ANI for adminning. I'm waiting for the Talk:Gerry Adams IP to come out of the woodwork and take up the cry of "censorship!". --NeilN 16:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer

Would you mind closing Talk: Richard B. Spencer#New RfC: Compromise? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I've commented there. --NeilN 20:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fine. There was a bit there when that discussion looked like it was spinning out of control, but it seems to have died down. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump survey

Hi Neil, sorry to bother you. I started a perfectly neutral survey at the Trump talk page. User:Scjessey hatted it and started a much broader survey which I feel will be more cumbersome and open-ended. Any advice?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

My advice would be not to pretend your survey isn't "perfectly neutral" and my survey is "broad", when neither is true. But that's just me. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You have yet to offer the slightest reason why this question is not neutral: "Should we say in the lead paragraph that he (A) is a businessman, in present tense, or (B) leave it in past tense only?" You swept this survey aside, and instead offered a completely overhauled lead sentence. I do not need to pretend that my survey is "perfectly neutral" and your survey is "broad". It's blindingly obvious.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't "completely overhauled". It went from this:

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States."

To this:

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality and politician who became the 45th and current President of the United States on January 20, 2017."

-- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, you omit the current version that was the result of a lengthy discussion and survey that ended on April 2. I do not find you to be a reasonable and forthright interlocutor.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant and Scjessey: This is still about the first (and possible second) sentence, yes? Both your surveys overlap? --NeilN 21:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Right. I favor the current lead sentence, Scjessey doesn't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you two work out a compromise that suits both of you? Instead of saying that trump currently is or is not a businessman, why not leave it ambiguous? You're both capable editors; I'm sure you can come up with something. ~Awilley (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The matter seems to be settled by consensus. And saying that he was a businessman before he got into politics does leave it ambiguous whether he's still doing business in the White House (which reliable sources say he is not doing).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Hudson (manager)

Hi NeilN,

Thanks for responding to my request for page protection on Anthony Hudson (manager). However, you've set it to full protection, which is preventing me from editing some of the embellishing material that violates the Misplaced Pages:BLP policy.

Is there any chance you could reduce it to semi-protection? This would allow us to clean up the article, and prevent brand new accounts from vandalising it like they have been. Currently, I feel like the full-protection is just going to put the unfortunate edit warring off for three days before it starts again. Cheers. Patrick478 (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Patrick478: Both autoconfirmed and IP editors were edit warring. If there is something in the article that truly violates BLP then please bring it to my attention. Note that I do not consider a bit of puffery a BLP violation. Otherwise, use the talk page to get consensus for what a stable article should have and then we can go from there. --NeilN 23:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Shittable

Mark Dice discussion

Since you commented on Jimbo-talk re: Mark Dice, you might want to join the discussion on the talk page about the sources Jimbo inserted in the lede. Feel no need to, I just thought I'd let you know that a more in-depth discussion is taking place. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni. You may have noticed I've used my admin tools issuing protects and blocks for that article so I won't be commenting on content. --NeilN 00:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed the blocks. Understood. Was reaching out to you as an editor not an admin on this! Thanks for the quick response. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal threats

Saw you did an edit recently - if you're around please take a look at User talk:Sundayclose. I've reverted the threat and reported the vandal to ARV but there will have to be a rev-del/whatever of the disgusting vileness in the edit-history. Shearonink (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Reported to WMF. Same as Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Treat_by_User:Nubailo --NeilN 04:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It might be time

Re: Nongdamba (talk · contribs). Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Saw the AIV report. One month. And now I gotta do the extra paperwork. Grumble. --NeilN 04:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Shall I revert the edits? 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If they look disruptive or caste-related nonsense, sure. --NeilN 04:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Likely block evasion by User:Matthewcarleton15

Hello NeilN, thanks for your recent talk page warning to this editor. However I believe this is the latest account incarnation of a previously blocked user, see User_talk:Yamaguchi先生#User:Matthewcarleton214. Since your warning, I've reverted a number of further disruptive edits fitting the same pattern of the prior blocked accounts. I thought you might want to know about this broader context. Thanks Declangi (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Declangi: Thanks for the info. Blocked. --NeilN 12:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again NeilN. Looks like another incarnation/sock of the above user has emerged. This time it's User:Matthewcarleton19. His latest action is a page move without consensus along with other disruptive edits. Thanks Declangi (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Declangi: Blocked and page moved back. --NeilN 12:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks again. And for undoing the page move. I checked other Ireland-related edits and undid some. With this person most but not all edits are disruptive. And some are quite subtle. Declangi (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Declangi: Yes, I undid some of the ones that were obvious to me. Thanks for checking on the others. --NeilN 15:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello
I am sorry for your inconvenience. Is the problem related to Arabs was in 4 April 2017 ? I've returned the page to this version. + Can I remove the notice from my talk page ? Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Atlas. You and the other editor should discuss and try to work out your differences using the article's talk page. You can remove any warnings from your talk page at any time - see WP:BLANKING. --NeilN 22:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I don't have much time to discuss something in the talk page. I reverted two editors (an ip and an user). The first one added unreliable sources to support his unencyclopedic claims (The Great Arab Revolt has had as big an impact on the modern Middle East as the World War I...........) and I thought he/she was a sockpuppet of the blocked user:HailesG. The second one keeps changing images with no reason (, ). So I reverted all their edits to this version. As you can see, he doesn't want to stop reverting. Kind Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Aṭlas: They're blocked. I strongly advise you not to re-revert and to wait to see what others say. --NeilN 22:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks b0ss. -Aṭlas (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

AstoneInTimeonwind

Could you revoke TPA and email for this one too? Sro23 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN 02:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry about the in use box. I was actually trying to repair the article too. XD-barrelroll.dev (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, For the block notice, that was so if people used User:Alison Price they would see that they had been blocked.-barrelroll.dev (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

-barrelroll.dev, thanks for helping out. But please be careful that you're not undoing the fixes of someone who got there faster. And there's no need to tag the user pages of every indefinitely blocked editor. People go to talk pages to communicate. --NeilN 03:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Mail call

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 03:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

For the cleanup on my talk page. Jeh (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution and sanctions

I need your advice to seek dispute resolution and/or sanctions because at Khan Shaykhun chemical attack i.e. Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack#Npov section three editors (El C, L.R. Wormwood, My very best wishes) are seemingly WP:GAMETYPE and ignore multiple WP:NPOV violation of policy, seen from , , , , being disruptive and time wasting for the discussion and improvement of the article.

Unrelated to the topic, can the "POV" template at 2017 Shayrat missile strike be removed, or how long should we wait to remove it, because the tagging editor did not innitiate a discussion nor supported it in the last few hours? See Talk:2017 Shayrat missile strike#Neutrality dispute.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: These editors are discussing their objections with you in a proper way. In some cases, you're simply not going to get what you want. --NeilN 01:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

By "in a proper way" do you mean that the discussion did not escalate to such a point? That theirs proposition and consideration is not a violation of NPOV policy? I understand your second sentence, perhaps I should look for some intermediate option or better explain proposed content change. Please answer my second remark about the template, and need an additional clarification; does creating a sandbox imply it can be used to prepare a major edit, instead to make multiple minor edits on an article, and can be used to make examples of proposed content change in a discussion which for e.g. needs a consensus? Such examples could ease the explanation of content change proposition and prevent edit warring.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Another editor has removed the POV tag so that issue is moot. All major changes to the article should be proposed on the talk page. You can use a format like:

I propose changing:

to

--NeilN 03:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am going on a two day professional trip. In the mean time, could you examine and reply me what's the procedure with 1RR when some editors continue () to make more disruptive rather than constructive edits, or make a good faith edit (), but still it is contradicting editing policy, editors seemingly ignore the warning to discuss it or correct it, and thus negatively affecting improvement of the article? Per WP:REV both partial and complete reversion are considered as a revert and should be followed WP:STATUSQUO "good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good faith effort to reword instead of reverting it" and if "there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus", however per WP:DOREVERT "a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement". In all this where and what is the weight of editing policy violation compared to reversion? Even if is appropriate per DOREVERT, does 1RR overweight the appropriateness?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That was my edit, and it was explained on article talk page. That was my reply to the question by Miki. I think this user should stop blaming others of something they did not do. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, there will be editors who you see as disruptive. There will be editors who see you as disruptive. That's why 1RR and prior consensus restrictions were implemented for these types of articles. If you cannot gain any kind of consensus for your changes that's a pretty clear message that the edits you're complaining about are not disruptive. --NeilN 19:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to hear specific answer to my questions, because I am still not sure about the issue. I disagree with your remark about consensus. What you said seems like a loophole, because nevertheless of contradicting editing policy, or lack of improvement for the article, if editors (with specific reasoning) who consider such an edit are in the majority - then Misplaced Pages is not a neutral encyclopedia, yet becomes a biased WP:BATTLEGROUND.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: That's as specific an answer as you're going to get from me in this venue. --NeilN 20:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thank you.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Phil Cornwell

Thank you. I was about to leave a note specifically for you, but opted to give you a vacation and went to the noticeboard instead. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Satoshi Hino

Hi, because you protect that page in 4 days if I was to report it? 148.0.105.234 (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi 148. I protected that page because of your WP:RFPP report. You should use the article's talk page to explain your concerns. --NeilN 03:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but you can change the level of protection for 1 year to see if we solve this problem of names, you know an example. 148.0.105.234 (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

We're not fully protecting an article for a year. I expect discussion to take place on the talk page. Anyone who reverts without taking part in discussion may be blocked. --NeilN 03:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for being so kind. I am trying my best to sort this out. I would like to request you to take a look at the Mosaic Festival Mississauga document and help post it. I have tried to put every thing in there. I am the founder of the project but now work as artistic director. it is an on going project and I usually see various on going festivals on wikipedia but do not understand why we can post our event. Kindly guide me to how we can get the Mosaic page posted..Thank you Asma

Asma Mahmood (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Asma Mahmood: The article formatting needs a overhaul but the major problem is providing sources showing the event has an impact beyond the local community. See WP:GEOSCOPE. Do any national or foreign papers have coverage of this event? --NeilN 03:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

HI Neil, all articles from Mississauga News are national news paper articles as Mississuag aNews is a subsidiary of Toronto Star and metroland who are our major media partners..here is another link from Mississauga News..We have many articles from Toronto Star for our film festival bt I am not using those as MISAFF has its own recognition ..asmaAsma Mahmood (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Asma Mahmood: "The Mississauga News is a local tabloid newspaper in Mississauga, Ontario." Editors here will not recognize it as a national newspaper. --NeilN 09:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

:N_I_H_I_L_I_S_T_I_C

Any reason why WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply in this situation? If their block is also based on their edits, I can understand - but if it's based on them clearly having edited Misplaced Pages before, then I don't get it.

Oh and before people put 2 + 2 together and get 5 - no, it's not my sock, I'm just nosey. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: "Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start." and "The guiding principle is that clean start is not a license to resume editing in areas under heightened scrutiny." The Vipul matter and advocacy editing are contentious areas and attract heightened community scrutiny. Being to ANI twice within a week of your first edit means that editors have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. --NeilN 09:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

UNJUST DECISION -- Abuse of Misplaced Pages

UNJUST DECISION: Neil, it is with great sadness to see some people treating Mr Moglica (an author of 15 books) to unfairly. UNJUST. How would you feel? Treatment of this author this way, is an abuse of authority. And, in my best understanding, abuse of authority is in violation the Misplaced Pages's policy. Abuse can come in many forms: one of them is the unjust decision taken by a group of friends. Thank you. British Spelling 12:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hot British: Given your use of sock/meat puppets just be thankful you remain unblocked. And please fix your signature. --NeilN 13:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As such, I address you to restore the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 13:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hot British: WP:DRV. --NeilN 13:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Neil. Thank you for your reply. First of all, I would like to discuss this matter at the same level. How would you feel if someone treated you like this author? Thus, if you have any authority, I would like to reslove the matter at this level. If so, I address you to restore the page. It has been so much abuse against this author over and over? Thank you in advance for your time. Have a lovely day!British Spelling 13:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs)

@Hot British: Stop wasting our time defending your advertising for you/your friend and using sock puppets to further waste our time. Seriously. I am this close to blocking you for your antics. --NeilN 13:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

And blocked, based on Freshacconci's new evidence at SPI. --NeilN 14:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Your ruling

You completely disregarded the fact that this user violated the WP:1RR and needs appropriate consequences for his actions. Please think again on your ruling of "Stale". TheBD2000 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yo, TheBD2000: Please see WP:NOTPUNISHMENT- stale means, in this case, that any action would not prevent disruption. Cos it stopped, an now there int any. Cheers! — O Fortuna 17:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TheBD2000: You completely disregarded our policy that blocks are designed to be preventative, not punitive. There's nothing for the editor to "correct" as they were reverted days ago. This is the second time you've badly attempted to apply some process to that article. --NeilN 17:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sethism

Dear NeilN, as you kindly blocked Theoneandonlyseth and Sethrod1, could you please, perhaps, have a look at their (at least) third try and obvious sock SethRod1269 also? And, as a followup question: is there anything we can do to avoid this just going on for ever? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Theoneandonlyseth --NeilN 20:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's very efficient - many thanks! DBaK (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Developing thicker skin

Personally, I think that this sort of edit here is unwarranted; and I am trying to figure the best way to handle it. My thought is to simply revert it, even though it is a talk page entry, on the grounds of WP:NPA. Or is it best to just leave it be? I addressed the editor's question as to why I had removed removed these additions to the page on my talk page. Thanks for any advice! Scr★pIron 20:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - that works for me. Scr★pIron 20:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I am really not trying to cause offense. The concern that I raise about COI users are valid in this instance. I accept the commentgs that my entry lack neutrality, but my question then is" Why didn'y the user rather edit the entry to be more neutral. Why was the entire entry deleted? It would have been a very simple excercise to make the entry more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodinsDrinker (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@RodinsDrinker: If an editor doesn't think content belongs, they are obviously under no obligation to keep any part of that content. --NeilN 12:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Block of Willchamplin1

Hi, Neil, you appear to be the admin who blocked this user for having a username that matched his Misplaced Pages article. He submitted an OTRS ticket containing a legal threat (I am the agent handling the ticket). I advised him that this wasn't helpful, and told him to submit an appeal of the block rather than demand a lifting of it via OTRS. If you have any questions on any of this, please let me know. You seem like a very busy person (!). KDS4444 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi KDS4444. He should be emailing info-en@wikimedia.org to prove his identity. It's going to be interesting handling his COI editing if/when he gets unblocked... --NeilN 22:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed... Especially as verification of identity can be tricky if the client has real world notability (as in this case). KDS4444 (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Okaaaay, well, Mr. Champlin has now verified his identity via OTRS. I have given him a heads-up regarding his conflict of interest and asked him to talk with me if he has any questions about editing his own article— for now, he seems to be in the clear as far as his identity goes. What will be the next step to (gulp) getting his account unblocked? KDS4444 (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi KDS4444. I've unblocked them. Thanks for your efforts in dealing with this case. --NeilN 12:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edit warrior

Could you please do something about this edit warrior who's only interested in inserting Berber everywhere and has broken the three revert rule in the Houari Boumediene article. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain why you have not engaged in discussion on the talk page? Can you explain exactly how The Encyclopedia of Islam is unreliable?--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion. I'm in WikiProject Berbers that's why I'm interested in editing anything related with Berbers. + I don't think I am an "edit warrior". I edited hundreds of articles (dynasties, reverting vandalism, figures, created two articles and I have many others to create...) with no problems. Your edits shows that you are the edit warrior. You're just reverting, reverting, reverting....with no reason.

Sorry NeilN! This is the second time you see me in an edit warring.-Aṭlas (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: I know you're acting in good faith, but I think it's time someone brought Aṭlas' canvassing to light. In all honesty, I'm not in the least surprised that he quickly contacted you and Doug Weller (here and here), just like he did previously concerning Ibn Tumart's article, where no less than 4 editors where canvassed. I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, this kind of behaviour is not acceptable. Maybe NeilN could shed some light on this issue.

While you could be forgiven for thinking that he's new, and that maybe he doesn't know what he's doing, you can't help but wonder what's going on when you see the editor deliberately introducing unreferenced categories, when it suits him (one of many, despite having been been made aware of WP:CATDEF) and removing them from certain articles, when it doesn't. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:APPNOTE

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

• "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:"

• Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article. (Walrasiad)
• Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) (Kansa Bear, Doug Weller, Cplakidas )
• Editors known for expertise in the field(Cplakidas, Kansa Bear, Walrasiad)

Mouloud Kacem Naît Belkacem was born in Ighil Ali (kab:Ighil Aεli) in Kabylie and that's makes him a kabyle (Berber !!?).

Ibn al-Azraq was born in (Málaga, Al Andalus) and he could be (an arab, a Berber, a Muladi, a Black...).

Achamán is from guanche mythology. Gunche mythology is related to Berber mythology like (The tuareg mythology).-Aṭlas (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I won't insult anyone's intelligence by going through the concerned policies, nor will I list the many articles that have been subjected to his original research (I'll repair the damage in due course), but there's an edit of his that I believe is worth sharing with the editors who are here to build an encyclopaedia and whose time is being needlessly wasted (Kansas Bear and Doug Weller). I won't be commenting on it (it speaks for itself).

Last month, an IP editor corrected a typo in the Ceuta article, in the next edit, Aṭlas not only introduced the word Berber (even though it's not the source), he did it with a misleading edit summary (rv, not a typo). M.Bitton (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about this Tarook97's edit.-Aṭlas (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure you were. What about the fact that you deliberately introduced wp:or ? M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's none of my business. The editor claimed that it's a typo (which is clearly not a typo), and I restored it. So You want to exploit any (good faith) gap from me ? You don't have anything else to do ?

Are you looking for other lapses ? I can act the same way. You was blocked for 1 week (Disruptive editing!), your first edit was a revert, edit warring (, , ). Do I really have to search in your past? I don't think so. -Aṭlas (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Pokes head up: The main issue is the insertion of "Berber" in various articles, correct? Is this term not properly sourced when added? --NeilN 01:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I accept any solution you ask me. Just revert my bad edits, and I promise you that i will not go back to cause any problems. -Aṭlas (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Email

Sure, take your time. I just wanted to let you know that we've reached the canvassing stage — the discussion isn't going quite our way, so let's drop some invitations to people we're sure will take our side. - Biruitorul 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Biruitorul: I've issued a clear warning. --NeilN 16:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Brainydad

You might want to see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmir2/Archive. I'm sure her current incarnation is due to not being able to access her account, but Brainydad can't be explained that way. She's trying to contact you on her talk page by the way. There's a real CIR issue here. And an obsession with me, who she thinks is the cause of all her problems. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Brainydad has stylistic tells. --NeilN 11:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey NeilN, who wouldn't be obsessed by Doug Weller 💔 👄 Ha! 😉 — O Fortuna 12:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Lol! This needs to be written up at SPI as a sock relating to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmir2/Archive so there's a record. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

She seems to have forgotten which account she was using. She caught it and reverted it. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It's soooo complicated running multiple accounts -- HAGGER oops --NeilN 14:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Tecsatan

As the blocking admin, I believe you may wish to peruse the edits this user has made to their talk page and consider whether revoking TPA is appropriate. They are continuing to rant about this issue, even to the point of sending me emails "requesting" that I "consider just how inappropriate admin's responses have been". I can reproduce the email if desired. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Both TPA and email access removed for both Tecsatan's and the community's benefit. --NeilN 15:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Borinquen96

Ni. In March you blocked User:Borinquen1996 as a sock of User:Juantheman96. Now we have a new account, User:Borinquen96, who appears to be a re-incarnation of the earlier editor. Could you take a look and block if you see fit? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Well that was fairly easy. Thanks. --NeilN 16:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Apparent block evasion via sock puppetry

Yesterday you issued a 2-week block to User:Suzanne Olsson for sock puppetry later adding that this was a relatively light penalty, but repeated offences would result in much more significant sanctions. Unfortunately, I think a repetition has already occurred. Before being blocked, User:Suzanne Olsson never quite figured out how to sign her Talk edits correctly. Originally no signature was given, then when the use of the four tildes was pointed out, she did not understand and started flanking her typed username with them, putting four tildes, then typing her full username, then another four tildes, such that you got this: Suzanne Olsson (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Suzanne OlssonSuzanne Olsson (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC) . This is not something I have ever seen before, and it is not the kind of thing that a new user is likely to emulate, because it looks ridiculous and is not immediately evident to a novice how it would be generated. I edited some of these out when responding, but she just kept doing it right up until she was blocked.

Today, a brand new user started editing the Suzanne Olsson page, User:Bambi2017, and it took her less than an hour to violate 3RR , removing text that User:Suzanne Olsson had specifically complained about. That was suspicious to begin with, but then the new editor made two edits to the Talk page, and both of them had the same odd signature syntax (e.g. Bambi2017 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Bambi2017Bambi2017 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)). I don't see any way this is not a duck.

Given the repeated sock puppetry, protection of Suzanne Olsson may be required. Agricolae (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bambi2017: the ever efficient Bbb23 handled it. --NeilN 20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've also added the article to my watchlistbot list. --NeilN 20:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Chinese IP hopper

Neil, the other day, you protected the article for George Gently because of edit warring by a Chinese IP hopper. MarnetteD and I are also having difficulty with him on Endeavour (TV series) and on An Inspector Calls (TV series), where he refuses to discuss, and is determined to edit war in preferred edits. The article on Endeavour was just protected for three month because of his edit warring, and a day after it ended, he was right back at edit warring the same edit. It's really frustrating. He does have one IP where he does most of his editing, 223.71.245.147, but then hops at times. What a mess. Thank you for any help you can offer. --Drmargi (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Nine and three months respectively. --NeilN 03:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hope that does it. Grass doesn't grow under your feet, that's for sure! Thank you! --Drmargi (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

My thanks as well N. The one other article that I've seen them hit is Inspector George Gently (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The protection you applied ends later today. Maybe they will leave it alone but if you wouldn't mind placing it on your voluminous watchlist that would be great. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 04:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Already there but I'll keep a closer eye on it. --NeilN 04:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello N. They moved to this IP 211.100.11.189 (talk · contribs) today and hit a few articles other than the already protected ones :-( MarnetteD|Talk 14:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User:World's oldest living people

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cahk: Guess so. --NeilN 14:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision of article addition

I have met this person in real life and know her well and have got to see she has high moral standards. A view of her twitter page will show she cares for animals deeply — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.96.36 (talk)

Hi 81. Please read our verifiability policy. "Misplaced Pages does not publish original research. Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." --NeilN 15:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit war notice

Hello, NeilN. I've removed the ethnic group bar box from this page to prevent editorial wars. Before the recent edits of the user @Linaduliban: was that as of 16:18, 12 April 2017. I explained to him/her through his talk page. So did I do the right thing or what?. Regards--Canbel (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Canbel. You should open a discussion on the article's talk page explaining why you removed the infobox so that Linaduliban and other interested editors can comment. --NeilN 15:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I did ().--Canbel (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Neil, Thanks for your welcome to me, a newcomer to Misplaced Pages.

Hersei1960 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hersei1960: You're welcome! Hope you decide to stick around and build and maintain the encyclopedia. --NeilN 18:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Kate McKinnon

Oops—2 weeks looks fine as well. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 19:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Airplaneman: Ha. Already reversed myself. If I re-reversed would I be wheel-warring with myself? --NeilN 19:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If you did, you'd be in trouble! Airplaneman ✈ 21:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Please can you unprotected WP:ANI, hopefully the sockmaster has got bored and wandered off by now. 88.151.223.162 (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's been protected for less than ten minutes. If you want to post something, post it here, and I will copy it over. --NeilN 19:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed the protection expires in under 2 hours. I'm sure I can live without it for that long :) 88.151.223.162 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

CSD for sock's common.js

That clown at the AN/I who was playing with 1click archiver has this page User:Sucesssuper/common.js, but neither TW or page curation will let me tag it for deletion under G5 and G6. Can you please take care of this? I'm pretty sure he won't need it any more. Thanks L3X1 (distant write) 20:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: Poof! --NeilN 20:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Hudson (manager)

Hi NeilN,

Thanks for your recommendation, I will try to refrain as suggested and keep the edits minimal.

Could you also look at edits made by Users: Patrick478, NZ Footballs Conscience, 02ndBest as they are constantly adding negative elements only to the Subject's article.

I believe their edits are not good faith edits when they discuss the subject on a forum that is designed to negatively talk about the subject. (Redacted) Many thanks for your time, GDN0417 (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi GDN0417. You need to be a bit careful here. Posting links to accounts on other websites can be seen as a violation of our outing policy. Now, as to the article, we strive to have a neutral point of view. That is, the article should have both criticism and praise for the subject in the proper proportion. So if the subject has many successful seasons and championships then the article will be largely laudatory. If the subject consistently has poor records then criticism will be more prominent. So does the current version of the article reflect the proper balance? --NeilN 01:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Deleting a message from my Talk Page

Hi NeilN, I am wondering why you deleted a message (by someone else) from my Talk Page? Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Koertefa: See here. Cheers! — O Fortuna 10:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Since you're the one who left this, may wanna add this to your watchlist. You know... for the sake of the women and babies...tiny babies. TimothyJosephWood 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Alphabet

See my warning on the editor's talk page and the discussion on Favonisn's talk page. I'm off to bed. Doug Weller talk 20:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I see... So adding factual visual proof of this with noted major Egyptologist/Linguist Alan Gardiner and Champollion does not enhance Misplaced Pages and understanding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameninhat (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ameninhat: You are free to directly cite reliable sources. Your self-published book is not a reliable source. --NeilN 21:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

OK... I get it now! I cited my work in addition to Gardiner, Champollion and such. I am clear now. Thank you. Don't self promote or self cite. Cite established well noted sources. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameninhat (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ameninhat: You also need to crop out the copyright notice from the picture you uploaded on Commons before someone notices and decides to delete the file. --NeilN 21:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Got it! Will do right now. Thanks. I'm learning. Ameninhat (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User talk:000meow

Hi, Neil. How do you remove extended confirmed status after a user has 500 edits? I don't mean why — that's obvious, and well done — but how, technically? Where? Bishonen | talk 16:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Go to the user's user or talk page and click the "Change user groups" link in the tools box in the left hand sidebar. Uncheck "extended confirmed user". --NeilN 16:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha. And then you get cries of admin abuse? Bishonen | talk 16:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: To which you reply, "discretionary sanctions!" (yes, it's come up before). --NeilN 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I've done it at least twice and I would have today if Neil hadn't gotten there first! Doug Weller talk 18:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Umami editing

Hello Neil. You previously supervised a block on an editor whose version is now being reinstated by an IP user 76.169.72.11 here. Possibility of a sock, so would be grateful for your review and action, please. --Zefr (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zefr: Blocked the IP. --NeilN 19:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt work. --Zefr (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not quite sure why there is so much policing against editing of this subject. Valid sources are being provided to the edits which you are reverting. This seems very biased. 75.82.56.175 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You can argue that on the talk page after you log in. --NeilN 19:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you can't. This triggered a memory and I recalled this account. @Zefr: I'll be blocking the master indefinitely so any further posts by this editor may be treated as block evasion. --NeilN 20:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You and other editors have been more than patient with this persistent vandal. Given the user's pledge to disrupt Misplaced Pages however possible, we'll likely see more of him under a different IP, but his calling card comments are conspicuous and we can act collectively again. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism? The subject of umami is obviously BS. And you can ban all you want. Really don't care. In fact I'm going to start getting as many ip's banned as I possibly can. You will be doing good work for me. If Misplaced Pages wants to play stupid games then so shall it be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.0.207.147 (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not vandalism, but disruption - your "stupid game" of using IPs to pretend you're someone different. --NeilN 03:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I really don't believe I'm being too disruptive though. Not enough to warrant such administrative action. Really do feel as if you are going overboard. Policy doesn't need to be enforced by the letter, such as you are doing. This is made quite clear several times throughout Misplaced Pages policy. I honestly believe your actions to be petty, Neil. I do a pretty good job of contributing my own quality content when I'm not "trolling", or being vilified for calling out obvious BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.144.111.181 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that...

I'd just realized it was an archive, and was in the middle of self-reverting. Where, if anywhere might that question belong? I realize that ANI itself is a little over-metified at the moment. Anmccaff (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: Totally not your fault. These idiotic games are tripping up admins too. I would post on WP:AN, giving your question some context. --NeilN 04:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. As someone who saw the snuh troll-fests at alt.folklore.urban, I gotta say these things could be a lot worse, but I suppose they are bad enough. Anmccaff (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

List of LiveJournal users

I saw this mentioned at WP:BLPN for an unrelated matter. Looking at it (even the article title), I have no idea why it exists other than as promotion for LiveJournal. We don't have a List of _____ users for any other item/brand/website that I am aware of, and the article gives zero indication that these people's use of LiveJournal is in any way encyclopedically notable any more than any notable person's use of any product, blog site, micro-blog site, website, or web host is notable per se. I've tagged it for notability, and someone is edit-warring to remove the tag. I actually think it should go to AfD. It doesn't even have any references. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

That "someone" would be me. Removing your tag once and then immediately asking you to discuss the matter on the talk page (which you so far haven't done) is not edit-warring. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Agree with AfD. The previous AfD was so long ago (over ten years!) that it is irrelevant as far as consensus goes. And even then, there were a hell of a lot of 'weak' keeps and even at least one who acknowledged it shouldn't be here either. I think all the previous arguments for deleteion still apply, whereas the community backbone against this kind of self-indulgence has been (AFAICT) much strengthened in the passing of all that time. — O Fortuna 10:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to do the AfD honors, I pretty much would rather have root canal than post something there because it takes me so long (I don't use Twinkle). This post on Neil's page is basically my way off begging off on doing that and passing the buck to someone with faster skillz. Softlavender (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Another editor has put it up for AFD. --NeilN 14:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, Captain Obvious. Softlavender (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: What's with the snark? I didn't ping you and I often post the resolution of a thread in case I want to review it in the future. --NeilN 15:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• It wasn't obvious to me and I wanted to voice my, hopefully, mildly amusing !vote on killing it with fire. Luckily I did watchlist this page eons ago. Oh Captain, my Captain. PS; I think SL was kidding. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Neil, Neil, Neil -- have you lost all since of humor? Or did I inappropriately expect you to read my mind? (PS: There is obviously only one correct answer to this question. Choose wisely.) Softlavender (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing troll's edits to my user talk page.

Hello, I am curious to know if you could delete the diffs of two recent trolls to my talk page, going back at least five days. One is the ip address 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:9F, and his sock IP is linked in his user page (the regular IP). I would appreciate removal of their edits from the public view and perhaps additional action with the IP. I have already requested page protection for my talk page. Thank you!! ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 14:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)