Taxus Baccata

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

22 July 2024
Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter Essay: Reflections on editing and obsession In the media: What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book? Obituary: JamesR Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword Humour: Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

You are not doing any good to your reputation by putting unwanted administrator privilege to edit a stub page. It clearly showcase that you have ulterior motives which will surely damage Wikipedia reputation because of people like you. People like you who don't even have an introduction on their profile page and are hiding their identities don't even deserve to be on Wikipedia administrator list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.177.140 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@223.176.177.140: Considering you are close to breaking the 3RR, I don't believe you should be claiming that an administrator 'has ulterior motives which will surely damage Wikipedia's reputation.' Also, redirect protection. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@223.176.177.140: There's a RFC on Talk:Singla you are welcome to participate in. Note it focuses on sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your concern Dat Guy, All I have to say I understand your concern about 3RR rule and I was noway near to breaking it. Also, more importantly redirect protection does not apply here as Singla is not synonymous with Singhal unless and until you guys want to call Elizabeth II as Hitler. So, kindly understand the concern and suspend the redirect till a support for the claim for redirect is not found. As was done already before your revert and block. Thanks and Regards. 223.176.162.102 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Jimmo's page keeps getting vandalized it should probably be protected again and reverted back to this version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Jimmo&diff=730617546&oldid=730548114 by Yobot. 74.103.217.48 (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protected for one month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin.

Spartacus! keeps vandalizing the Sino-Vietnamese War page. He just broke the 3 revert rule.

I have refuted him in the talk section but he just does not get it! He provided a economy article with a 1 page blurry picture to support his claims. I have added solely war dedicated article, yet he keeps on trolling and vandalizing them.

Please block him and protect the page.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.16.150 (talk)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; I've never seen that template before. I figured an EL-style link was the only way to avoid the ping, since I wasn't going to avoid signing my post. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot supply evidence of paid editing without violating WP:OUTING and a confidentiality agreement. However, even the press has noted this editor - by name - appears to have had advanced knowledge of the Clinton VP selection. Although I perhaps should not have specifically said "paid", the COI and circumstantial evidence should stand on their own I think. Thank you. 173.161.39.97 (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurdly flimsy. The same article notes, "This could mean nothing: Kaine has also seen extensive news coverage this week, and like the betting markets, Wikipedia could be a trailing indicator of media interest." Note that the first edit Neutrality made during the current spate of editing happened after news orgs started reporting leaks about the VP selection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I obviously disagree. Thank you for taking the time to review the request, I missed the autoconfirmed requirement for a filing and I apologize for wasting the time with a report that could not be acted on. However, I do think the report has complete merit. The editor, an admin, has dozens of times just this week reverted and otherwise restored material that was removed or contested by others. The Arb remedies listed on the talk page specifically forbid doing this. The article histories have multiple editors complaining. I am disappointed that such a long-time non-neutral editor will again not even be reminded that the rules apply to them. Again, thank you for your time. 173.161.39.97 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A "confidentiality agreement" with whom? Are you paid for editing on behalf of someone else? It sure sounds like it.--TMCk (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not paid to edit and I do not work for anyone who is. I believe that reviewing User:Neutrality's editing history, even all the way back to 2004, makes it clear that there is a serious problem with NPOV and COI. My job does afford me the opportunity to do research and this person is someone that I am remotely familiar with. I was unaware of the link between the person and the editor until this week. Thank you. 173.161.39.97 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@173.161.39.97: If you have private evidence you can email the arbs: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Contacting_the_Committee. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am considering doing that. I had hoped that the matter could be dealt with entirely in-the-open as the editing history is a clear violation of the arbitration remedies (saying nothing about the COI). 173.161.39.97 (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you need to provide diffs of other editors complaining on talk pages about Neutrality's edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka. SashiRolls (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SashiRolls. I'm confused about what I'm supposed to be looking for and how this relates to Neutrality. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:NeilN. I've been quite frustrated by Neutrality's actions (in particular on the Baraka page). I noticed the article at the Atlantic looking through his talk page trying to figure out why he was acting so strangely on the Baraka page (you may have noticed, I saw you congratulated him just after I told him I'd seen it). On that page (Baraka) he seemed to be working in concert with a couple other editors. Since then, I've had what seem to me very reasonable edits rolled back by Victoria Grayson (who you gave rollback powers) without any discussion. Since I recognized your name trying to see what her talk page looked like (lots and lots of edit wars), I came to your page and noticed you had asked about other editors having complained about his potential bias. I am one of those editors, clearly. If you take a look at the talk pages Stein Baraka you'll get a feel for the situation (same three editors on both pages voting against (reasonably) neutral edits). Please understand I am making no accusations other than that it is quite impossible to edit either of these pages for neutrality in any significant way because of the Victoria Grayson, Neutrality, Snooganssnoogans trio. Sorry to trouble you with this, but I saw you were looking for corroboration. Thank you for your time.SashiRolls (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls, what I see are content disputes between you and other editors. You think your edits are reasonable, other editors do not think they improve the encyclopedia so you're all discussing. I see you initiated a RFC - good, that should attract outside editors. A couple of other points. One, I'm not sure what you mean by "I saw you congratulated him just after I told him I'd seen it". Two, you and VictoriaGrayson may be interested in a couple of sentences from: Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback: "The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting." That is, rollback may be used to revert non-vandal edits if an appropriate edit summary is used. Examples: rv unsourced, rv test, rv - too much detail, etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the rollback function. I have no idea why SashiRolls keeps mentioning it.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it NeilN; I need to get away from this because I'm spending w.a.y too much time thinking about matters that aren't that critical though I'm very disappointed with the quality of some of the sources I'm seeing on these pages (but it's an election season after all). I was mistaken about the congratulations, I saw your name last night but I don't know where! I've mistaken you for Steve Quinn somehow... [1] Yes, I started an RfC, but I'm not understanding the comments which are remarkably short for the moment. But, that's not your problem! Thanks for your time.  :) SashiRolls (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC) edit conflict...[reply]

VictoriaGrayson: I mentioned it because you deleted four hours of work (multiple edits) in one (quick?) (cut & paste?) edit. (granted some of my time was spent studying the sources carefully to be sure that my corrections were accurate). SashiRolls (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the rollback function. This is the third time I am saying it.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a bizarre vendetta by SashiRolls and by this IP not only against me, but against the multiple editors (@VictoriaGrayson:, @Snooganssnoogans:. and others), that have disagreed with his/her attempts to mold the article in a way that convenes policy. This ability or unwillingness on his/her part to accept or acknowledge consensus, combined with the willingness to casting aspersions and engage in ownership-style activity, is frustrating and not a productive use of Wiki-time. Neutrality^talk 04:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your trio wins. The dozens of personal attacks on me from Snooganssnoogans having never been reprimanded, despite your role as an administrator is probably what first made me think you were working together to engage in ownership-style activity, and led me to investigate you and VictoriaGrayson. In any case, that user has won through his extreme rudeness, I will log off of Wikipedia and out of the discussion. Three are stronger than one. His (Snoogans) aggressive attacks, which litter the Jill Stein page (both against me and against others), combined with his (Neutr.) cool support, have been remarkably effective in scaring editors away. But this is a volunteer site, nobody has the time to look into such matters, so it works... My apologies NeilN to have responded to the call for confirmation that Neutrality had had complaints from other editors on talk pages. He does, and I stand by them without hiding anonymously. However, I am not accusing him of COI, just of letting others be abusive, i.e. Snooganssnoogans, without reprimand, but with his tacit and explicit support. SashiRolls (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For information... after further reflection, and based on Neutrality's accusation above, I have documented the (litany of) evidence of the ownership-style activity he mentions, but ascribe it to the appropriate actors (VictoriaGrayson, and Snooganssnoogans) on the talk page (here. Until a groundswell of activity has been generated, I have decided not to waste my time editing the actual page, as the two editors mentioned have prevented editors who disagree with them from adding pretty much anything at all to the page itself. Still, it is difficult to prove this is a COI issue, it may just be a bias issue. I appreciate your tolerating me responding to his accusation here (if you will do so). SashiRolls (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After receiving two concurring opinions here and here on the clear anti-Stein bias of the page I added the "systemic bias" tag to the page (which is not supposed to be removed) and began tagging all the disputed claims that have been raised on the talk page by other users and by myself, but ignored. VictoriaGrayson has since vandalised the page: [2] SashiRolls (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. See the RfC.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not one single issue has been addressed on that page. See (here for the complete list of complaints raised by users, and for the comments added on the Reliable Sources noticeboard.

Your personal feelings on the RfC don't matter. That is sorta the entire point of the RfC.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no, the point of an RfC is to try to reach compromise positions rather than to hide behind wikipedia acronyms that other users have stated are clearly inappropriate. I guess I'll just do something more pleasant than beating my head against a wall. ^^ Reliable sources Noticeboard

I'm sorry NeilN but how can these two be permitted to own the page like this? Is there nobody who will check this abuse? I appeal to you because it seems it is you who given VictoriaGrayson the authority she is currently abusing.SashiRolls (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the RfC.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promise I'll find another admin to bother next, but 86.156.141.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) may need some attention, per this edit and this discussion? Ponyo seems to be away, and I think a block/revdel may be in order. Thank you again -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second thoughts, the IP is likely stale now (edit was late yesterday evening), but their edit may still need removing - I'm not sure if that qualifies for revdel -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

samtar, the editor has been using the same IP for over a week so it's likely not very dynamic. Blocked two weeks. I don't see any urgent revdel need so I'll get Ponyo to decide what to do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Neil -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for closing the frivolous AE request filed by an IP user (173.161.39.97). It is a quite bizarre campaign of harassment by him, and I do hope it ceases. Thank again. --Neutrality^talk 17:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, noted, could've linked to it as not everyone is aware of that troll's MO. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Gripling, that and, for those who are aware (I was), deleting user pages created by sock notices and user talk pages is still very rare and unusual. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it's that cases of egregrious trolling from the likes of Khan deserve to be forgotten, yes? Blake Gripling (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Blakegripling ph try PROD and gain consensus on this instead? May be quicker. Zero^talk 16:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, there's already Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Supreme Genghis Khan. I was asking Blakegripling to link to it when they add a speedy tag so reviewing admins get clued in as to why the page was tagged. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the clarification! Zero^talk 17:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir: Respectfully, I request that you unlock the page early, or at least allow me a fully protected edit in order to add in my evidence, the interview with show executive producer Bob Schooley conducted by a verified industry expert whose credentials are even meticulously detailed onsite, in order to justifiably refute a certain editor's 100% untrue assertion that "Penguins of Madagascar has absolutely nothing to do with My Little Pony or Bronies". For anything else that i may not have a verified article on hand with the words "Penguins of Madagascar has (blank) in it, for sure, no doubt about it!" (geez, what burden of proof, but i nevertheless assent and fully abide by Wikipedia's rules)... being flexible about page content was never an issue for me; as stated numerous times i have wholeheartedly agreed to take down severely disputed items and still will keep any controversial material off if agreed upon in discussion and/or proven to be in clear violation of Wikipedia's editing guidelines. However certain other editors have consistently ignored any reasonable discussion in the talk page, and contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines NEVER (sorry, but such negligence, willful or otherwise, really bugs me) use any tags to mark objectionable content in-article and, more egregiously, consistently make personally subjective and hurtful attacks on other users' work AND personal accounts constantly over the past 24 hrs instead of reasonable discussion in talk pages and, even more egregiously, have begun to target said users for what appears to be vandalism, harassment of personal accounts, and even wikihounding said accounts. Would like to finally note certain complaining editors have still not come up with reasonably explained justifications for deleting all the work i have done recently, although i am always till open to talk calmly, civilly and without all the (back)biting as well as continually being personally insulted as "annoying" and my work destroyed over and over again with the same justifications given ad nauseum. Please sir, even if you do not assent to this request, can someone in administration at least see that i am being bullied and targeted exclusively, when the page has so many problems that these complaining editors are blatantly ignoring (i.e.: calling the character Burt an "indian elephant" without any evidence given in or outside the series, i can use the linguistics logic of wikipedia articles to say Skipper and Kowalski speak North American English, but complaining editors say the exact same logic cannot be used to say Private speaks Estuary English, even though by linguistics he speaks every single shibboleth the article Estuary English has to offer...), with said aggressively hostile and hurtful editors constantly making me feel sooo vulnerable and unsafe on Wikipedia that i had to ask my own buddies, brothers and sisters to "escort" me in the midst of a barrage of what appears to be clearly bullying as well as sock puppet attacks (if you, as the complaining editors feel you need to accuse me of using the disgusting habit known as sock puppetry too, then i can have my best friends as well as my personal, real- life flesh-and-blood family respond in ANY way you deem fit to quell such unverified rumors, really... simply request it of me and it shall be done posthaste... the main reason me and my brother share an email address is because my whole family has Apple Family, so he's used to putting my Family Organizer gmail down when prompted and the dude didn't think to sign up with a separate gmail upon registering for wikipedia... however, he is signing up under his own gmail asap and will use that from now on if he still wants to edit... i honestly am getting fatigued of being bullied online...). Sigh... i guess if i really am forced off Wikipedia, i will just stop contributing; honestly, i never thought strong-arming could keep an encyclopedia from really being free, but then again as certain editors keep reminding me, i guess i really don't know very much at all, and maybe well, maybe i just should stop trying, sir :? (your honest opinion is greatly appreciated, even if you want to rag on me and my editing abilities as well, i suppose). Anyways, thanks for reading this, I hope this can all be rightfully resolved in some way, any way really. Eshumaitreyus (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eshumaitreyus, your edits are being discussed at Talk:The_Penguins_of_Madagascar#Addition_of_original_research. Please continue to respond there. Succinctly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your handling of a WP:3RR issue recently. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NeilN, after you warned 67.175.16.150 of edit warring and personal attacks, they again started personally attacking me and reverted my contributions. You should have blocked him yesterday, as their [3] own admitted IP, 206.167.71.30 was already warned many times by editors about 3RR and NPA. Please see this NeilN [4] they made more reverts after you warned him of 3RR, They made total of 10 reverts (counting reverts his first IP 206.167.71.30 as well) in one day. Please see this also, what they told to User:Rajmaan about me after you yesterday warned him of NPA [5] and his this comment [6] which starts with "Spartacus, since you were already debunked in the Sino-Vietnamese talk page; therefore, your source was also unreliable in this article. You use the exact same source !" Spartacus! (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spartacus!, those are not personal attacks and the one doing the warning is you. You are also edit warring as much as the IP is and, just like them, engaged in ill-advised accusations of vandalism. Should I block you too? If not, please see WP:DRR for other options for resolving this content dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NeilN. I am the user Spartacus is accusing off. I just registered this account so that I will not appear as some random IP.

Again, thank you for locking the List of wars involving the People's Republic of China page. I will be very careful from now on with my edits.

As for these pages.

1. Sino-Vietnamese War
2. Sino-Soviet border conflict

Spartacus just keep disruptive edit them with his no credential source. His source was proven totally unreliable by Rajmaan a well respected editor in the talk section Talk:Sino-Vietnamese War; yet he continue his endless and groundless arguing by posting more and even requesting a dispute resolution. The source I provided is dedicated to the Sino-Vietnamese war where his is an economic article. He used his no credential source for both articles.

I believe that he will be back reverting those articles once no one keeps an eye on those pages.

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:223.176.179.46&oldid=731287050

You have made some comment on this page. Please learn to communicate. Not a Singla word is clear from your text. 120.56.175.104 (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@120.56.175.104: It means that if you continue your disruptive editing at Talk:Singla or anywhere else you will be blocked from editing or banned from editing that topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-daaa. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neil, I agree with what you said , but Anant is my cousin and he has personally asked me to get rid of this article , and I am unable to do it . Please help me in getting this article deleted. thanking you in anticipation regards Chandan Indoria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandan.indoria (talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC) SO, what should we (me and anant) do to get this article deleted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandan.indoria (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandan.indoria, you are not able to do it because Wikipedia does not allow deletions of an articles because subjects want them deleted. You must figure out precisely why Anant does not meet WP:BIO and then start an article for deletion discussion. If you can come up with a reason why Anant does not meet our notability guidelines, I will help with the rest. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its just that some of the information that was published earlier was not supposed to be made public and I made a mistake by publishing it . Hence Anant is furious at me and is repeatedly asking me to get this whole article get deleted. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandan.indoria (talk • contribs) 15:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandan.indoria, it looks like all the sources are public. And again, we do not delete articles because the subjects are "furious". Look at WP:NACTOR and see if you can come up with a guideline-based reason for deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me on how to sign my post on talk pages. I do understand your point, but what I did was a mistake and this might get him into trouble as the information I published in introduction section was not supposed to be made public. and it has no citation and or reference like him being a "kathakali dancer" and or "a martial artist ". He is okay with critical response section . but wants other sections to be removed as there is no proper citation and/or reference to it . Biggest mistake is in his name. His name is Anant Vidhaat and not Anant Sharma. Thanks Chandan.indoria (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeilN, could you possibly delete these revisions from the page history of Sam Pepper: [7], [8], [9], [10]? They're pretty attack-y. Thanks in advance. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 17:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neil: Thank you for your helpful and friendly advice. But I did warn them repeatedly; if you see the talk page history, then you will see that they have deleted my warnings and have chosen to ignore them. I may not be a respected editor on Wikipedia, but I trust that you are. Please do everything you can to end this edit war and try to reach a understanding with them before you block them, please. The Roman-Persian Wars article is where the problem with them began.

• LouisAragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kansas Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Foleo (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foleo, right now the only editor I'm looking at blocking is you. I strongly suggest you use the article's talk page to discuss content and drop the false accusations of vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will do the same with you if you act aggressively as threats are not the solution. I am only looking for a solution. But you seem to be close friends with them as you falsely accusing me of attacking them. How do we resolve it? Foleo (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foleo, I told you: use the article's talk page to discuss content and drop the false accusations of vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need a serious effort by admins to semi protect articles related to Balochistan since sock puppet Darknesshines is rearing his head constantly at these places and causing massive conflicts between editors which some of them sadly allow him to edit and hide behind them not knowing it was a sock to get the article changed to their pov. We also need topic bans for users who constantly disrupt these pages with assistance from obvious sock accounts of DS or this will never end. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) See WP:RFPP. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this nice gentleman could use his talk page access yanked. See here, among many other non-constructive edits on his talk page since being blocked. Just wanted to give you an FYI. I hope you're doing well, and it's good to say hi to you again! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of harassment and vandalism in this article over the last few days. I was blocked, simply for attempting to insert the material that indicated Bill Ayers admitted in 2013 he was the ghostwriter behind "Obama's" Dreams From my Father book. I just tried restoring some material from the Talk page that I had written. (Nobody else seemed to be using the Talk page). 75.175.65.141 (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your weird comment on my page. I explained to someone else that he was vandalizing a page, and I forwarded the information to you as well. What's wrong with that? Please don't use "boilerplate" comments. 75.175.65.141 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh!!! I just found your comment in the History section of the Talk page for "Dreams From my Father". You said, " DO NOT add back without *mainstream* sources." Would New Yorker magazine be considered "mainsteam" enough? I think it was founded in 1925. 75.175.65.141 (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it say "Obama lied"? I'm guessing not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that in my first edits. But it is relevant. The fact that Obama lied would certainly explain the various harassers around here trying to keep this material (even absent the claim "Obama lied") out of Wikipedia. 75.175.65.141 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about this. Is this "mainstream" enough? (reprinted in AIM, "Accuracy in Media") http://www.aim.org/aim-report/did-bill-ayers-write-obamas-book/ 75.175.65.141 (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can propose to use that. For best results, you should also propose specific changes to the article using that source, being careful not to overstate what the source says. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hey Neil don't mean to jump in here on your discussion but this IP has now filed an ANI against another user for warning them about harassment of another user. Wanted to make you aware of this as you had warned them about it as well and they brought up this article and the issues in their ANI. The ANI I believe has no merit, thought you might wanna have a look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Threatening_behavior_by_user_CrashUnderride. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", yes I see Drmies blocked them for three days. After that, we'll probably have a repeat. However in that case the IP will have to explain how the source possibly translates into this and this edit. A thorough reading of WP:BLP is in order. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Neil I was unaware that a block had been placed when I posted to you, my concern was the ANI that has no merit from what I see and they linked their talk page and I saw you had warned them as well, they apparently now think we are all in collusion according to their unblock request. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could Amar'e Stoudemire please be semi protected. There has been lots of vandalisms from anons due to his recent retirement. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those information are not are not promotional material. The PAASCU accreditation is part of our College's history. Drewnewvillage (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drewnewvillage, it's spam, and a copyright violation to boot. Please stop adding it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In no way was I soapboxing, promoting or advertising, I just want my school to have a wikipedia page since there was none when I created it. if you want, you do the editing and stuff, I don't want to maintain it anymore from innacurate info and vandalism FYI, I don't have compensation wasting my time on this page. I feel so bad right now. Thanks to all of you for ruining what was supposed to be a good day for me. Drewnewvillage (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drewnewvillage, I'm sorry you feel that way but copying and pasting material your school uses to promote itself simply isn't allowed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [11] Spartacus! (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I was wondering why you made Lovato's award page unable for people to edit it? Was it something that me and other people were putting on it? Because if it is, I was told why one of her nominations was not true. I was wondering if you could please revert it back to it being made public for anyone to edit? I am not going to add anything that isn't true. Please let me know! Thank you!

Lovatc543 (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Lovatic543[reply]

@Lovatc543: You and other people were discussing article content in the article. I've shortened the protection from four to two days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Okay. Understandable. Thank you! It won't happen again! Lovatc543 (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Lovatic543[reply]

[12] same person who was attacking me before with IP 67 range & 206. Spartacus! (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spartacus!, your behavior is just as poor. [13], [14] Do not tamper with other editors' comments - especially ones that you have a dispute with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hatted their comment because they being an involved editor were acting as moderator and trying to put theirs options down my throat. Why they still been let go scot free ? They continue to cast aspersions and attack me after umpteenth warnings. Spartacus! (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spartacus!, Jon Hydro Jets is free to state what they think the dispute is about. You are free to disagree with them in a separate post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello admin NeilN. I really do not know whom Xenoverse9 was. This morning I got a comment from this user asking me to report. I thought it was just my talk section. I really do not get the idea of "casting aspersions".

• Most recently, I got a new message from Spartacus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=731805696&oldid=731805346

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi i am responding to your message i am moving the Steffy Forrester,Caroline Spencer,Macy Alexander and Sharon Newman page because since they got married the credits changed their name Caroline is getting a divorce but steffy and Macy i have proof the credits i do not have proof for Sharon but she is married so those users are being a know it all --Alanpop (talk)1:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanpopo123 (talk • contribs)

Alanpop, you need to discuss your page moves with the other editors who have posted on your talk page opposing them. Please engage in discussion first before making any more moves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ping Alanpopo123 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know you used to work at AIV a lot. Just letting you know Widr has been semi-active lately so an "AIV backlog" has become a thing again, should you be interested in resuming activity in this area :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal, still do (but usually get beaten by Widr!). However the next couple days I'll be busy in RL and will just be popping in and out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I was offline maybe 2 days, so I can totally understand why MA got so worried. :-P Widr (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Then you will have two days deduction of pay, with immediate effect... _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal, can we get a script that detects Widr's presence on AIV and plasters a big banner at the top of the page: "Don't bother - Widr's on it". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha that's not a terrible idea! Widr doesn't seem to take many breaks, so I would go the other route and have the script ping us if it detects he is not present :) I might actually code this at some point! The issue (but not a complaint!) is that Widr is so responsive there I don't bother ever checking AIV, so I don't know if it gets backlogged, I just assume it isn't. In actuality it'd be more appropriate to make some pinging system when AIV becomes severely backlogged, but I really love the idea of a script completely devoted to stalking Widr's activity =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal, while you're at it, how about developing an API function to keep track of edit conflicts with Widr? Then we can hook a userbox to it - "I've edit conflicted with Widr x times!". On a related note, you might want to tweak the userRightsManager script to check another admin (ahem) hasn't already assigned the permission a sub-second before you push the button. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'm starting to think that someone should boldly hat this silly thread. ;-) Widr (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All in good fun, Widr. I hope I made that clear. But the userRightsManager tweak would be useful. I've already had to undo duplicate messages and responses three times. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, see the smiley. But you could also just stop stalking me (insert smiley here as well). Widr (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Widr I can't completely read you through the wiki but for the record these are compliments to your incredibly hard work!! :) Anyway thanks for jogging my memory, NeilN; I noticed a while back you had to revert some userRightsManager edits, I then made a mental note to fix it, and obviously it never happened =P A rather high-priority bug that requires worthwhile effort. This is frankly something that should be fixed in core, just like there's a conflict when blocking users but there isn't one when protecting pages — MusikAnimal ^talk 07:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal, I got it, I got it. Thank you! Hopefully my hard work will encourage you to work a bit harder too. :-P Widr (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that reliable sources have confirmed that the pageant will be hosted in the Philippines with a definite date (january 30, 2017), I request the reduction of protection to allow at least auto-confirmed users.

Also there is sufficient info beyond the date (e.g. sponsors, negotiation process of current title holder, Pia Wurtzbach with President Rodrigo Duterte and the Department of Tourism, etc.) such as in [15]. Although some media sources are confused whether the Philippines will host the 2016 or 2017 edition of the pageant due to the scheduled date of early 2017.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hariboneagle927  Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked edditing of Ring, County Waterford. I would make the case that the page should be edited to reflect the correct name of the Electoral Divisions of An Rinn, Baile Mhac Airt and Aird Mhór as per sources and also to remove the claim that the name Ring is widely used in Waterford and elsewhere as there is no reference to substantiate the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.203.178 (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WRONGVERSION. Points like this belong on the article's talk page. Admins don't dictate content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though WP:DFTT is probably also a solution, I think that the continuing BLP violations of this user needs a talk page block. Zzuuzz made a good faith effort to engage, and it is clear that we have either a delusional individual or a troll (most likely the latter) but now Zzuuzz is probably too involved to close or invoke a further block. You were, I think, peripherally involved in blocking the IP that I think is the same user, so perhaps you could swing over there and assess? Montanabw^(talk) 01:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revoked talk page access after further [insert Wikipedia-appropriate adjective] statements made by editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you! Montanabw^(talk) 07:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's b-a-a-ack: [16]. Can we discuss rangeblock? Montanabw^(talk) 22:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: I can't find any obvious connection between the two accounts. What is your behavioral evidence? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing basic biographic information to add bizarre, unsourced claims to articles about well-known, currently racing American horse racing jockeys. We can probably give him another week or two, he'll do it again if it's the same user. Just to refresh your recollection, we have this and this. It's not a rush unless he gets on a roll. But if we block this user, I think that seeing if a rangeblock on the IP helps, it might be worthwhile. Open to advice if you think a formal SPI is needed or not. Montanabw^(talk) 01:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Regular admins can't tell what IPs a registered account is using. If you want a rangeblock, you need to open a SPI, ask for a CU providing enough evidence to convince a checkuser that the accounts are linked, and ask if a rangeblock is possible. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, for now I guess we can just wait to see if we have a return of Masai giraffe and if so, you can block on behavior and we will have the SPI evidence needed. I have seen admin blocks that declare someone a sock and block without anyone filing an SPI or doing CU, is that still copacetic? Montanabw^(talk) 02:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Yes, that's fine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on the parallel discussion on my talk page, this new one is likely to be a sock of Jaredgk2008. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stopping this madness. I do not know what is wrong with the other editor, but this is a complete madness. RGloucester — ☎ 18:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting the page. However, the person that wants to change the stable title is the one who should makes the requested move. The stable title was Taiwanese until RGloucester moved it in May and deliberately make a meaningless edit on the other title to prevent others to revert him. Besides, WP:NC-GAL says to use the format "Demonym type election/referendum, date". The common Demonym of ROC is Taiwanese. So in my opinion, the page should be protected with the other title.--Coco977 (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you? How many pages are you going to follow me to? Stop with the nonsense you are making up out of thin air! Mr Neil, spare me the trouble and get rid of this cut-and-paste talk page the above editor made... RGloucester — ☎ 18:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do substantial discussion instead of simply saying that I am "nonsense". RGloucester did not respond to my argument. The cut-and-paste page is the result of RGloucester's disruptive behaviour.[17],[18]--Coco977 (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did not have to cut-and-paste anything. You only had to discuss, and listen. You have done neither, and have instead insisted upon making mess after mess. I'm starting to think you're some kind of troll of the worst kind, and that I'm about be taken into your maw. So be it. RGloucester — ☎ 18:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for semi-protecting Matt Kemp. Another article that needs semi-protection is Héctor Olivera (baseball), as the subject of that article is also involved in the same unconfirmed trade. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A guy saved by Jesus, one day, same as the other player. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned User:Bbundu and they continue to post a fake image to WWE Universal Championship. Other users have removed it and told them to stop as well and they just are not listening. The title has not yet been created so the image is fake and unsourced Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Image deleted as a copyvio, editor received a final warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I bow before your greatness, thank you Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a user (probably the sock-puppet of JovanAndreano) which keeps removing categories from pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Can you take a look at it?Alhaqiha (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is back again link. Alhaqiha (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The IPhopper is back again (link). I already reverted his edits, but the reverted them back again.Alhaqiha (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Castle of Paderne built by Almohads (a berber dynasty) (so it's not arabic architecture it's called berber architecture)
In Category:Moroccan people of Algerian descent (Moroccan people of African descent) is more specific
In Category:Moroccan people of Tunisian descent (Moroccan people of African descent) is more specific
In Category:German people of Moroccan descent (German people of African descent and People of Moroccan descent) are more specific
In Category:Moroccan people of Lebanese descent (Moroccan people of Arab descent) is a subcategory of (Category:Moroccan people of Asian descent) so we don't need (Category:Moroccan people of Asian descent)
In Abdelhamid Abaaoud page he is a terrorist so why talking about his ethnicity ?Is it so important ?
If we thinking like this we must also edit Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Usama bin Laden pages and adding their ethnicity !
And seriously stop adding the IPsock template for every ip/account you don't like ! 105.155.222.59 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alhaqiha and Sro23: I've seen "If we thinking like this we must also edit Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Usama bin Laden pages and adding their ethnicity" before but cannot recall where. Any help in tying this IP to JovanAndreano? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone indeed mentioned something like that earlier in a comment, but I cant recall either which one it was saldy enough. Alhaqiha (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is the first time you will hear something like this ;)

I think you saw it on television or elsewhere ;) 105.155.222.59 (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For you Alhaqiha i think that this page represent your case WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT 105.155.222.59 (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know what it is that I dont like, You vandalising pages, deleting information and claiming other peoples heritage. think that this is your case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, 1, 2, 3, 4. And should he be able to just join a comment like this @ NeilN. Alhaqiha (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my ip !
I've checked your contributions history
From your first edit to this edit all was just vandalizing of berber and moroccan related pages
LMAO not only in this version, but even in the French version !! 105.155.222.59 (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean reverting your edits that you made with your 100+ accounts here on Wikipedia. Alhaqiha (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO how do you calculated this number of accounts
Give me some evidences
I think you are talking about yourself ;)
You're english and french accounts show who you are
HHH omg your first edit was removing berber and your third and your seventh edit was a POV !!

The blocked sock-puppet is going to criticise others now? Take a look at the etymologie of the word Bastilla, then you will understand my first edit. Claiming all of North-African cuisine without sources is probably your work again, second edit. Adding the origin of a dynasty or rulers isn't POV, unless you switch information or delete information like you do. And don't try to start a commentsection war like you did on the talkpage of EdJohnston.Alhaqiha (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again you're talking about your self

I think you should take the prize of the biggest underhand and misleading user in all wikipedia

You are the one who claiming that all north afican cuisine is arabian

And all tribes are arabian (like chiadma)

And all dresses are arabian (burnous)

WTF so every berber user in wikipedia is a sockpuppet of "X" 105.155.222.59 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this isn't WP:SPI. You'll need to open an investigation with evidence or go to another admin familiar with the case as I'm not prepared to block based on what has been provided. I have my suspicions, but not enough for a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okey 105.155.222.59 (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what gives you right to make judgments regarding the scientific credentials of people like Dr. Spitzer Ph.D after less than 30 seconds? I noticed that you immediately categorized him as non-scientific source. This hateful, instant assumption that priests cannot be scientists is contradicted by history of Western science. From Copernicus to Georges Lemaître modern science has been born from the intellect of religious people. You have made instant judgement that he is not a scientist because he is a priest and thus his book had to be removed. Furthermore you have shown your extreme bias by disallowing editing to the statement that "all claims have been refuted" based on one article in a popular press. If you have any understanding of scientific methodology you should at least be aware that in science there is never a final refutation of any theory. It's strikes me that you are not acting as an impartial admin, but as an ideological censor who disallows opposing views to your own prejudices. Also, your typically condescending comment referring to my citations as "junk" without any farther justifications reveals only your animus and ideological bias, which is contrary to the whole idea of Wikipedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirVirtutas (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VirVirtutas, it took me 20 seconds (not 30) to google the name and find Robert Spitzer (priest) which reveals he has no scientific credentials. And pro-fringe theory websites are junk sources when it comes to evaluating science. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why you banned her, This checkuser was only 13years , and coundn`t write Excelent apeals (she was from China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.49.111.116 (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) IP, so now you're block evading? Come on, both IPs are from poland -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The latest incarnation sent off as well. Range block being considered. Favonian (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a "bizarre threat." That was a desperate cry for help. 166.216.159.169 (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Whatever it is, you are NOT permitted to write that kind of stuff in an article. It is considered vandalism. Take your "cry for help" somewhere else please. Wikipedia is not the place to do this, and even if you were allowed to, we cannot help you. If the number for this guy isn't working, I suggest you phone or email the University of Glasgow yourself who will put you through to him. Thanks. Class455fan1 (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WMF Emergency has already been informed of this so there's nothing left for us to do here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN Those revisions may have to be deleted as well. Class455fan1 (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would a {{Template:Suicide response}} be required here as this is a suicide threat. I wasn't taking this seriously until I read WP:EMERGENCY just now. Class455fan1 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Class455fan1, I wouldn't as the editor hops IPs a lot and there's no guarantee they would see it. Plus it would be disconcerting for any new person assigned that IP address. And, as you've read WP:EMERGENCY, you won't treat these events as vandalism? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not going to treat this as vandalism. I was going to revert that template myself until I saw you removed it. Only reason I templated the IP was because he was block evading. I hope I don't come across this myself, but if I do, i know what to do now. Thanks for everything! Class455fan1 (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they came right back as User:It's Stick!. I saw you closed the SPI, so I didn't want to re-open it or add to it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RickinBaltimore. Bbb23 actually closed it. I don't close SPI's where a checkuser request is still open. The new sock is blocked - thanks for the note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil,

Do you believe that these two accounts: Honadoern & Poldqnlo5ver342 belong to the long list of socks that were blocked on this page? Regards. 172.56.42.14 (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, both blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind undoing your revision deletion on SuperMap? See the talk page; we have OTRS permission to use that text under appropriate free licenses. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I am unable to respond to Ritchie333's accusation of censorship on his talk page, and continue the discussion like adults, I am placing the response here. It is standard practice to revert a sockpuppet's edits. You should know that. You also know you can put back that post and take responsibility for it. Accusing me of "censor[ing] a viewpoint you don't like" is yet more poor judgment on your part. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-and tried to re-sign- it; don't know if it worked. But, if you're still around could you give us on Talk:Benim Hala Umudum Var‎, a fresh set of eyes on the article's opening text? Won't take long. TYIA, _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

_Muffled, ping worked and I've responded there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. The re-signing thing worked. Thanks very much for the opinion. I know we din't need an admin- but one had already been summoned so, an equal was required :) cheers. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, the padlocks from Twinkle usually give better descriptions of protection, but yours was definitely the right one, my bad! ElysianTail (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ElysianTail, no problem. The date also makes it easier for the bot to remove the padlock when protection expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the reference. 96.233.50.229 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this further edit as well as it has been determined to be a sock of John Daker (talk · contribs) based on his contributions, he should lose his ability to edit his talk page. Eyesnore 02:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eyesnore: Done per Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/John Daker --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked this user, another vandal-only has appeared user:FARKENOATHM8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.66.137 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, page semi-protected. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for your aggression towards me and other users and you will be blocked. Exhibiting confrontational attitude is not an option. There is no room for thugs on Wikipedia. Foleo (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll miss you, NeilN. Sniff. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A D Monroe III, hey, you can lift my block! Will you? Unblock reason? Let's see... It was totally them and not me. Wait no, that won't work. FREE SPEECH!! No. WP:BROTHER? This is harder than I thought... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of text required. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There you go! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per start date of WOT, block reduced to 300 years, starting from 1677. The next block may be longer. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling for a consensus on this. This block shall not stand it's a travesty, it was an evil Clone I saw the whole thing!!😂 Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of these posts are making my grin stretch from ear to ear. Number one on this list seems to apply. I'm guessing that several others do as well. You probably have read them before but they are always good for another read through - especially when things get a little crazy around here. Cheers to everyone. MarnetteD|Talk 22:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you, Neil. No worries, the wire transfer came through just fine. Be more careful, the next time will cost more. --MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: A bargain compared to what I had to pay Bbb23 to get out of my "Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes: sock puppetry; possible incompetence" block! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks. I'm new here, I didn't know the going rate. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: maybe what you need is to sell unblocks on eBay. Let the market assess the rate. LjL (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this kind of thing was all controlled by the Cabal. Do they run eBay too? --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cabal. I should know. They kicked me out. Therefore, I deny their existence. _*sniff* Katie^talk 01:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm – there's somethin' fishy goin' on here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, I hope you can now contribute thoughtfully to Wikipedia. Remember you are still TBANed from all talk pages, and all edits must be repeated reversions to restore unsourced COPYVIO in BLP articles, and must add the words "Jimmy lik3 gayz!!!111", broadly construed. Secret edits to noticeboards to replace all the names listed in closed reports to be against your enemies are allowed, since no ever notices that if you do this while signed-out. And please remember to use edit summaries with caps lock on. Welcome to Wikipedia. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I should have said was that it's unreasonably heavily-edited compared to other articles under pending protection, although it looks like you're right: I looked for a recently-released movie that isn't under any kind of protection and yup, there are plenty of similarly-iffy edits from new and/or anonymous users there, too.

Also, thank you for the protection. I suppose that completely solves my concern. To be clear: if I'm noticing problems like this in the pending changes log, is RFPP the place to go? RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RunnyAmiga, yes, RFPP is the right place to request an upgrade from pending to semi if multiple daily reverts are being made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at this ANI if you haven't already? After reading this on and on and on.... you get the picture, The user in question is displaying OWNISH behavior on the article and on the ANI, yes seriously it's insane. I didn't start this ANI but someone needs to stop this insanity. Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#User Mathsci and all the things Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Been watching it grow too, with a horrified fascination. I agree that it should be ended. The longer it gets, the more it's going to end up as death by admin. Irondome (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", I'm aware of that thread. A topic ban has been proposed by one editor. There's some discussion around it but no clear consensus on what to do. Right now all I would do is caution Mathsci about how they perform translations on Wikipedia with respect to copyright and to cool it with casting aspersions. If you want admin action taken, there needs to be consensus around a proposal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, your right I think only 2 people have really supported a topic ban. The whole thing is just insane. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you get the deletion tag removed and who says that he could put a deletion tag on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye75 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hawkeye75 - If you're referring to a speedy deletion tag, anyone can place a speedy deletion tag on an article and nominate it for speedy deletion if the article meets the criterion. The tag can also be removed by any editor (except for the editor who created the article) if the article clearly does not meet the criterion that the tag was placed for (an edit summary with an explanation needs to explain the removal). Creators of articles that are tagged for speedy deletion must contest the deletion by explaining their rationale on the article's talk page. Administrators read these pages before deciding to delete an article. This is what you must do if you've created an article and it is tagged for speedy deletion and you wish to contest it. Do not remove the tag yourself; someone else must do so. I hope this answers your question :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye75, anyone can nominate an article for deletion if they feel it may not meet our content guidelines. The tag will be removed when this discussion is closed by an admin or experienced editor (in about four days). I encourage you to add your input there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he was referring to an articles for deletion tag. I tried :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Always check recent contribs :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well you know what? I... yeah, you're right I totally didn't lol. It's one of those days again, I can feel it ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the main person in charge of deleting a page after the discussion page? and also how do you find a users recent contributions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye75 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye75, there is no main person. In this case an uninvolved administrator will look at the discussion, assess consensus, and make a decision. As for looking at contribs, please read Help:User contributions. If you have further questions after that, please ask. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like you to be aware of JJMC89 who recently wrote on my talk page that I will be blocked from editing for using "poorly referenced" material on Daniel Keem's wiki page. He is defiantly abusing the power of admin and shouldn't blackmail other users. Daniel Keem has reliable sources and I assume that JJMC89 has something personal against the page. Hawkeye75 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye75, JJMC89 is not an admin. Anyone can warn editors. Have you been reading the edit summaries for that article? "WP:BLP violating material requires reliable secondary sources before it can be reinstated. Citation needed tags are for non controversial material)" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, JJMC89 is deleting more than WP:BLP. He is deleting his birth information which is not relatable. Hawkeye75 (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye75, okay but that's something you can discuss with them. JJMC89, your revert left an unsourced birth date in the article. Did you mean to do that or are you contesting the source? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, I would love to discuss, but I think JJMC89 is being rather immature, my just leaving stupid warnings rather than a text explaining why. Hawkeye75 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving it in the lead was unintentional. Famous Birthdays is not a reliable source. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Famous birthdays is a reliable source. They have been feature on news outlets and they have 350K twitter followers Hawkeye75 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not reliable, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 153#Is famousbirthdays.com a reliable source for personal information. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye75, I trust the above will stop you from reverting again. Also, please read WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I won't revert, but that noticeboard section was from 2013. Is there anyway to block bullys like JJMC89? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye75 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye75, you've called editors bullies and you've accused other editors of trolling. These personal attacks against editors following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines need to stop now. Yes, that discussion is from 2013. You can start a new discussion to see if consensus has changed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "bullies" phrase was uncalled for, but the "trolling" comment wasn't. "Let's get roight into the noose" is an internet meme (you can search it up on Google if you would like) and unprofessional of a 6 year wiki veteran (in my opinion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye75 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was just making a joke that keemstar fans would be able to spot. Anyone who had watched even one dramaalert video would immediately pick up on it. I was just an apparently ham fisted attempt to interject some humor into the discussion. Childish? yes Trolling no. Either way I would highly suggest that you take Neil's suggestions to heart. I've been here a couple of years, as you know, and I've never known Neil to be on the wrong side of something. Cheers mate.--Adam in MO Talk 02:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam in MO, ack! Don't say that! Now I'll probably screw up and block Jimbo or something. And there have been a few times my thinking hasn't been in line with consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Jimbo guy is not good enough for Wikipedia. Lets do the 2016 Wikipedia Coup. - NeilN. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revision 733011405 from 12:28 Pacific time (diff: [19]) contains a direct copyvio of the cited article from theblaze.com. (I'll refrain from comment about the fact that the IP address is registered to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs...) Thanks for taking a look! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revdelled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Craig Giles page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing, Adam9007 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I should share this with my "so-called" sockpuppet:

• "We all know that User:Kansas Bear and User:Yufitran are both trolls and liars. Ahem~Sockpuppet~cough. That belongs to User:Kansas Bear who operates a number of sockpuppet accounts including User:NeilN. So I ask that you take the block off of me for good behavior, User:BU Rob13 and prevent these two users from infecting my page with spam and viruses. Thanks, Foleo (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2016"
  

wow. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Bear, saw that earlier. As I mentioned elsewhere, an indef is probably headed their way sooner than later. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're on a last chance, certainly. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Que?

• "You are only harming yourself as I will block you as soon as my time is over."
  

I am seriously too sober to understand this person. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Bear, User_talk:NeilN#You_are_blocked_from_editing --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that as well. Clearly this person has a problem. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August Fools' Day ?--Yufitran (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back at it Anmccaff (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now at.101.124 Anmccaff (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anmccaff, did a rangeblock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you would, could you semi protect Destiny (video game) for a few days, been dealing with some IP Vandalism for the past few days.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", two weeks, seeing the long history of protects. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If so, Special:Contributions/86.180.213.190 EvergreenFir (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist got them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The semi-protection should be removed due to pending changes.
WP:UNPROTECT
178.42.213.79 (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Hand&curid=38890050&diff=733228910&oldid=733228174 -Roxy the dog™ bark 09:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NeilN. This editor seems like a sockpuppet of User:Exciting2015 to me who has been repeatedly creating sockpuppets, edit-warring and disrupting. Please note that he's a very new account who has limited his edits merely to Kashmir-realted articles like this one and of Kashmiri separatist leaders like Geelani and Andrabi just like Exciting2015. He has made grammatical and spelling mistakes like him as well. Not only that, just like Exciting2015 he gives reasons that aren't even related to what he is doing and is dowright not true. This can be seen here [20] where he removes properly and reliably sourced content about action against police officers saying that the Education Minister asserted there is no ban on newspapers (even though the section doesn't mention any ban on newspapers and is about action against police officers) and it was not reliable (even though multiple well-reputed and reliable sources are used). In addition, he hasn't cared to discuss anything with anyone at all even though he tells others to do it and is edit-warring with multiple people, just like Exciting2015. The only thing he does on the talk page is make an edit request, just like Exciting 2015 and his socks who only made edit requests or page protection requests. This editor's behaviour seems stronly familiar with that of Exciting2015. I cannot understand how to make a proper sockpuppet investigation request, therefore I am asking you to do it. Thank you. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One important evidence I forgot to mention. DnDamubit's account was created a mere day after Exciting 2015's sock account User:DurgahPrasad was blocked. See the log of DnDamubit as well as the result of sockpuppet investigation against Exciting2015 to confirm this. This account is likely another sock of Exciting2015. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DinoBambinoNFS, I've looked at your evidence and I agree. Editor blocked as a sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has been constantly creating sockpuppets. I doubt this will be the last time he socks. Please keep a watchful eye on articles related to Kashmiri nationalism and separatists to catch him in case he creates another account, these articles are the one he usually edits. His behaviour is always familiar so I doubt he will be difficult to find if he resurfaces. If I find anyone with this behaviour in future then I'll report to you. Thank you. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DinoBambinoNFS: An easy way to report sockpuppets is using Twinkle. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me DatGuy, I didn't know about it. I'll try using it next time. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Neil. Thank you for this edit. Unfortunately, this was the response. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophrenic: I've blocked 2602:306:ce98:1510::/64 for 2 weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep my fingers crossed. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even the user Dhinawda is lying about the source. Please check it for your self. The source does not say Galmudug control Districs. It says Galmudug control its southern part.

This is the true information about the city: " The city of Galkayo is divided into two areas, separated by a distinct boundary, with the main nor thern portion ruled by the Puntland autonomous Government, and its southern part govern ed by the Galmudug State." ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.131.7 (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Panyd#Redrose64 at RFPP. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request to ArbCom, in which I have named you as a party. It is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Michael Hardy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this qualify for Revdel? If so, please do. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon, I think you have the wrong diff but I revdelled what I think you were pointing out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was wrong yes you were right and I thank you kindly. John from Idegon (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little disappointed that you decided to block user:Jgrantduff without taking the time to explain what it was about his behaviour that was problematic. I'm sure you are aware that one of the big issues for Wikipedia is retaining content creators of all types, especially with those editors who are capable of producing useful content without having fully developed the skills to interact with other editors. I have had my own difficulties with Jgrantduff; his insertion of undesirable markup took many, many hours of work to identify and clean up, but I supported him as an editor and cleaned up after him - recognising that the majority of what he did was good work, and I made the effort to communicate that some of his effort was unwelcome and, eventually the message seemed to be understood. He never engaged with me, but I managed to communicate all the same. I understand that as an administrator the demands are many and often decisiveness is the order of the day, but carrot is always better than the stick and a little subtlety can go a long way. Best. Poltair (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poltair, have you looked at our prior interactions from last year? Also, a small thing, but despite told a number of times to fix his signature, he's never done so. That indicates an unwillingness or an inability to compromise on the smallest of community standards. He is free to edit in peace. But he can't turn his ownership issues into disruption in article space and pointy, nonsensical requests at RFPP that leave admins wondering what is going on. Perhaps you can convey that to him? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will try Neil. Poltair (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) Vandals are changing the website for malicious reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.246.207 (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked yet again. You have caused two articles to be protected because of this nonsense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An user has been relocating "AD NAUSEAM" improper and unencyclopedic content to the West article, which is already becoming annoying and really disgusting. Wikipedia is right this "an encyclopedia", not for this kind of shameful content ==="I'm a vessel, and God has chosen me to be the voice and the connector." "I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex/Why?/I made that bitch famous"=== or a large amount of never-*ending Twitter feuds, filling up this irrelevant facts with a large number of references.

I know the administrators in this ENCYCLOPEDIA will take action on the matter. Ajax1995 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax1995, I just asked GentleCollapse16 to stop calling you a vandal: User_talk:GentleCollapse16#Kanye_West This looks like a content dispute and should be discussed on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your mature behavoir; as you can see, most (if not all) of the articles about the actors/singers/media personalities of the 2000 post-2000 era, are extremely overdetailed, filled up with fandom stuff and trivial facts added by a bunch of Millennials, UNLIKE what happens to the articles about important pre-2000 subjects, in which their articles are very precarious and have a lack of important and relevant content, and nobody cares this, cause they are no longer on the "public eye" and they do not burn Twitter, facebook or any other social network with pathetic feuds, erratic behaviours and one million selfies, see the difference between the Talking Heads article and the Kanye West or Miley Cyrus articles (specially the kind of content), for instance. just my IMO. making some clean up to some of these extremely overdetailed articles apparently wreaks havoc to the Status Quo. Greetings.Ajax1995 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax1995, like NeilN and I told you, the way that you clean up is not always what's best for the article. You commonly remove important detail and edit war. If "pathetic feuds, erratic behaviours and one million selfies" is what a celebrity is well known for or mostly known for, and it's been covered by a number of WP:Reliable sources, it is something that should be mentioned in their Wikipedia articles. At least some of it anyway. This is why a Public image section commonly exists in our celebrity articles, and not just the ones pertaining to millennials. And per WP:Lead, a brief summary of the matter should be covered in the lead. A number of these articles are WP:Good or WP:Featured articles and have already been through reviews. It is not up to you alone to decide that these articles are not good enough as they are and must be your way.

I've been gone from this site for two days, and I see that you are back to edit warring over this kind of thing. This type of behavior is going to make your goal a tough one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I´m not gonna to revert the Walhberg article anymore, not for the reason of yield to the continuous foolish reinsertion of promotional stuff and trivial facts and addition of a family tree in the infobox with no article by one new user called jibix, but not to follow that never-ending silly game (which I'm already bored and tired) of non-sense revertions by some editors, including such user, who in his last revertion on Wahlberg, he has no more excuses for his silly endless revertions, simply he reverted this again without any explanation after explaining to him this reasons according to the Wikipedia´s policy "OBVIOUS PROMOTIONAL stuff in the lede, ADVERTISINGS in the lede (own hamburgers business with no Wiki article) and FAN TRIVIA. no article, no mention in the infofox (never-ending family tree), as simple as that!". I can´t help anymore, besides I run the risk of being blocked, some may frown with this removals of useless content; so, you can keep stuffing the article with superfluous details, while many other important articles need for help. greetings, bye. Ajax1995 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the Ratatouille photo? It is on the Disney Parks Blog, which is fair use Hawkeye75 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye75. Everything on the web is implicitly or explicitly copyrighted unless stated otherwise. The blog says: © Disney • Pixar, All Rights Reserved. So the photo is non-free content which fails WP:NFCCP #1. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for deleting and salting. There are two more article titles that come to mind, Euro- Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor and Euro-Med Monitor, both of which have been used by them and no doubt would be prime targets for the next recreation, so could you please salt them too? Tom/ Thomas.W ^talk 21:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alrightie. Based on my very very very (I can’t stress this enough) limited JS and mediawiki knowledge, I’ve tweaked User:Gary/link intermediate revisions.js to kind of do what you’re looking for. Copy the code from my sandbox into one of your subpages and import it to your common.js. A "(Diff History)" link should be available under the navigation tab in your sidebar when you’re on a diff page. - NQ (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NQ: This is awesome! Thank you!! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

EvergreenFir (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir:  Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sending you another one. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir:  Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another one. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am here regarding Michael Hardy. They are refusing to drop the case as per the new contributions on Guy Macon's talk page. He's just fueling more fire. Is there anyway to settle this until the case is resolved or something? I am getting really annoyed with them. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Callmemirela, if you are referring to Michael Hardy posting on Guy Macon's talk page, I did see Guy Macon request for Michael Hardy to stop posting on his talk page in one of his latest edit summaries, but suggestions/complaints should be made at Michael's talk page. Happy editing! Hawkeye75 (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmemirela: Let's wait and see what happens next. Right now, it's just more evidence (I've posted about it on the case request page). Hawkeye75, being a new editor, I strongly recommend you just watch the proceedings instead of posting. I realize you want to help but anything to do with arbcom cases should be managed carefully and having more experience on Wikipedia helps with that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience:

• User talk:Michael Hardy#Would you be willing to request a voluntary desysop?
• User talk:Guy Macon#Demanding answers to questions
• User talk:Guy Macon#Personal questions to strangers
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Michael Hardy

In a now-familiar pattern, Michael Hardy took a statement (my "unmitigated gall" comment)[21] about some aspect of his behavior, pretended that it was criticizing some other, unrelated behavior, and manufactured a demand that was never made.[22][23]

For the record, nobody has to answer any question I ask, and I have never implied otherwise.

NeilN, could you please ask Michael Hardy to stop posting to my talk page? I of course have already stopped posting to and unwatched his talk page before asking him to stay off of mine. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The military person infobox is currently the one in use for militants as they don't have a separate infobox. One of the sections "Service years" isn't probably fit for a militant as service years means the time someone spends serving a country's armed force. Besides a military person is used for someone serving in a country's armed forces. I think it would be better if either a separate infobox is created for militants or another section titled "Activity years" is added to the military person infobox. I would like to request this change. Can you point me to the proper place for to request it? I will be thankful. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DinoBambinoNFS, to request a change go here: Template talk:Infobox military person. To propose a new infobox go here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Hope this helps. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add one last thing ? Can I continue the discussion ?--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου not before September 4th or you'll be blocked again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've earned this for the swift action in indefinitely blocking that Greek guy for harassment. I was going to give you some Baklava for the humour value, but then thought a beer would be much better. Wes Mouse ✒ 16:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• He hasn't stopped at Greek, German, or English Wikipedia. The user has started a rampage across other places of Wikimedia, including Sri Lankan, Romanian, Ukrainian, Turkish, Bulgarian, and Wikidata sectors. This guy is becoming a menace to Wikisociety. Do you know if there is a way to warn all of the Wikimedia foundation, to prevent the user from cause mass-disruption? Wes Mouse ✒ 18:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wesley Mouse: Going to the scary, unfamiliar place of Meta, I find this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that on Meta. I agree, it does look a scary place to be wandering about. Anyhow, I have made a global report and hope (fingers and everything else crossed) that we are able to put a stop to their harassment and victimisation on a global scale. Wes Mouse ✒ 19:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NeilN. Currently the Mahatma Gandhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article is in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. The log shows your changes on Aug 5. The protection template has an expiry time of Aug. 7 but, from what I can tell, the PC protection is still active. When you have a moment would you please check on things - it might be as easy removing the expiry time but I didn't want to assume anything regarding your work. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 17:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking on this and for adjusting the template. MarnetteD|Talk 18:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD, no problem. Kept me from falling asleep during a conference call :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Separate infobox for militants is going nowhere. We're stuck on definitions of military person and militant. And not a lot of people responding. It will be highly helpful if you can give your opinion there whatever it may be. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeilN, a few days ago you blocked an IPV6 who kept redirecting Martone to Doherty. A similar IPV6 is continuously redirecting Doherty to Martone and the IP keeps changing but is still within the same range as far as I can tell. Is there anything that can be done?

Thanks, Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, semied the page for a month. Range too wide to block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I have it on my watchlist so if something else pops up I can revert. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NeilN! This user is probably a sock-puppet of JovanAndreano based on reverting a lot of my edits and removing arab related information in North-African pages (link useraccount). Can you take a look. Alhaqiha (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arab related information

You're kidding me ?

You are the one who removing anything related with berbers

Stop trolling

You are a destructive user

Vandalism and misleading sources in all wikipedia versions

--105.156.234.95 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why removing turkish salad from this article ?

Removing berber architecture from this

Removing citation templates from this

Removing berber from this

Removing berber from this

This is not vandalism (i just remove the ovecat)

Removing berber architecture from this

Adding unsourced categories in this and this

And this nothing to do with moroccan empires

I think you have some anti berber agenda

Stop harassing berber users and removing any berber related informations--105.156.234.95 (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaqiha, you're going to have to take this to WP:SPI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think he have a Sockophobia

Symptoms

Invoking sock-puppet exemption to edit war your favoured version into the article.

Reverting every other SPA's edits, calling them a sock.

Stalking SPAs that have not made any poor edits.

Reverting all contributions of SPAs or even an actual sock without checking if some of the edits were good.

Not properly explaining the policy to new users, assuming them to be experienced editors.

Outright reverting when seeing the sockmaster's IP range making any edit.

Assuming only IP editors who support your view or unambiguously vandalize to be normal IP users.

--105.156.234.95 (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, you've blocked. This is JovanAndreano based on behavioral evidence? Asking so I know for the future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he is not a sock, Ponyo has blocked him for interuptive editing. Yesterday two of his accounts were also reported at the SPI and blocked. The fact that he creates a new ip account everyday and follows my contributions to undo everything on a daily basis, reverts all the edits back when they are reverted with another IP adress, and goes to the same pages with the same topics over and over again proves it is him. But we have been following him for months now, so we know when it is him. And next to that, he vandalises articles which is enough reason to be temporarily blocked. Alhaqiha (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the IP was blocked for block evasion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeilN. If you look in the SPI archives, it's definitely block evasion by the same user that is rangeblocked by Vanjagenije here. The edit history at Moroccans and Sahrawi people is also telling. If you don't immediately see the behavioural tells I can clarify privately, just drop me an email.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's moot at this point as the IP admits to being a sock here, though connected to a different master. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crow^Caw 21:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crow: Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Neil, wonder if you can lend your eyes to this article. I've been trying to clean this article up, though it's seemingly a lost cause. The subject appears to be notable, however he's the subject of some sort of internet meme apparently. There's been nothing but vandal edits and possible BLP vios since the page was created. Any advice? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RickinBaltimore, this article was reported at WP:RFPP. I took a look and deleted both it and its copy per "BLP violations from first version onwards". I've also salted one version per your request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, per this edit summary on the Draft page for him I think I see why we had such idiocy: "Jared himself posted on facebook that he wants this page to be edited to be as ridiculous as possible." RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RickinBaltimore, good catch. Deleted the draft as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeilN. I noticed you reverted some moves of pages from "... Republic of China" to "...Taiwan" made by Coco977. I also noticed there was a RM discussion at Talk:Republic of China general election, 2016#Requested move 30 July 2016 which was closed as "no consensus" by EdJohnston. Would you mind taking a look at List of political parties in Taiwan because some it looks like that not only the page has been moved from List of political parties in the Republic of China, but that the move was a copy and paste move which lost quite a bit of the article's edit history which is now found at List of political parties in the Republic of China (1912–49)? Whether the move from ROC to Taiwan is acceptable is something probably best left to be resolved through discussion, but the dumping the edit history seems wrong. There are now redirect for "List of political parties in the Republic of China" created which have no record of any edits prior to the page be created was also seems wrong. FWIW, I only have this on my watchlist because I was checking non-free images and found some had been inappropriately used in the "List of political parties in the Republic of China". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly, I think I've fixed everything and everything is back at List of political parties in the Republic of China. I've also warned Coco977 - this isn't their first problematic move. Thanks for alerting me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. FWIW, I have no bias against either name being used; it just seem that the way the move was made was incorrect. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned to read your remarks on the admin noticeboard. You say "you started editing with this account yesterday and have focused on Murder of Seth Rich". Since I started editing only yesterday, surely I would not have had time to do much else? But more importantly, can you justify your assertion that "the pushback and warnings you received were well-deserved", because I cannot see that at all. Can you point to edits that were problematic or not up to scratch? I think I have done a good job in a very difficult editing environment with plenty of troublesome editors who have no interest in writing articles. TradingJihadist (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TradingJihadist: Acroterion and Volunteer Marek more than adequately explained the issues to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe they have, as I've explained elsewhere. Can you point to edits of mine that were problematic and we can discuss them? I want to be as constructive as possible here, but I can't do this if there's nothing to work with. TradingJihadist (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, log in with your regular account and I'll do that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a regular account and I think it isn't helpful on your part to state that I have. I want to talk about what part of my editing and which edits you find problematic, but you seem unwilling to discuss this, always deflecting towards some side issue. If there's a problem you have with my edits, then it would be helpful if you would engage so that we can work towards a better solution. TradingJihadist (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Your first edit was to create a properly-formatted, decently-sourced article and your second edit was to nominate it for WP:DYK. That's not the sort of thing a new editor does. clpo13_(talk) 21:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you. Regardless, the two editors I named above adequately explained the problems. You can believe what you want. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

If you don't believe that, I obviously can't 'prove' it. Those editors have not explained anything. I'm asking you to explain what part of my editing you find problematic but you won't answer (except to vaguely point to other editors). I'm trying to be as constructive as possible but there is really not much more I can do in this situation. If you don't want to engage further on this issue, then perhaps you should state this, so we don't waste our time. TradingJihadist (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you were told, using the Daily Mail to source anything that remotely comes close to or used to support gossip, innuendo, conspiracy theories is not on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to where this happened? Again, you seem to be in the business of vague and false assertions. If this is all you're going to do, then it's a waste of my time dealing with you. TradingJihadist (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[24], [25], [26] Stop posting about this here please. It seems we both feel we're wasting each others' time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm letting you know that I've created a thread here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Issues_with_User:NeilN. TradingJihadist (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you please revert user SapraAshuraya's edits on Hakkari? He deleted and falsified sourced content and i cannot do it "manually" now. And please add it to your wathchlist cause as far as i can see, the article is target of edit wars, major content deletions and pov pushings. @JamesBWatson:, sorry to bother you again but since you are one of the few admins who gives feedback fastly, i wanted to inform you too regarding the issue. It would be nice if you rv the vandalism i have mentioned above and watchlisted it to prevent further vandalisms. Bests. 46.221.194.196 (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the expertise needed in that area to judge the edit. @Harizotoh9 and Cirflow: Can you help here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt requere "expertise". Read the sources and compare it with the previous and present statements. Clear source falsification and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 46.221.194.196 (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user censored Hurri, Kardukh, Kassit, Medes and replaced it with Assyrians which is not in the source. It is a source falsification and censorship. And also an another sourced paragraph was deleted by the same user. 46.221.194.196 (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've deleted the "In its long history..." sentence. I haven't restored the original because it was a straight word-for-word copy from the source. I suggest you look at this version and restore what you need to (not the copyright violation please). Also, SapraAshuraya has done a lot of editing. Have you looked at his other edits for similar issues? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take a look at his/her other edits. But i will do it when have a time. Others also can do it. Maybe user @Zoupan: may comment on too. As far as i i remember, he is active and interested in similar issues.46.221.194.196 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The other content deletion regarding the 14th century and Timurlane is also should be checked. It was also deleted/distorted by the same user. 46.221.194.196 (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, you can re-add/fix it, no? Go here, click "edit this page", copy what you need, go to the current version of the article, and paste it in, with an edit something like, "restore deleted content". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been pinged here, I will comment. Like NeilN, I do not have the knowledge of this subject to be able to make judgements about the validity of edits. I could check all the sources, but from what has been said above, I guess NeilN has done at least some checking of them, so unless you tell me otherwise I will assume that issue has been dealt with. However, I see that SapraAshuraya has never been given any message about this. If you think there are problems with an editor's editing, you should almost always start by posting to his or her talk page to inform him or her of your concerns. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: I do not trust the editor's neutrality and therefore wanted to contact admins. Anyway, thanks to NeilN, the problem was partly solved. And again, such unpopular articles should be watchlisted by admins in order to prevent them further problems. I rarely edit wikipedia. That is the reason why i noticed the problematic edit after 3 mounths. 46.221.212.165 (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, If User:Rockypedia has violated DS at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, he/she should self-rv. If he/she refuses to do that and is not sanctioned for it, then I think it's reasonable for me to request a dispensation from the requirement moving forward as well. It doesn't seem reasonable for me to adhere to a requirement that isn't enforced.CFredkin (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CFredkin, Rockypedia stopped editing three hours ago. Let's see what they say when they come back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN, did you mean to reference this edit when you made this edit?CFredkin (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil. Thanks for not blocking me for a "hint of snark".  :) Seriously, do you have any suggestion what to do when editors keep putting back a POV tag atop the main Donald Trump article against objections from multiple other editors, after the POV tag has already been up for days at this high-profile article? There are plenty of editors engaged in discussing how to improve the lead, so it seems overkill to maintain the tag until the tag proponents get their way (so to speak). I mean they can do RFCs, or install an inline tag, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant, from Template:POV#When_to_remove

1. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
2. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

For any article, the tagger needs to clearly articulate specific POV issues. These concerns can be used to convert the article tag into inline tags or section tags if appropriate. Discussion can take place around each issue, keeping in mind what WP:NPOV actually says. I have it in my edit notice (hopefully it hasn't changed!): "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks. The editors who put the tag at the top say that their problem is with the lead, and otherwise they would put the tag in a particular section. But the stuff they want to put in the lead is not apparently supported by the body of the article. So I am a bit flummoxed. The idea seems to be that the lead should say a lot about Trump appealing for the support of racists, but it's not in the article body. What's in the lead now is that he wants to limit legal immigration from terrorist countries, and wants to eliminate illegal immigration, and readers are free to interpret that as racist. Anyway, thanks again for your comments, I may be back, because I see little chance that these people are going to remove the tag until they get everything they want, though maybe I'm overly pessimistic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant, again speaking generally, the lead summarizes the body. If what you say is accurate, you can ask how their wishes are supported by MOS:LEAD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will give it a try. Unfortunately, presidential election season is not a season for harmonious and logical editing, but it never hurts to try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not an American so I'm watching your election with a vast amount of bemusement along with not infrequent bouts of irritation as the shenanigans on all sides trigger disruption in our project. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky you.  :-) I've written a mammoth reply to Dr. Fleischman and Gouncbeatduke here, following your advice as much as possible, but I have no illusions that it will likely do any good. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a bummer that we have 18 months of goat rodeo here to pick a president, while they seem to be able to pick a new PM in the UK in about 3 weeks. I don't think anyone here enjoys it (except maybe the people selling ad space.)CFredkin (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, Gouncbeatduke has repeatedly restored the same content to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016:

An edit I made to consolidate sections and remove redundant content was reverted at this article. The revert had the effect of restoring the redundant content (reference to March 2016 letter). I notified the editor of the issue and requested a self-rv, but that was disregarded. The editor has been previously notified that discretionary sanctions are in effect at the article.

The content was removed again by another editor and recently restored again by Gouncbeatduke with edit summary: removal had no consensus on talk page. I don't believe this is consistent with DS requirements.CFredkin (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gouncbeatduke: Why in the world would you restore content that was clearly identified as sub-optimal on the talk page without fixing the issue? You know every edit on that article is subject to intense scrutiny and could lead to sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say "was clearly identified as sub-optimal on the talk page"? The last comment I see in the "Security Expert" section of the talk page is "Retain 'National Security community' section, I say. I'm backing up User: Gouncbeatduke on this. It's obviously not a party issue entirely. I'm positive the 'redundancy issue' can be handled in a reasonable manner. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)" Yet CFredkin and Anythingyouwant continue their edit war edits that complete remove all reference to the nuclear issue that both parties raised and just cover the GOP objections. You seemed to only be interested if editors support your preferred candidate and do not appear to be reading the talk page. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor at the Donald Trump talk page has raised an interesting question. If the tag atop the article is removed because of a good-faith belief that the removal criteria are satisfied (see the documentation and [27] and [28]), then would a firm consensus be required to revert the tag back in? I strongly believe that the stated reasons for the tag have been fully addressed, that the lead accurately summarizes the article body, and that no one has identified any problematic section of the article body where a section tag should be inserted. Can you please tell us whether the tag can keep being put atop the article without any consensus to do so, much less a firm consensus? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a User:ChicogoN is José Roel Lungay and that he created the page:

in the page Jose Roel Lungay :

"Early life[edit] José Roel Lungay, fondly called Father Roel or Fro, " and in the User talk:ChicogoN several times is said user called Fro.

what can be done? Raabbustamante (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

another item is this Page St. Genevieve Church which has so many problems, but as I'm not the best person to cite the specific problems, would you mind looking at the page?

Hi Raabbustamante. ChicogoN hasn't edited since 2011 so it's probably of little use trying to engage them. I've nominated José Roel Lungay for deletion. If it is kept, it probably should be substantially pared down. For St. Genevieve Church I suggest you remove any unsourced contentious content and judiciously trim the list of external links. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Raabbustamante (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what are your thoughts on these non-notable pages

Anscar Chupungco ‎,Ruperto Santos ‎,Miguel García Serrano Ephraim Fajutagana ,Bernardito Auza Jose C. Abriol ‎ (notability issues) Dennis Villarojo ‎ Sergio Utleg ‎ Jesus Tuquib ‎ Diosdado Talamayan ‎ Pedro Paulo Santos ‎ Francisco San Diego ‎ Alberto Ramento ‎ Alberto Jover Piamonte ‎ José S. Palma ‎ Eduardo Hontiveros ‎ James Hayes (bishop) ‎ Patrick Cronin (bishop) ‎ Horacio de la Costa ‎ Fernando Capalla ‎ Antonieto Cabajog ‎ Ramon Arguelles ‎ Paciano Aniceto ‎ Dionisio Deista Alejandro Jose Advincula Florentino Lavarias Antonio Ledesma ‎ Leonardo Legaspi ‎ Honesto Ongtioco ‎John F. Du Jesus Dosado Rafael Donato ‎ as per wikipedia notes on Religious leaders notability :

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, an individual will often meet notability guidelines if they: Are the head of a major Religion. Played an important role in a significant religious event which itself received considerable coverage in sources. Made a material contribution to the Philosophy of religion that is indisputably attributed to them. Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on religious matters/writing. Conversely, brief descriptions in genealogical records or church histories of specific individuals are not considered specific indicators of notability. To this end, more than just a church record of a Bishop existing is required to establish notability.

I believe these Bishops are best presented in a list, rather than have individual pages. Raabbustamante (talk)

Raabbustamante, see WP:CLERGY. It's part of an essay, but will give you an indication of the AFD outcome. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN thank you for the clarification. Raabbustamante (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil, no toe-stepping was intended with the GabriellaComitoLovesCandy010.1 block. As I'm sure you've seen from the SPI, she's been a persistent pain. If it was toe-steppy, I apologize. Have a good weekend! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb, no, I didn't have all the information as there was no indication I should check for socking (the block log doesn't indicate that). All I saw were some semi-disruptive edits. Absolutely no issue now that I know the block was for socking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mphamkawaii put back the copyvio that you reverted... 73.96.114.202 (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, they've stopped now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's really 118 000€! This is serious! Must be fixed asap!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8x3z4wtsyA&t=1m51s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.182.172.88 (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube spam isn't a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The women speaking is the boss/guru of the company...

I don't see infos about these paying packs on their website. They pretend to be a cryptocurrency, fact is it's also a big MLM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.182.172.88 (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a week and half or so ago you blocked 212.171.27.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for evading a previous block. Today another IP (95.238.111.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) added the same content that 212.171.27.3 was adding to Console steel guitar. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]