This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
Hi, I was surprised to see your closure here because the issue hasn't been resolved. Did you mean to just kick it to SPI, or did you not see my comment, or ...? This is an exceptional case of a crazy person edit-warring exceptionally crazy stuff into Wikipedia for at least six years. My favorite is "The redshiftedness of the Mongoloids and the blueshiftedness of the Jews imply that they are the broad Epimethean and narrow Promethean parts of the same funnel-shaped gravity well". [1] The range blocks have expired and need to be renewed. An SPI can linger for weeks until receives attention. If you'd rather not deal with the issue in the ANI thread, would you please reopen it? Manul ~ talk 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
You're still not understanding the issue and still not answering this. My concern is not that I didn't get what I asked for. My concern is the improper closing. If you dismiss a problem raised in an ANI then say so and why, something like, "I've examined the long-term disruption and I don't think the range blocks should be re-enacted." That's a perfect closing, and I would be fine with that. You might have won me over to your view, or if not then it might have opened a constructive and substantive dialogue; perhaps the three previous blocking admins would be involved. However the actual closing in which you silently ignore the issue is unhelpful -- even seemingly contemptuous, and your comments here add to that impression. If you had concerns about the range blocks then you should have explained them when you closed. If you have concerns about the range blocks now then you should take them up with EdJohnston -- don't shoot the messenger. Manul ~ talk 02:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I found this morning that a new editor of about a month with 1,000 edits and no known GA contributions is trying to tackle 11 GA reviews simultaneously. I believe that they have only ever made a single GA nomination that quick-failed after being reviewed by Miyagawa here and which they hadn't actually contributed to. Of note the editor themselves acknowledges that they are new to Wikipedia. Rather importantly, they have completed a single GA review on the 2nd of August here (which they passed) which would have failed had I, for example, done the reviewing for lack of citations, just skim the article, Tycho Brahe and tell me it's GA worthy with at least four whole paragraphs that aren't attributed to any source. It's an article that could and should be GA, but, one that is far from it even with the 103 current citations. Not to mention, possible copyright violation here (I reckon its a false flag based on the source and wayback machine) but the editor didn't even comment on it when doing the review. I'm not sure how to proceed here, I want to assume good faith, but, the editor may need to attempt mentorship and be wary of taking on anything GA related until they have at a minimum one GA themselves. Mr rnddude ( talk) 22:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Pretty sure these two are socks considering their edits to the master's page. Special:Contributions/2600:1:8A7C:1FBB:4506:8D58:535C:6023 & Special:Contributions/2600:1:8A5D:B464:E591:73BB:9D0B:AB1E. Posting here because you appear to be online, recently (21 August) blocked some of his evading-IPs, and per "not feeding trolls"/RBI. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 22:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi NeilN,
I note on your closing marks you mentioned "This is not the proper venue for an RFC that would affect hundreds of articles. It needs to be held on a central discussion page and widely advertised." I entirely agree with this, could you kindly assist me by providing a proper venue, which would be widely advertised to tap into the talent of the many intelligent editors on Wikipedia. I feel that some rules to govern articles of this type to conform with WP Policy NPOV would give articles of this nature a consistent, and globally accepted view from an encyclopedic POV. -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk 08:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution
NeilN and
athomeinkobe, I have not forgotten about this discussion, I was very busy lately with my professional life. In my spare time, I do intend to review that policy, and make a proposal here, once the proposal has been properly formulated, I would appreciate if
NeilN could assist me in placing it at the proper venue.
To answer your question
athomeinkobe, it's not about legal proceedings in Australia, and their outcome. If you want to write that the "local court's claimed the homicide of cobby to be a murder, with the reference that is fine. But in say something in Wikipedia voice, there must be strict adherence to NPOV policy. Otherwise, we must also include other opinion evidence such as
https://www.google.lk/search?q=murder%20as%20natural%20selections&rct=j And we can get into a big debate about the number of ways to classify cobby's homocide. --
Eng. M.Bandara
-Talk
11:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I have one question. Can i use the images from this http://www.rajyasabhatv.com/ website. Last time you have said me to ask someone before use of images from 3rd party websites. So i am asking. Can you please confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn richard1 ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Could you (or any active admin who sees this) restore User:NQ/sandbox/temp please? - NQ (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) @ NQ: done. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello NeilN This is a request for you to look, comment and possibly place an edit in the Bill Cosby biography about his contribution to the Black History anthology TV series from the 1960's (see talk page). Per your request more RS have been placed there and the TV series found significant coverage in the NEW York Times of the day. It was viewed by 22 million people and the producers credit Cosby's participation as what led to the Emmy for a history documentary. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 ( talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC) A Contributor
I dont do Twinkle, or warnings because I'm not competent!! I've spent thirty mins trying to warn a couple of users at Paul Fix (racing driver). Could you look, spend a minute perhaps. thx. Roxy the dog™ bark 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello NielN
It seems someone is back vandalizing the page again. This user MaxPrem only made two edits and he removed reliable source. I reverted the article back to its original format where the result was agreed on the talk page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:MaxPrem&action=edit&redlink=1
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sino-Vietnamese_War&action=history
-- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 16:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, thanks for your email. It was not a mistake, but now that you mention it, I didn't know it was a problem! So I'm grateful to you for bringing it to my attention, and as I think about it more, I can see why it would be undesirable. I'll research some more for my own edification. Thanks for keeping me on the train tracks--it shan't be an issue going forward. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Please review his stubborn reversals & lack of logic & reason. Also see the associated Talk page. Txs. Purrhaps ( talk) 03:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Did you look at the history? Looks like a sock. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Based on your recent protection of this article, can you please also block Still minded ( talk · contribs); as a sock of User:Filipz123, which was the account that edited the article prior to your protection. Thanks. MeowMoon ( talk) 01:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for reverting the sock IP. He seems to have developed an interest in me/my edits/my talk page. Secondly, would it be ok to have my talk page & user page semi protected, please? Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 06:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if you are following them but you may want to remove their talk page access. 331dot ( talk) 09:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Please help to resolve claims, provided by Winkelvi and Smartse in the page /info/en/?search=Ilias_Psinakis. Once, a year ago you already helped to solve. I have given all the relevant sources.LS 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba ( talk • contribs)
Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:5C8B:856F:FDF6:3076:9476:CB36 is obsessed with something - Roxy the dog™ bark 10:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, this ongoing RFC was not listed under BLP bio, but only under BLP pol. Please advise how I can get it listed under both, at this point. I'm not sure how to do it. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I am sorry to bother you, and I really hate having to stoop to this level. But since they did, so am I. They even told me to do it. So here I am (I don't know how to 'ping' someone).
I noticed that you took part in one of the numerous times that Side to Side was voted on or redirected. Well, a 3 day old voting decision isn't enough for them. They are back, and wanting a page and have a vote going on. They have Side to Side (song) running and a name change request was sent back to the talk page for a vote.
If you care to voice your opinion (again), feel free to click. Your previous decision does not count towards the current vote. This one is primarily about changing the name, but I feel that since it was currently voted to redirect, that the primary voting reason should be about whether to have a page or not. Either way, voices need to be heard (again).
Kellymoat ( talk) 20:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Neil! Could you take a look at the Donald Trump article? There seems to be some revert warring going on, about what image to use in the infobox. That subject is currently under discussion at the talk page, but I find the following actions at the talk page today: new image introduced [3], reverted [4], new image restored [5], reverted [6]. I'm not pointing any fingers at any particular person, I'd just like some uninvolved eyes on the situation. I posted a generic warning on the talk page. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I was just about to add my reasoning to the discussion that you closed. This is what I was going to say:
While there is not particular blatant violation, I do believe that the content that is on the userpage does go against what is in the nutshell of the policy page: "They should be used to better participate in the community, and not used to excess for unrelated purposes nor to bring the project into disrepute."
If you think that this is a good argument then please go ahead and reopen the discussion (if that can be done). -- MorbidEntree - ( Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Yo NeilN, how bout an hour or two's smi? Yon IP is back. Cheers! Muffled Pocketed 08:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
As you recall there was an issue with an IP at the Universal Championship which caused me to look like the bad guy, anyways targeted by another IP tonight who removed content replaced content several times so I put the page back as it was written as there were no issues or anything unsourced as the IP claimed then I was reverted here with a snotty comment then a comment was left on my talk page conveniently the IP knew about last issue, geo locate shows both originated from Europe. Not getting suckered again like last time. New IP location, IP from before. I would like my talk and user page Semi please as clearly this isn't going to end. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 10:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Good enough thank you Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 21:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Debresser#Some_advice_needed
What is your response? Purrhaps ( talk) 12:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't find the deleted messages. But just go back to my 1st post above & find your response. -- Purrhaps ( talk) 02:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For various and sundry, but most recently for protecting vandalized articles. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 18:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC) |
I have just read NOTHERE rule and I haven't noticed what could coincide with my behaviour. I am a honest reader who sometimes intervenes when I see a POV push. I call for reversal of speedy close. Have you even read that MShabazz verbally offended me for no reason? I DON'T believe this kind of incivility is tolerated in Wikipedia, so the case should be re-opened. Or I will call for arbitration. Wikipedia is not closed for users-only, anonymous users exist for a reason. -- 37.44.65.39 ( talk) 23:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
And another post... boomerang duck. -- Dane2007 talk 01:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Dschslava Δx parlez moi 05:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
You see the headline Is Germany's AFD racist? pop up in your feed reader and wonder which nut nominated Germany for deletion. -- NeilN talk to me 05:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Should I remove my minor warning from that IP page? Looks like you were posting your more severe one as I was composing mine. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 09:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I shall remove then looks like they were doing it again as I was getting the warning together that you reverted anyways. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 09:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Looks like I'm going to need assistance at Harry's Place IP provides no source for content, then gets mad and starts blanking sections because they can't add their Unsourced material. 2 warnings issued Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 10:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, does that warning apply to ALL political bios and articles post 1932 or just certain ones? I guess I need to be more carefull about reading all the headers and warnings. Thank you. -- Malerooster ( talk) 16:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Neil. I had also posted an explanation on Malerooster's talk page, before I saw this. I wanted to let you know that in the course of that little revert war, there were also two potential violations involving the restoration of contentious material. The course of action was this: Material about a Saudi purchase from Trump was added to the article by Vesuvius Dogg; so far so good. It was deleted by Malerooster, so far so good; that removal identifies the material as contentious. However, it was re-added to the article by Jeppiz [7] (restoration of contentious material), removed again by Malerooster, restored again by Vesivius Dogg [8] (restoration of contentious material AND violation of 1RR), removed a third time by Malerooster, restored again by Volunteer Marek [9] (removal of contentious material), and removed by Anythingyouwant. You have warned Malerooster; you might want to see if anything needs to be done about the other violations. Thanks so much for your attention to this article! -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey,
I think a block extension and talk page access revocation for 85.74.31.101 are in order per the continuing WP:NOTHERE behavior reported at this AN/I. Could you take a look at this?
Thanks -- Dane2007 talk 01:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Please have another look, I only requested because I feel I will just end up Warring with the guy that is constantly saying the club is in Barnet even know they have moved out of the area. He even deletes the citation. Govvy ( talk) 11:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 18:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
User weweremarshall continues to edit war across several WWE Articles which currently have talk page discussions pending. User has been reverted by several editors, User has now reverted edits calling them Vandalism, which they are not and filed false reports against another user all while edit warring. Thoughts? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 00:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry you had to look for boomerang, I have another user vandalizing another admins page
here removing another users question and replacing it with a car picture, they were reverted by other users and myself and warned twice which they keep deleting
Chris "WarMachineWildThing"
Talk to me
01:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Facepalm LOL. Done. Softlavender ( talk) 02:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
...for protecting that article! I've just submitted another one to WP:RPP for the exact same reason! A User ( contribs) 02:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I restored it back to a more stable version for now using twinkle. After various content removals, Vandalism, and Unsourced material seen here can we get a semi protect on it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 03:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey, just a heads up, but the IP that you blocked a day ago straight out of the block has been edit warring again on the same page and shows no intentions of stopping. I really shouldn't be the one to do any further blocks as I'm involved but just wanted to drop you a line. Connormah ( talk) 13:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
They're at it again. Longer protection, possibly indef? Corkythe hornetfan (ping me) 01:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Neil, if you would, please take a look at the talk page discussion I'm currently involved in at the Donald Trump article. Then please look at the latest reversion at the article, done by the photographer who has been pushing for his photos to be in as many political articles as possible. I think it's COI, but realize there is no policy on images and COI that can be quoted or enforced. The edit warring there has been slow, but definite. There are those pushing for specific photos who keep claiming consensus when there isn't one. Plenty of editors were fine with the photo that's been longstanding at the article, and stated as much at the article talk page several times over the last several months. The latest round of this ended up with no clear consensus, just a couple of !votes over those who wanted to keep the longstanding image. My point here is not in the way of the photo as much as it is the blatant disregard for the DS rule at the article and ignoring your previous warning about same. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Also pinging MelanieN since she commented there re: edit warring and DS as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I was gonna come to you about that issue earlier today as it has gotten insane but Crash had already went to another admin so I just responded there. Thanks for the 4 days of some peace Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 03:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that a user closed two AfDs where I recently commented [10] and [11]. He/she is not an admin and made the closures without any justification per arguments made during these AfDs. I also noticed this discussion on their talk page indicating that they should not do any closures on controversial subjects. Was it all right on the part of user who made these closures? I do not really care that much about these pages, but would like someone uninvolved (like you) to quickly look at this. If you think the closings were appropriate, then OK, I do not mind. Let's keep them. Thank you, My very best wishes ( talk) 02:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Special:diff/738546185 you cited WPSNOW as reason to delete a redirect.
I will quote Wikipedia:Snowball_clause#A_cautionary_note:
I expressed a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement which you ignored. You treated this like a vote and by closing it after a mere two days you did not give adequate time for uninvolved parties to express their views about this. This is exactly the type of thing this note was out there for. Please re-open the discussion and let it persist a couple weeks. Ranze ( talk) 08:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Neil I'm not sure what you mean by "poorly sourced", the quote is from Tyler Breeze, it is dialogue from the ongoing series WWE NXT. There isn't any better support for a nickname's existence than for it to be spoken by the cast of the show during the show. I'm in the process of appealing that deletion by elaborating on details they may not have been made aware of, due to resistance of including the nickname on the article itself.
If Crash can reliably source Rock's nicknames and if those names exclusively refer to a single wrestler I would support his redirecting those unique names to the wrestlers too. I think the WWE website was still around during the AE but I don't know if they quoted him. Given the PG era it might be hard to find WWE-approved clips of his worse insults now. Ranze ( talk) 02:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Neil re special:diff/738813763 it's clear that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are a collective concept. We're told:
Under the "Derivation" section:
Thus guidelines are our instructions on how to apply policy and just as if not more important.
The (not a policy or guideline, but a supplement) essay Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays elaborates about this under Misconception 7:
This seems to be hair-splitting. WP:R may be "a guideline" rather than "a policy" but I posit to you that both of these fall under the umbrella term "Wikipedia policy" because guidelines are inherently part of the subject of policy (how we apply it) and so it is acceptable for me to consider WP:R to be a policy guideline. Ranze ( talk) 12:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I get the sense you mean 'guideline' to sound soft, kind of like how some people do with the word 'theory' even though "Theory" has a hard sense in Science and "Guideline" has a hard sense in policying.
Which portion of BLP applies here where the issue is a character calling another character something. A nickname applied to a character portrayed for an actor does not appear to be something that would fall under the BLP protections for that actor. For example " Worf is ugly" would not violate BLP concerns about Michael Dorn as an attack page, because there is a distinction between things expressed about a character and things expressed about an actor portraying the character.
Breeze insulted the appearance of Adrian Neville the fictional wrestling character not the living person portraying him, Ben Satterly. These guys do scripted arguments, Satterly consented to let the Breeze character call his Neville character whatever he called him, he's paid to do it, so it's not a BLP concern. Ranze ( talk) 16:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Pretty positive after their edits and geolocate [ this] is the same IP/person you blocked. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 08:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, they jumped to [ this] one after you blocked them, so apparently they really want on here lol Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 19:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
How and what is Mentorship? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 21:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi there I'm relatively new and inexperienced at editing on Wikipedia but I am well-educated (BSc & MSc). Could you please inform me of the reasons for the deletions of my contributions to the Sam Harris page? Is it because his own blog is not a reliable source? I have only reported facts on what he has done and promised to do
I will appreciate your feedback
Cheers Matt Wegs ( talk) 09:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I did thanks (after posting the last queries). I understand why one may class it as 'trivial' and 'spamish' but I believe the contribution helps to elaborate on his character, interests and philosophies. Additionally, the positive message, raising of awareness, and tangible effects on people's behaviour of Effective Altruism and Sam's pledges, seem relevant and important. Also, by linking in Effective altruism, GiveWell etc. it can help inform people of their existence in trying to improve the world, like in my opinion, Wikipedia does (e.g. I started to donate to Wikipedia once I knew it needed it to exist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Wegs ( talk • contribs) 10:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Drown it in bleach | |
Some bleach for your mind brain for having to view that preview. I hope it can scrub some of the filth and shame off. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC) |
Just wanted to say thanks for removing meat/sock puppet account I reported. I saw your message about it not being hoax or vandalism, but it all happened so quick I didn't get a chance to respond. Thanks about that!-- Mr.hmm ( talk) 17:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil. The RFC has been closed at the Trump article, regarding whether the lead will say in Wikipedia's voice that many of his statements are "false". The closer said there was a "rough consensus" to include, as compared to the "firm consensus" that would be needed per DS if the material is challenged and then reinserted. Following the RFC close, the material was inserted, then challenged, then reinserted. Would you please check whether the reinsertion was consistent with DS? Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I've commented at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_Clarification. Sandstein 07:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this, just in case you're keeping count, it's three. The latest is the third one. And then there was one interaction ban between the two of us. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I need your help with @ Bbundu:. They are disruptively editing List of WWE World Champions and have been warned, yet they keep doing so. I also think they may be violate WP:3RR soon. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 02:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes thank you Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 02:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm still kind of floored that they've been here for over a year, with more than 700 edits, without making a single talk page post or non-default edit summary. -- NeilN talk to me 03:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
116.212.224.37 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This IP is pretty persistent tonight in their vandalism. I notice that it's probably a school based on the block log. I put it on AIV but they're still going pretty hardcore since I put the report there, could you issue a block? Thanks! -- Dane2007 talk 03:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
66.87.121.65 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Feel like another one? They're after my user page now. -- Dane2007 talk 03:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
86.20.193.222 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Another sock of "Vote (X) for Change" it appears based on the same commentary on the reference desk. -- Dane2007 talk 02:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
You have responded to my unsourced edits on Jumla district and bullfighting. Thats good, but I did those editings because I am a local of the place where bullfighting is held in Nepal. and I have been to Jumla quite a lot. I acknowledge my lack of source, and will try to add one in my future posts. Thanks for your comments. Have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhikaridhiraj ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
They called me a bad name. :( lol. User talk:Crash Underride#Idiot. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 15:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, in the open Michael Hardy arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias ( T)( C) 19:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think I messed up what you were doing with my reply. Please feel free to remove my reply. I've copied it, and can post it again later. Sorry for interfering. (violation still visible in the diff of one my edits). --- Sluzzelin talk 23:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I looked at the edits and agree with you 100% they are not acceptable. I have checked the desktop & laptop machines that use this internet connection and find no evidence in history and cache of visiting those pages. Cache had not been deleted either.
There is a serious issue here as my children are too young to have done this. In order to get to the bottom of this matter could you please help me with the following.
1. The times noted were between 8:23 & 8:42 AM UTC. Which would mean approximately September 12th 11:42 PM Australian Eastern Time?
2. Does "(Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)"'' mean the Operating system off the device was a mobile (either Android/Apple IOS) device?
3. Please provide any other information you have.
Thank You in advance for your help in getting to the bottom of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.131.45 ( talk) 00:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you I will check mobile devices later today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.131.45 ( talk) 00:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Chriscross619 is understanding what I am explaining to them about Unsourced and Sourced material on articles, either that or they are playing with me. Other editors have warned them about various other stuff on articles. I just want them to understand and I don't think I'm getting through judging from the responses I got [ here] Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 02:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the sock activity at Talk:Peter Joseph (see today's history)? The same action is currently also at Talk:Jacque Fresco. The admin who dealt with it last time is not active, and my watchlist showed you near the top, so if you feel inclined, please have a look. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Another possible "97 IP" sock: Special:Contributions/97 IP 12. Linguist 111 If you reply here, please type {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message. 12:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Did someone recently suggest a new "rollback all edits" function over at Village Pump? Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be actively participating at ANI, and you were the first recognizable admin username I saw there, so I figured I'd ask, do you think you could look at this thread at AN/I and possibly follow up on it? The IP editor I mentioned isn't the only one hurling accusations around, and they seem to have gotten worse since I first posted that. The article in question has been fully protected, but there's more disruption going on at the article talk page and in the thread linked at ANI. I'd really appreciate it. The discussion started off toxic and seems to have just gone downhill from there, despite the efforts of a few of us to calm things down.
I've watched your page, so you don't need to let me know if you reply here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to keep coming back here, but (IMHO, take it for what it's worth) I think it's time that IP got blocked from editing. See the following:
All of those happened since the various warnings you posted. I think this IP editor is clearly not going to stop with the incivility or disruption. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, I believe User: Volunteer Marek violated discretionary sanctions with this edit at Donald Trump. The edit restored content which had been removed following its recent addition ( [13], [14]). The OP is aware of the requirements of discretionary sanctions. As an uninvolved admin, can you please intervene? CFredkin ( talk) 17:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll also note that there are discussions underway in Talk ( [15], [16]) on these edits. There is currently no consensus to restore them, and the OP has made no contributions to the discussions (despite the fact that I referred to them in one of my edit summaries). CFredkin ( talk) 17:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
At 14 September at 13:53, the following sentence was added to the opening paragraph of the lead: "He is the founder of Trump University and the New Jersey Generals football team." This sentence was removed at 16:33 on 14 September Then User:Volunteer Marek edited this BLP by restoring that sentence at 16:47 on 14 September. At that point (16:47) there was already a talk page discussion with no consensus for including this material (three editors had commented and none of them supported reinclusion of the disputed sentence). User:Volunteer Marek has previously been informed about discretionary sanctions at this BLP. [17] What can be done? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Reminder that WP:AE is available if you want to pursue another avenue for enforcement. Here's what you can expect from me:
-- NeilN talk to me 18:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The discretionary sanctions are intended to promote caution in inserting potentially contentious material, but he's realized that he can render any material "contentious" simply by reverting it. It's a pattern which, combined with his editing history, makes it clear what he's up to. He's gaming the discretionary sanctions, and I see other editors, including Marek, getting frustrated with it. More to the point, if the discretionary sanctions are giving editors like CFredkin or Anythingyouwant de facto veto power over content, then they're not being enforced in a productive way. MastCell Talk 19:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi NeilN. The edit restored material which did indeed have consensus on talk. See the discussion here. User:Buster7 expressed his opinion and correctly observed that omitting the info and substituting a link to an almost empty article is "sending our readers to an empty closet". The material itself was added, proposed, and discussed by User:Somedifferentstuff. User:Muboshgu also appeared to agree with the inclusion. Note that EVEN (and yes, that "even" is very much applicable) User:Anythingyouwant agreed that some info needed to be present in the article, stating that the text removed by CFredkin was "enough for now". Hence, CFredkin is the only one objecting to the material, consensus is clearly against them, yet they are insinuating in their edit summary that their removal of the material is with consensus. It's not, just the opposite.
More generally, User:MastCell above is exactly right. CFredkin has repeatedly acted in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner in a clear pattern of WP:GAMEing discretionary sanctions. On other articles related to the presidential race, just like this one, CFredkin automatically reverts any edit which they feel is insufficiently complimentary to Trump, or insufficiently critical of Clinton. Then they claim that discretionary sanctions give them some kind of Magical-Shield-Of-Protection-From-Being-Reverted, no matter how disruptive or obnoxiously POV their edit is. This case exemplifies it pretty well.
As to the Generals thing that is brought up by Anythingyouwant, yeah, that got caught up in the revision and I have no problem with that being removed from the lede. I did a partial self revert accordingly. However, I'm not clear why the mention of Trump University is being removed along with the obviously much less significant NY Generals. It seems like one reasoning is being used to make a different kind of edit. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Since I've been misquoted above, I'd like to correct the record. At the Trump talk page, I did not say that the material VM supports was "enough for now". What I said was "That seems like plenty for now, and it ought to be more concise in view of WP:Summary style." I subsequently edited the section in question, and here is what it looked like at the time of my last edit, before VM greatly expanded the section without consensus. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
If Volunteer Marek deserves sanctioning then so do half the editors at Donald Trump, in particular CFredkin for consistently gaming the system in regards to discretionary sanctions with his drive-by deletions. I know this is silly season but enough already. I can't even get started on Anythingyouwant (I was in awe of the descriptive response here) --- and low and behold, he strikes again [21] even though he knows he doesn't have consensus to remove the material. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I think is beyond the remit of a single admin and any sanctions for gaming the system need to be discussed at WP:AE. Even if I were to levy sanctions, they'd be appealed and we'd wind up there anyways. CFredkin, you'll have to wait 24 hours for the revert. Also, as I said before, you can get DS enforced at WP:AE. -- NeilN talk to me 23:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Apparently now, someone created an WP:SPA account with the main purpose of going around and reverting my edits on articles which may be subject to discretionary sanctions [22] [23]. This is obvious gaming and goading. Let me guess - if I revert this I might violate discretionary sanctions and CFredkin or Anythingyouwant will file yet another WP:AE report against me. This is precisely why a mindless application - without looking at the pattern of edits, like with CFredkin's tendentious behavior - of discretionary sanctions is so idiotic. It only takes a very small amount of cynicism and bad faith to game the hell out of them. Like it's being done here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it was you who recently temp-blocked an IP-hopping vandal or CIR, who was inserting commas before Jr.'s and Sr.'s, in the wrong position. Warnings on multiple user talk pages were ignored or never read. Back at it again, see Obadiah Bush for two of the IPs. I've spent the past 20 minutes fixing some of the damage in this round. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey Neil. Given your block of LackofMeNecktar, I thought you might want to be kept apprised of apparent socks. See my block here. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, It looks like Nangparbat is once again railing against me [25]. Can you please take care of it? Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the semi-protection. Mind you, ~all pages about advertising seem to be ghastly messes of bafflegab. :-/ Pinkbeast ( talk) 15:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
hi the info on the babur thread is from a propaganda site/blog the site is well know to publish anti Pakistani material and should not be classed as a reliable srouce for pakistan/chinese material.
i added info on the air india thread too will 3 sources with pictures and he took them down because he claimed the sources were not reliable. since when did one of the world largest avation sites are not reliable? i feel he removed it because it portrayed the airline negatively.
but infact go look back at my sources and you will find them to be fine and heck there pictures too and that's proof in its self.
if you paint something positively then people will think that it good but people need to know the bad side to.
i thought this site is balanced but im starting to have doubts now
regards blue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue fishy ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Saul Alinsky was self described as a 'small seed communist.' Thanks for editing my alteration to his article; we wouldn't want the truth to get out there, would we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polymarkos ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Just saw you blocks at Talk:Crash Override Network. You might be interested in this Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Mlpearc ( open channel) 20:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Neil. I'm still learning the ways of the Wikipedia editorship. I'm not as HTML savvy as I need to me. I appreciate the attention you have given to Petplan Australia. I'm a mom to a 3 legged chihuahua and I use petplan north america. There are two, existing wikipedia pages for Petplan: Petplan North America and Petplan UK. I am working hard to learn this system. I added a third wikipedia page for Petplan Australia with objective, factual information that links to legitimate external sources and internal wikipedia pages. What do you recommend I incorporate into my articles for future submissions so that I am not flagged for deletion? I'm not sure if we can ask for "wiki mentors" here, but I could sure use one. Thanks, again. Arzade ( talk) 00:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)arzade
@ NeilN Do news sources count as secondary sources? There's this from ABC http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-08/campaign-to-end-pet-insurer's-'cruel'-post-death-premiums/5876356 or The Sydney Herald http://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/choice-reviews-what-pet-insurance-really-covers-and-if-it-is-worth-it-20160415-go7d0o.html? I really appreciate your help on this. I'm trying to build up my credibility because I LOVE writing and Wikipedia especially. Thank you! Arzade ( talk) 01:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)arzade
Because trolls. Feel free to undo my protection at anytime and without need to consult me, yadda yadda yadda, first. :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Whoa - you guys are way over my head. Thank you for semi-protecting ~Oshwah~ Also, may I ask what revdel those revisions RD3 means? @Neil...thanks again for all your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzade ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Very helpful information, Adam9007 Thank you and NeilN with the resources and guidance. Arzade ( talk) 01:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Arzade
Figured they'd be back sooner or later. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 01:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
[27] TimothyJosephWood 13:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to pile on, but 88.251.9.133 (block evading) is mass-undoing my reverts. Dat Guy Talk Contribs 14:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, In my sandbox [28], I have documented another problematic IP user that you have dealt with in the past. I see two landline IPs and several wireless IPs, all of which are likely to belong to the same individual. Can we force him to open an account so that we have a proper record of activity? Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Neil, apologies for troubling you but editor Cmeiqnj has added a POV to the article. I amoungst others may well argue that the article has POV difficulties but IMO that is in tone not misleading information. Starting any work towards fulfilling the criteria needed to remove the label may well end up with an article that creates more POV problems than solves! This ramble based upon past experience but that was with religion and witchcraft, this may be far simplier. Thoughts? Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 14:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 15:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Leave this here. You, being the all wise and powerful admin can do as you see fit. lol. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 19:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Ummmmmm ok thats total bs......I'm just gonna shut up, no I'm not gonna post to it. You will always have my support. By the way
Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 01:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what the IPs thought they were gaining from any of it, but clearly y'all's were worse than mine, both of yours got revdel lol Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 00:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, NeilN
I really respect what you did with the article. The user who self-promotes F1 Challenge 1988-2014 in Wikipedia (EA Sports F1 Series page) is doing that since 2013.
Thanks, -- CristianLuisCLX ( talk) 21:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
See phab:T145912. Time to make this happen, in native MediaWiki :) Feel free to weigh in with your thoughts. Also pinging those I know have asked about this before: @ Edgar181, Bishonen, and NativeForeigner:. Best — MusikAnimal talk 23:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 02:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/100.37.136.56 looks a lot like Special:Contributions/68.132.32.203. -- Izno ( talk) 03:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
83.143.245.5 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Matches Contribs and Sockpuppetry Styles of Paulydee:
C'estpaspossible! (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Ohbuttheywill (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Looks like a duck to me - @ C.Fred: This might be of interest to you as well. Do these pages need protection possibly? -- Dane2007 talk 00:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
79.141.163.13 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Dane2007 talk 01:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
162.244.80.233 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Dane2007 talk 23:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
He's baaaack.... 77.243.183.89 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Dane2007 talk 02:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
[30] NeilN, this editor keeps stalking and targeting my edits [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] despite many warnings Spartacus! t@lk 04:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Neil, could you please take another look at this article and decide whether semi-protection is appropriate. You blocked one of the IPs who is adding unsourced ethnicity to the article for edit warring, but, as you can see, the person doing this is hopping and a block is unfortunately of limited value. I'm WP:INVOLVED, having reverted more than once, and can't do this myself. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 11:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Could we possibly get University of Louisiana at Lafayette protected from I.P. and new users until a consensus is built at the talk page? We're trying (emphasis because it may be a while with a couple of them...) to get a consensus on an abbreviation for the school, but new users/IPs keep changing it and not waiting to get a consensus. Corkythe hornetfan (ping me) 21:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi I see you got involved in the past on this Article about a week ago i stumbled on this article and did a bunch of changes to improve it. I saw this past week a new edit war breakout on this page and while user Truthseekr67 seems to be doing the correct thing by leaving comments and discussing the changes on the talk page the second user ( Masterofthename ) just reverted the changes. I stepped in and reverted his change but at the same time i have left him explanation on his talk page to explain that 1) he should leave comments on edits 2) he should join the conversation on the page talk page to discuss the changes and arrive at consensus. I don't want to "feed the fire", by doing another edit but after thorough review i don't think the sentence he is trying to maintain on the article should be there as its not sourced anywhere. Would you mind to step in as admin? Ntb613 ( talk) 01:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
References
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
We like your admin service, and this barnstar will work it out for you. Dog8923 ( talk) 03:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC) |
Dear editwar board admin, can you look at this /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Njdeda_Rlase_reported_by_User:TouristerMan_.28Result:_.29 Editor touristerman has reverted 4 times in one day. After my warning of brightline three revert rule and three reverts made by editor touristerman he stop and put tags in 4th edit. Then on edge of 24 hrs he made full revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way they can be given a hard topic ban? When I say that, you know when someone's banned, they can log in, but not edit. Well, do that, except for articles, re-directs, etc. that are in pro wrestling related categories? That way we don't have to worry about them violating the ban. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 23:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
For dealing with the person spamming the ref desks. Between you and GorillaWarfare the disruption, though fast and furious, was short lived. Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 00:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Science desk needs help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.19.245.153 ( talk) 09:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, NeilN! I think that keeping Refdesks Math and Science protected for IP editors in the past weeks is not a viable option. If there some problematic editors, I suggest they be blocked instead of keeping Refdesks protected. Thanks.-- 82.137.14.150 ( talk) 19:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick message to let you know you were mentioned in this thread -- samtar talk or stalk 14:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For your constructive presence. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:30F8:873F:7608:6364 ( talk) 04:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks 2601! -- NeilN talk to me 04:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, I mentioned you at arbitration enforcement ( here), though I'm not sure if the ping worked given that I signed the comment and then inserted your name (instead of vice versa). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Huge appreciation for your actions against blatant vandalism. The Ink Daddy! ( talk) 02:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC) |
Thank you! -- NeilN talk to me 03:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
yo}}
!#Should I? - That's a whole lot of red! You could really use User:Theopolisme/Scripts/autocompleter, makes replying to comments a whole lot easier. - NQ (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thanks for locking down my talk page (again). Fun to wake up to a number of notices about my talk page. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 12:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC) |
Please see their contributions They have Vandalized here twice and warned and now posted this using hate speech. The IP appears to be a school IP. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 13:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
They switched IPs it appears, page may need semied. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 14:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you sir, hopefully they don't switch again.
Chris "WarMachineWildThing"
Talk to me
Spoke to soon they're back Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 14:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Torben_S%C3%B8ndergaard needs a higher level of protection. There is planned an organized attempt to delete the page by followers of the subject. Read the last comment here: https://www.facebook.com/torbenksondergaard/posts/294975194206883 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannesSve ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi dear, it's International Day of Peace and i wanted to say happy peace day to you, so you may be interested in this association to join it , as you wish . happy editing. The Stray Dog Talk Page 18:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
IP 50.51.80.15 literally just got off a vandalism ban and has started again. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 22:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Should I create a SPI for User:Gunchuma and User:Aarushiyas? Both users had a hand in repeatedly recreating the dbed article. Also, anons 223.231.60.224 and 223.231.63.82 removing temps. Messaging you as the deleting admin directly as I have no experience reopening the AN/I discussion. Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 08:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Keri ( talk) 13:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Did you get a chance to draft up a discussion? If not no worries... I can help, or we can rope in the liaison folks. We might even consider opening a thread directly on WP:AN, that way we get a lot of feedback quickly. From there we can shape the requirements and I'll communicate back with my team. Thank you very much for your assistance! — MusikAnimal talk 18:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Arley1998 has made no constructive edits. The only edits they've made are vandalism edits adding themselves to articles and templates, as well as creating articles about them-self and relatives. User has already been warned numerous times, MusikAnimal even blocked them for 31 hours, yet the behavior persists. I think this pattern of behavior is a clear sign that they are WP:NOTHERE and need to be gone. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 22:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
But Krimuk90 clearly came back as User:Smaro sex. Same 'contribution' of plastering user pages with xrap. Just FYI. Muffled Pocketed 10:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, NeilN. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, it appears that Nangparbat is back to his tricks: 31.192.111.202, 31.192.111.236. Perhaps a range block? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Our buddy Masai Giraffe may be back. See User talk:FrIeDaDawSen. Same pattern of editing to create bizarre inaccuracies that look plausible on the surface. I may have overstepped to do a single-issue warning, but I think it's the same editor. I suppose an SPI and requesting a rangeblock might be next. Montanabw (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello. User:Torah28 continues doing what they want on the page Saoirse Ronan (see [37]). Should I be filing a new report? Thanks. Wolfdog ( talk) 14:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Saoirse Ronan is 'Irish-American'. She has dual citizenship of both Ireland and the United States. It's the correct way! Torah28 ( talk) 12:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Has been blocked three times in their brief wiki career. Twice for disruptive editing, and once for block evasion. Each time the block expires, they simply continue editing disruptively, ignoring warnings. In my opinion, it's time for an indefinite block. Thoughts? Sro23 ( talk) 18:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil: Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but here goes.
Thank you for the invitation to discuss my contributions with you. I can see that you have a great deal of experience with Wikipedia, this is my first attempt to contribute.
My concern with Wikipedia's content regarding MLM is that is is very one-sided, biased against any positive descriptions at all. It dwells on the so-called "controversial" nature of the business, without any attempt to explain why some 17 million Americans and 50 million individuals worldwide have chosen this "controversial" industry to participate in.
There is no real attempt to portray the successes of the industry, the fact that some of these companies have a track record stretching back more than 30 years. The fact that, leaving aside the top income earners and the lowest income earners, there are thousands of 'average" people who have earned more than $1,000,000 in their MLM career. NuSkin for instance has a "Million-dollar-earner" wall in their new head office in Provo, Utah that has more than 1200 names on it.
Companies such as Avon and Mary Kay are household names, trusted by two generations or more as a source of quality products at fair prices. Amway is approaching $10 Billion in annual sales, and has survived scrutiny from more than 60 countries.
Key note speakers at MLM companies include some of America's most notable individuals, including former presidents, Pentagon Generals, business leaders. Reputable companies are highly rated by the Better Business Bureau. Some have high Dun & Bradstreet ratings. The latest ones are now publicly traded, and meet the quarterly scrutiny of the SEC.
The criticism of the industry on the other hand, largely comes from a fringe group of commentators with very little credibility. I can't speak to why these people feel the necessity to constantly attack the industry and the people in it, but it does no service to Wikipedia to promote these people and their biases.
My suggestion to Wikipedia is to separate the attacks from the industry page if you feel the need to include them, and put them in their own category. I think you would be hard pressed to find another industry page that has such a biased and negative view. Search Auto Industry, Oil Industry or Arms Industry for instance and despite the constant attacks on these industries Wikipedia make no mention. These pages area full of industry facts. The MLM page on the other hand , is full of references to criticism, legality, lawsuits, price fixing, cults, and so on. This is a completely false reflection of the industry itself, but rather a compendium of those who have chosen to attack the industry.
And most of the info there is very dated. Kind of like using Ralph Nader's criticism of the auto industry in the 1960s as a focal point when discussing the auto industry. The criticism of MLM is - and should be on Wikipedia - a footnote to the evolution of the industry, not the defining characteristic of it.
If I might ask a personal question, do you have a personal bias to MLM? Have you had any (perhaps negative) personal experience which is colouring your view?
LeeFairbanks ( talk) 15:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Lee Fairbanks
Again, hope this is the right place to respond, these pages are very confusing.
I appreciate you taking the time to try and defend your page and you're resistance to updating it, but respectfully, I don't find your references to be "independent" sources. Nor are they factual. What is more factual than an MLM organization, and a law firm? The MLM sites you claim are "shills" use facts. Your sources are journalists. I am a journalist. I understand this industry very well. These articles are written to comment and exploit on a specific current event or topic. They are not scholarly articles. They are not based on facts. The first one, from thestar.com references pyramid schemes, complete with a full-colour diagram that explains what a pyramid scheme is, then talks about a family squabble. That's not an article about MLM at all. Courts around the world have clearly differentiated MLM from pyramid schemes, and all major companies abide by those differences. There are no facts in this article. Specifically, it speaks about the actions of individuals within the industry, not the actions of the industry itself. The second article from USA Today is also only 1 person's opinion, unsupported by any facts. It comes to the ridiculous conclusion that Michelle Van Etten is not a small business owner, but rather a customer. Here's a fact: The US government (and all government around the world as far as I know, and the company I work with is in 60 countries) require MLM distributors to declare their income as "business income". The third one, from Bloomberg, explains the phenomenal success of one MLM company, their amazing growth in sales. This side of MLM is not covered at all in your page. It's like writing about the auto industry and only covering the dealer network and not the manufacturer and then filling your page with comments from people who had problems with servicing and repairs. I will repost my edit, and give you one last chance to allow the updating of your site to properly reflect the topic. After that, I will take this complaint to the next level for mediation. There is no point in you and I continuing this personal debate. LeeFairbanks ( talk) 15:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Lee fairbanks
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. Where is the majority and minority views? Are they the views of a few journalists and commentators, or the actions and opinions of the more than 50 million people who are participating in the industry - who in fact ARE the industry?
I can't understand your unwillingness to update and improve your page, using industry statistics rather than the isolated opinions of a few headline-seeking journalists and malcontented bloggers. Most of your page is based on dated material, where are the facts and updates from 2010-2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeFairbanks ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Your choice of "fact-checked commentators" actually fall into this category from Wikipedia (note applicable section in quotes): Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, "but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy" (see junk food news).[5] You have chosen sources that are "rarely reliable" "generally not as reliable" and "not subject to the same rigorous standard". They are not "editorial commentary, analysts and opinion pieces by editors and op-eds" . In short you are cherry-picking into that you want to set up a bias against the industry and the people in it. I have included content on the so-called "controversy" plus info about "legal actions" as well as facts about the industry. In short, a much more balanced, fair and accurate summary that meets Wikipedia's mandate to the public. LeeFairbanks ( talk) 14:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Lee Fairbanks
Hey! Some time ago oyu put a temporary protection on University of Notre Dame because of vandalism. That protection expired on the 23rd, but vandals have come back. Could you put protection once again? Thanks! Eccekevin ( talk) 22:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Kader_Tree is clearly a sock of John Daker and wreaking havoc...-- Dane2007 talk 04:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
As for your comment "Socks don't get to dispute content", Yaysmay, the sock master, embroiled himself in a content dispute. Any sort of advice or warnings like WP:NOTNEWS or WP:ROUTINE often fall on deaf ears and thus why admins were forced to block his initial account, but we never expected him to be that relentless through that sock farm of his. Blake Gripling ( talk) 05:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, Thanks for deleting User talk:Pyfan/Barnstars and awards and helping HowDoesThisEvenwork's message find its way to the right place! Cheers, — Oli OR Pyfan! 14:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Tried to remove text only having sources written by Torben Søndergaard's himself from the Torben_Søndergaard article. And more should go according to the Wiki-standard. The article is simply not written according to the Wikipedia standard as hardly any of the sources verifiable, have no translations of sources in other languages, or are accessible. They are self-published, biased and the whole article is based on a claim of a movement that's non-existent.
There are hardly multiple reliable sources. The main sources are some tabloid newspapers and then Torben Søndergaard's own books, own website, own YouTube channel, and own opinion pieces in a minor Christian Danish newspaper. There is no movement. It's simply grandiose words from an upcoming YouTuber and conference speaker. When the critical stuff is gone from the article, this Wiki article is at best advertisement for a minor Danish ministry edited it's followers, fx RobbertDam, and the HMX-something guy who made a tutorial to other followers how to edit this page. The reason this page is getting attention is because Torben Søndergaard posted a link to it on his Facebook-page asking for help to make it positive - which is just as bad as negative - and then angry followers shared it.
And the Last Reformation is not really a worldwide movement. Writing a book, buying a website, making a Facebook-page, uploading videos to Youtube while stating something a hundred times does not make something real. This idea of a worldwide movement is simply an unfounded claim by Torben Søndergaard who simply hopes for a worldwide movement. There's maybe a few thousand active supporters worldwide and they, of course, vigorously all claim to have a movement, but - let's stay objective here - in fact, it's simply a claim.
In reality Søndergaard
Is he controversial? Probably. Does this make him noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia page? No.
Just look at the very modest activity on his Facebook page. This can in no way be a worldwide movement or a wiki-noteworthy person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowDoesThisEvenwork ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I think you're calling on the wrong case. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil. I think you were too speedy to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump tax evasion controversy. I voted to keep as a notable topic, when other material besides the debate is considered. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 20:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
FYI... Muffled Pocketed 11:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
You protected Pepe the Frog and now I can't edit it. All of my edits to it have been good. So could you "confirm" my account? I want to make the Esquire reference look like the others. It looks like most "confirm" request at the permissions page are denied so that's why I'm asking you. BigGuy88 ( talk) 17:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi NeilN!
I've noticed that there's now a temp lock on the page Leonard Kim due to an edit war. I am still getting my bearings straight, but it seems there's one IP address with a grudge that keeps removing the image on the page, saying it's a violation.
For future reference, I wanted to ask your counsel if it is or isn't?
If it's not in violation, would it be possible to revert the page back to September 10th, before the editing war started? -- Wallaby ( talk) 18:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Just so you understand the context of the 'persistent vandalism': http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/29/vegans-have-renamed-all-of-their-cheese-gary-6160907/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.246.112 ( talk) 19:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, on User talk:Darkness Shines, DS has identified two socks. The first one is I think LanguageXpert, going by the first few edits. The second one, I am not sure. But he is clearly a sock and has violated the "Ethnicity claim restriction". I hope you can take care of them. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Could this IP please be blocked. The user is a known pest who has been blocked before on this IP, but has edited via different IPs since the last block on this one. The person constantly vandalises sporting teams pages from Australia, mainly Perth, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide. It's been going on for over a year now. They keep coming back. It's hard to combat – perhaps long-term semi protection on all the pages this person has recently edited? Or is that too much / unjustifiable? DaHuzyBru ( talk) 12:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi There,
I have been following your recent edits on Israel Defense Forces. You seem like you truly know your way around Wiki. I would like to ask you help improve Zeek Wikipedia article. Any input from you would be greatly appreciated. Looking forward to hearing from you. Ymd2004 ( talk) 21:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey again, NeilN!
There's the same weird range of Canadian IP addresses who keep reverting any changes done to Leonard Kim - Is there any way to require registered users to make edits? This article keeps suffering the same pattern of editing wars, and I could really use the help to make it stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallaby ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, Nangparbat is edit warring to reinstate the edits he made as Sronunshiv. Can you please revert it and perhaps try a range block? Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Torah28 is again consistently reverting edits without any discussion as far as I can see. User:Bastun appears to be turning the page back each time. What's the next step? Should I be posting a new report to Administrators' Noticeboard/Edit warring or can we carry on from ("re-open") the archived report? Thanks. Wolfdog ( talk) 20:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, NeilN. I hate to ask since you already took time to protect this page once before, but the block-evading Kurzon / BaronBifford / JungLiao is back at Superman ownership disputes as yet another anon IP. On October 10, a day after page protection ended, he returned as 149.154.210.149 to make this edit, identical to this one he made as 188.188.84.162 on October 3, as well as other, earlier edits under different anon IPs. Since he was clearly ready and waiting for page-protection to end, and since he has show remarkable recidivism, I was wondering if it might be prudent to protect this page again from anon-IP editing for a while? With thanks for any help,-- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
This new article is being vandalized and blanked by unregistered users:
/info/en/?search=Mike_Cernovich_(author)
Could you please help put a stop to this? If the majority of editors vote to remove the article, fine, but it can't just be blanked out by people vandalizing Wikipedia. Please help, thanks. Neptune's Trident ( talk) 05:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Eloise Worledge
It's another WP:SNOW as Eloise Worlege is one of the most famous child abuctions in the city of Melbourne and Australia generally. Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 15:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Rather unexpected but be back soon. -- NeilN talk to me 21:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Glad you're doing alright Neil. I was beginning to wonder with your extended absence. -- Dane2007 talk 04:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, administrator NeilN, I separated the article Taiwan general election, 2016 to Taiwan presidential election, 2016 and Taiwan legislative election, 2016 as you can see the common practices in the past in {{ Taiwanese elections}}. I noticed you were the administrator who set protection to the original page. Wish you can extend the protection to the new two and I wonder if you can move the edit history to both pages? Thanks! -- Wildcursive ( talk) 11:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this not too long thread and see if a DS temp block is warranted for Zigzig20s? This is only a tiny part of their pattern of disruption in Trump articles, but I'm not going to spend time assembling the ANI (let alone ArbCom) case. Thanks. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
At least one user talk warning has been removed as harassment. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Well they have quieted down (gone away) for the time being, so I guess there's nothing that can be done to prevent further disruption. I also now see that you would have to issue one warning first.
Unrelated to that, after this edit, I noticed this in the message box: "An administrator has applied the restriction above to this article." I wanted to make sure I didn't violate something by that edit, being a dedicated non-admin. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
NeilN, I have now been advised by MrX that I was in fact out of line adding the template, and he removed it. That article being within U.S. politics, I don't see any valid reason not to place it under the restrictions, and I feel those restrictions are needed (although the 1RR is problematic from a productivity and quality standpoint). If we forked some content from Donald Trump, should that fork eliminate the restrictions on that content? We certainly need the part about talk page consensus being required for any disputed edit. In my view that should be required for any article, but it's especially important there. That was my justification, and my only valid justification, for removing content about allegations that Trump repeatedly raped a 13-year-old girl in 1994, while that content is under RfC. It would appear, then, that the content can be re-added unless these remedies are in effect. I attemtped to expedite the RfC to 4 days and that was rejected. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
My mistake. Looking deeper, I now see that you haven't edited since the 18th and are "traveling a bit for work". I'll try to pursue this AE thing elsewhere, but it would be great if an admin could put a prominent notice at the top of their TP when they're going to be unavailable for more than a day or two. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Just FYI, I took the issue to AN, here. I hope that's a good place for it. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
In this ANI, you told me to leave E.M.Gregory alone. I have found this conclusion to be very vague; I believe E.M.Gregory's complaints were that I have been editing on every article he's ever edited because I knew he just edited them. While I have stopped doing that for the most part, I did recently edit the 2016 Jerusalem shooting attack, an article that he created, because there were some errors, and then I ultimately renamed it to exclude "attack". He undid every single edit I made on the sole reasoning that I was warned at ANI not to do that.
Am I really supposed to avoid every article E.M.Gregory has ever edited? Or am I supposed to stop indiscriminately editing on every article he's edited? I'm legitimately confused here. Parsley Man ( talk) 18:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello NeilN:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable
Halloween!
– --
Dane2007
talk
19:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, NeilN. I could be wrong, but it looked like this AfD discussion showed a consensus to delete Sofia Richie: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sofia_Richie. Yet the article is still there. I've just noticed this now, and since you were the closing admin, I figured I should let you know. With regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Could you be kind enough please to remove the protection that you placed on this article so that all of us who contribute to wikipedia can have the same access as those who've decided they want to identify themselves with an account? That is the reason wikipedia was created; so that anyone can edit. It is very unhelpful to have to beg the permission of editors WesMouse and PootisHeavy every time anyone has a contribution. That is not the goal of wikipedia or it's objective. Thank you. 216.216.202.69 ( talk) 20:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Two notes: Whether or not there is protection and whether or not a user has created an account, an account holder is just as capable of disrupting a protected page, so punishing non account holders is vindictive as well as worthless. Secondly, no editor is above the wiki law, except apparently in the case of WesMouse, who forces editors to beg his permission to edit any Eurovision article, as they are protected. He immediately reverses any Eurovision edit on non protected pages and belittles editors with comments like "nice try, though". Yet not one single punishment has ever been handed to WesMouse for the sarcasm or abuse. This is not acceptable and goes against all and every tenet of why wikipedia was created. 72.245.246.219 ( talk) 21:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Dane2007 talk 02:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey Neil. Could this IP please be blocked on the same grounds as this IP – it's the same person. Cheers. DaHuzyBru ( talk) 17:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil. There seems to be an issue regarding Mike Adams' page. I have received warnings for "inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content" onto the page. There is currently a controversy regarding a certain cyber-vandal who previously destroyed the page, posted truly defamatory remarks, and got Mike Adams himself banned from Wikipedia so that he had no way of fixing the issue. All I have done is replace the new, stripped outline of an article with what was previously on the page. I have in no way added anything defamatory, nor anything that wasn't previously approved. This keeps being changed back to the stripped "article." Please look on this with proper discretion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianna Masson ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
IP 174.96.120.107 has done nothing but Vandalize articles, Blank articles, and be disruptive as seen here in their contributions. They have not made one productive edit that I can find and have been warned several times about it. Could you look into this please, Thanks Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 03:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you sir, hope your doing well. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 03:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Not on here as much, been trying to get adjusted to the new mechanic job, been a month so far so good. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 04:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I filed a Dispute Resolution Request to deal with the continuing and repetitive edits that various users have made to Elihu Yale's nationality. He was an Englishman. America had not been established and nor had Britain - so he could not be "American" nor "British". As precedent, Wikipedia shows Wentworth Miller ( /info/en/?search=Wentworth_Miller ), who was born in the UK but obviously from an American family and living in America, as "American". 99.4.120.135 ( talk) 22:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The article was vandalized not just this month but for the past months as well. Extend PC? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Some reverts were additions of useless info; some vandalism. What's your decision on the article? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil. This RFC has been sitting around for quite awhile. Would you please close it? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi NeilN.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, Hope all is well, Could you revdel [45] and [46] please, Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 19:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Just after a few hours after Pete_(Disney) got unprotected, you-know-who is back trying to insert his inane original research opinion back into the article. You don't suppose you could re-semi-protect the page?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 04:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.
Hey man! Just wanted to leave you a message and say, "Good morning"! Hope you have a great day! Cheers -- ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, NeilN. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I notice you blocked this address back in September for repeated minor unhelpful edits. I just flag that the user is back on site.
This guy's repeated unhelpful minor edits are pointless and annoying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.252.160 ( talk) 05:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Neil. Hope you've been well. Do you mind giving your opinion on what to do in the case of the David Blanchflower article? There is an IP hopper who keeps removing material on Blanchflower's previous marriage that resulted in a big legal matter, and I think that the IP hopper is Blanchflower himself. I took the matter to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection a couple of days ago, but Oshwah declined protection. Should I just keep reverting the IP hopper? I mean, the article is not a well-watched article. If I'm not there, the content usually stays removed until I notice that it's been removed. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I was on phone. Facepalm. Ya sh ! 07:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Respected Authority
This is with due respect to request not to delete the article created as " Mohammad Usman (Veteran Congress Leader)". This is a hard and tidy work been done. The person on which the article is been written is the respected and an honorable man. the society demands its wiki pages as he is the one of the survivor who has seen five decades of Congress being in the party since ages. He has done lot many contribution to the party and to the society as a whole. These all description has been written in the page which is very much important to have as a validation. the references can be crossed checked and you will find them as a match.
Its a sincere request that kindly keep the page alive. You may edit or ask for any modifications if required, but not to delete the page.
Thanking You Regards Adil adilusman009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adilusman009 ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Pamelyn_Ferdin&diff=prev&oldid=752886499 MartinSFSA ( talk) 12:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Seen here... Do you know who the master is? I have come across an IP range that is doing the same kinds of odd edits - am calling them "The 41.137.59.xx Editor" for now. A few of the associated IPs are: .50's, .72's edits, .80's edits, .28's edits, .111's edits etc., etc. Am discussing the issues with Samsara on his talkpage but if I'm going to possibly file an SPI I'll need to know the master. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 19:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello NeilN: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America 1000 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello NeilN: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 ( Merry Christmas!) 17:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello NeilN: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Mona778 ( talk) 05:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13 Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))
Hello NeilN: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Shearonink ( talk) 17:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello NeilN: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer Solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am an IP editor. Over the last year, I have made major contributions and improvement to the History of the United States and History of Native Americans in the United States. However, as an IP editor, I am not able to edit Native Americans in the United States since the page is protected. I request that you allow IP editors to edit that page again. I can assure you, I for one will make constructive contributions. However, if there is too much disruption I will be the first one to reverse my position. Thank you for you time. Kindly advise. ( 2600:1001:B003:D950:55ED:4959:8123:2B75 ( talk) 16:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC))
Wishing you a
Charlie Russell Christmas, NeilN! |
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw (talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
Iryna Harpy (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Hello NeilN: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, — MRD2014 ( Merry Christmas!) 18:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello NeilN: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Dane talk 08:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller
talk is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
hello, new to Wikipedia. i did a search about Cassandra Saturn and found it not listed. i see a deletion review: [1] i do see why that it happened because she was involved in it. it's not her fault. i'm one of her fans. um, i think you guys should get a heads up about her. like really huge heads up. she recently announced this December year that she's running for President of the United States of America in 2024. she wants to change things that are done in America, so she will run for Presidency at right time in the year of 2024. she's also determined to finish her graduation and transition into female fully in two years or so. still in college at that time. (she's deaf Transgender woman) and that she is LGBTQ activist.. however, she hasn't done any real life work yet but she plans to. i'm also not sure of any notable sources that could be used in the article.
she hasn't spoken about Wikipedia in long time.. so i'm afraid to ask her about adding sources for that article. i don't even know how to add sources but here's actual post made by her on her official presidential candidate campaign Twitter: [2] you should also read her posts that lined what she will do for America if elected as President. i mean, her ideas does sound good. i also know that she has done so much for people online. she even runs sites and forums for various things. i'd like to point out one thing: she actually pays/buys things for people in Star Trek Online. she has been doing it for long time. i don't know exactly how long. i mean, i hadn't been to her sites or forums yet but i find her very nice and kind person.
if here is any actual real sources that features her on televisions or other, i'd think that would be wise to list these as notable sources. still, she amassed huge number of followers on many sites. (her accounts) she is also known for what she does. everybody knows who she is online. she has long list of works, projects and activities so many things etc. i mean, come on. all these are right from beginning of 2008 to today.
by the way, she actually is known for defending herself and transgender girls. here's three sources: Bioware Photo [3] as shown on her Tumblr post: [4] and her defending a transgender girl on Facebook: [5] here you go. as you can see.. she's quite very known online. if you do google search the name of Cassandra Saturn, it brings up over nearly 392,000 results in that period. all because she does so much online, from accounts to other etc.. she is very busy girl. like really busy. she keeps to helping much as she can.
i know all of these might not be worthy enough but it's enough to warrant an attention to her. she might be a news source probably over within year or so. i don't know. i'm just saying.. you should find out about her more to determine that if a Article about her will be allowed on Wikpedia or not. one of her friends mentioned that she frequents on Wikipedia to do her research on variety of subjects before writing on what she thinks about them. (she's studying for her GED, so she has to do lots of subjects chosen by her classes from math to history and more) i think this Article is worth it, because she's actually famous online through what she does. just a little information fact for you. she met George Bye in 2007 just before she became Cassandra Saturn. the very same George Bye of ATG [6] she met him after writing him a letter, then was invited to visit him and his company just before ATG went bankrupt in May 2008. i asked her about it once, she had photos of herself and her mother, George himself in same room. it was historical for her to get a meeting with the man she had admired.
i mean.. that's pretty cool. to actually meet him in person. it was all real, verified by photos she has on her Facebook and other accounts. 172.58.40.106 ( talk) 04:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
alright. i got permission from Cassandra to use one of her images regarding George Bye and ATG on her personal website on the day she was presented a gift from George Bye in 2007 during a visit to the ATG Headquarters. [7] still think it's not notable? 172.58.40.180 ( talk) 00:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
References
i know that he doesn't but he is the head of Bye Aerospace. i asked Cassandra what were her thoughts on Wikipedia. and well... that's bit harsh, coming from her. i can see why she doesn't use her account here and remain clear of the conflict regarding herself. so when i told her that i was trying to get a wikipedia article about herself, she flat-out told me to dismiss it and never discuss it. she even said, if here is any wikipedia article about her, she will request that it be removed. she doesn't want to be part of Wikipedia's history. so i guess that's done. to me.. apparently, she still holds grudge against Wikipedia. i think you guys got on her bad side. thinking back on about the request for article about Cassandra Saturn to be created, that was the mistake on my part as well. 172.58.40.180 ( talk) 04:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 21:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
NeilN,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --
Dane
talk
02:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
NeilN,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (
talk |
stand clear of the doors!)
18:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
NeilN,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
MRD2014 (
Happy New Year!)
20:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
NeilN,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (
talk)
05:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Recently, I have added Archana Panda as Notable Alumni, SP Jain Institute of Management & Research. Her Facebook and several YouTube videos tell it all :
https://www.facebook.com/archana.panda
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=archana+panda
Best regards ! Happy New Year 2017 !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrayagNarayanMisra ( talk • contribs) 02:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Over the last few weeks there have been various IP addresses but I am sure the same editor who has been deleting a reference on Horatio Hornblower (see this edit for example) with the same edit message "low quality URL" each time. I have attempted to enter into some dialogue but have had no response. Could you please protect the page for a while to see if that discourages him/her. Thanks Dabbler ( talk) 03:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Dabbler ( talk) 13:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Is this an appropriate/legitimate talk page comment, an audio clip of crickets? MShabazz continues to restore it after I've removed it repeatedly, while posting a warning at my talk page to not remove "editors' legitimate talk page comments" Dan56 ( talk) 19:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I never new that wikepedia has so many rules its so hard to use! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VegetarianSatvic ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, this is a page you did some work on in 2014. I found it while working my way through the Dead-End list for November 2016. A major rewrite by Shawoman49 (an account apparently created solely for this purpose) seems to have rendered it not only linkless, but has undone much of the neutral POV that had been introduced. Also, all references to Wicca seem to have vanished. The edit summaries all indicate "permission from Patrick McCollum", which struck me as weird/wrong, and probably a pretty clear COI. I'm a relative newcomer here, and while I'm not actually convinced that this subject even passes GNG, I thought it might make sense to check in with an admin with a connection to the page before making any changes. I hate getting things off the Dead-End list but leaving them with other problems, you know? Any advice greatly appreciated, nerdgoonrant ( talk) 19:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, NeilN! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 03:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit to this article. I'm not sure that's the last we'll see of the matter. You may be interested in this. 32.218.152.233 ( talk) 15:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The IP editor removed a reference which I see was kept in place with my revert, thank you, I understand. I'm on chat with Wikipedia for help relating an eyewitness account, but I got your message on that just now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joplinplayer ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This is the cite that I saw removed when I accessed the page (i'm sorry I'm not as proficient in reporting and such), which you properly restored less my edit. Thank you. In 2015, Zepnick admitted to drunk driving after he was arrested for a traffic violation in Greenfield, Wisconsin.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joplinplayer ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The eyewitness cite is my own and there were 3 other witnesses. I looked on the Media Handbook as you suggested, but I would like your comment further on this.
OK, that was very helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joplinplayer ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This is also missing. Is it OK to put back? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joplinplayer ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I finally finished and released the Dangerous Assignment article! In case you've forgotten, you asked about my draft of this article about two years ago. GlennRay77 ( talk) 03:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
Hi, I was surprised to see your closure here because the issue hasn't been resolved. Did you mean to just kick it to SPI, or did you not see my comment, or ...? This is an exceptional case of a crazy person edit-warring exceptionally crazy stuff into Wikipedia for at least six years. My favorite is "The redshiftedness of the Mongoloids and the blueshiftedness of the Jews imply that they are the broad Epimethean and narrow Promethean parts of the same funnel-shaped gravity well". [1] The range blocks have expired and need to be renewed. An SPI can linger for weeks until receives attention. If you'd rather not deal with the issue in the ANI thread, would you please reopen it? Manul ~ talk 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
You're still not understanding the issue and still not answering this. My concern is not that I didn't get what I asked for. My concern is the improper closing. If you dismiss a problem raised in an ANI then say so and why, something like, "I've examined the long-term disruption and I don't think the range blocks should be re-enacted." That's a perfect closing, and I would be fine with that. You might have won me over to your view, or if not then it might have opened a constructive and substantive dialogue; perhaps the three previous blocking admins would be involved. However the actual closing in which you silently ignore the issue is unhelpful -- even seemingly contemptuous, and your comments here add to that impression. If you had concerns about the range blocks then you should have explained them when you closed. If you have concerns about the range blocks now then you should take them up with EdJohnston -- don't shoot the messenger. Manul ~ talk 02:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I found this morning that a new editor of about a month with 1,000 edits and no known GA contributions is trying to tackle 11 GA reviews simultaneously. I believe that they have only ever made a single GA nomination that quick-failed after being reviewed by Miyagawa here and which they hadn't actually contributed to. Of note the editor themselves acknowledges that they are new to Wikipedia. Rather importantly, they have completed a single GA review on the 2nd of August here (which they passed) which would have failed had I, for example, done the reviewing for lack of citations, just skim the article, Tycho Brahe and tell me it's GA worthy with at least four whole paragraphs that aren't attributed to any source. It's an article that could and should be GA, but, one that is far from it even with the 103 current citations. Not to mention, possible copyright violation here (I reckon its a false flag based on the source and wayback machine) but the editor didn't even comment on it when doing the review. I'm not sure how to proceed here, I want to assume good faith, but, the editor may need to attempt mentorship and be wary of taking on anything GA related until they have at a minimum one GA themselves. Mr rnddude ( talk) 22:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Pretty sure these two are socks considering their edits to the master's page. Special:Contributions/2600:1:8A7C:1FBB:4506:8D58:535C:6023 & Special:Contributions/2600:1:8A5D:B464:E591:73BB:9D0B:AB1E. Posting here because you appear to be online, recently (21 August) blocked some of his evading-IPs, and per "not feeding trolls"/RBI. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 22:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi NeilN,
I note on your closing marks you mentioned "This is not the proper venue for an RFC that would affect hundreds of articles. It needs to be held on a central discussion page and widely advertised." I entirely agree with this, could you kindly assist me by providing a proper venue, which would be widely advertised to tap into the talent of the many intelligent editors on Wikipedia. I feel that some rules to govern articles of this type to conform with WP Policy NPOV would give articles of this nature a consistent, and globally accepted view from an encyclopedic POV. -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk 08:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution
NeilN and
athomeinkobe, I have not forgotten about this discussion, I was very busy lately with my professional life. In my spare time, I do intend to review that policy, and make a proposal here, once the proposal has been properly formulated, I would appreciate if
NeilN could assist me in placing it at the proper venue.
To answer your question
athomeinkobe, it's not about legal proceedings in Australia, and their outcome. If you want to write that the "local court's claimed the homicide of cobby to be a murder, with the reference that is fine. But in say something in Wikipedia voice, there must be strict adherence to NPOV policy. Otherwise, we must also include other opinion evidence such as
https://www.google.lk/search?q=murder%20as%20natural%20selections&rct=j And we can get into a big debate about the number of ways to classify cobby's homocide. --
Eng. M.Bandara
-Talk
11:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I have one question. Can i use the images from this http://www.rajyasabhatv.com/ website. Last time you have said me to ask someone before use of images from 3rd party websites. So i am asking. Can you please confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn richard1 ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Could you (or any active admin who sees this) restore User:NQ/sandbox/temp please? - NQ (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) @ NQ: done. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello NeilN This is a request for you to look, comment and possibly place an edit in the Bill Cosby biography about his contribution to the Black History anthology TV series from the 1960's (see talk page). Per your request more RS have been placed there and the TV series found significant coverage in the NEW York Times of the day. It was viewed by 22 million people and the producers credit Cosby's participation as what led to the Emmy for a history documentary. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 ( talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC) A Contributor
I dont do Twinkle, or warnings because I'm not competent!! I've spent thirty mins trying to warn a couple of users at Paul Fix (racing driver). Could you look, spend a minute perhaps. thx. Roxy the dog™ bark 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello NielN
It seems someone is back vandalizing the page again. This user MaxPrem only made two edits and he removed reliable source. I reverted the article back to its original format where the result was agreed on the talk page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:MaxPrem&action=edit&redlink=1
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sino-Vietnamese_War&action=history
-- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 16:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, thanks for your email. It was not a mistake, but now that you mention it, I didn't know it was a problem! So I'm grateful to you for bringing it to my attention, and as I think about it more, I can see why it would be undesirable. I'll research some more for my own edification. Thanks for keeping me on the train tracks--it shan't be an issue going forward. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Please review his stubborn reversals & lack of logic & reason. Also see the associated Talk page. Txs. Purrhaps ( talk) 03:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Did you look at the history? Looks like a sock. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Based on your recent protection of this article, can you please also block Still minded ( talk · contribs); as a sock of User:Filipz123, which was the account that edited the article prior to your protection. Thanks. MeowMoon ( talk) 01:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for reverting the sock IP. He seems to have developed an interest in me/my edits/my talk page. Secondly, would it be ok to have my talk page & user page semi protected, please? Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 06:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if you are following them but you may want to remove their talk page access. 331dot ( talk) 09:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Please help to resolve claims, provided by Winkelvi and Smartse in the page /info/en/?search=Ilias_Psinakis. Once, a year ago you already helped to solve. I have given all the relevant sources.LS 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba ( talk • contribs)
Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:5C8B:856F:FDF6:3076:9476:CB36 is obsessed with something - Roxy the dog™ bark 10:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, this ongoing RFC was not listed under BLP bio, but only under BLP pol. Please advise how I can get it listed under both, at this point. I'm not sure how to do it. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I am sorry to bother you, and I really hate having to stoop to this level. But since they did, so am I. They even told me to do it. So here I am (I don't know how to 'ping' someone).
I noticed that you took part in one of the numerous times that Side to Side was voted on or redirected. Well, a 3 day old voting decision isn't enough for them. They are back, and wanting a page and have a vote going on. They have Side to Side (song) running and a name change request was sent back to the talk page for a vote.
If you care to voice your opinion (again), feel free to click. Your previous decision does not count towards the current vote. This one is primarily about changing the name, but I feel that since it was currently voted to redirect, that the primary voting reason should be about whether to have a page or not. Either way, voices need to be heard (again).
Kellymoat ( talk) 20:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Neil! Could you take a look at the Donald Trump article? There seems to be some revert warring going on, about what image to use in the infobox. That subject is currently under discussion at the talk page, but I find the following actions at the talk page today: new image introduced [3], reverted [4], new image restored [5], reverted [6]. I'm not pointing any fingers at any particular person, I'd just like some uninvolved eyes on the situation. I posted a generic warning on the talk page. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I was just about to add my reasoning to the discussion that you closed. This is what I was going to say:
While there is not particular blatant violation, I do believe that the content that is on the userpage does go against what is in the nutshell of the policy page: "They should be used to better participate in the community, and not used to excess for unrelated purposes nor to bring the project into disrepute."
If you think that this is a good argument then please go ahead and reopen the discussion (if that can be done). -- MorbidEntree - ( Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Yo NeilN, how bout an hour or two's smi? Yon IP is back. Cheers! Muffled Pocketed 08:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
As you recall there was an issue with an IP at the Universal Championship which caused me to look like the bad guy, anyways targeted by another IP tonight who removed content replaced content several times so I put the page back as it was written as there were no issues or anything unsourced as the IP claimed then I was reverted here with a snotty comment then a comment was left on my talk page conveniently the IP knew about last issue, geo locate shows both originated from Europe. Not getting suckered again like last time. New IP location, IP from before. I would like my talk and user page Semi please as clearly this isn't going to end. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 10:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Good enough thank you Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 21:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Debresser#Some_advice_needed
What is your response? Purrhaps ( talk) 12:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't find the deleted messages. But just go back to my 1st post above & find your response. -- Purrhaps ( talk) 02:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For various and sundry, but most recently for protecting vandalized articles. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 18:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC) |
I have just read NOTHERE rule and I haven't noticed what could coincide with my behaviour. I am a honest reader who sometimes intervenes when I see a POV push. I call for reversal of speedy close. Have you even read that MShabazz verbally offended me for no reason? I DON'T believe this kind of incivility is tolerated in Wikipedia, so the case should be re-opened. Or I will call for arbitration. Wikipedia is not closed for users-only, anonymous users exist for a reason. -- 37.44.65.39 ( talk) 23:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
And another post... boomerang duck. -- Dane2007 talk 01:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Dschslava Δx parlez moi 05:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
You see the headline Is Germany's AFD racist? pop up in your feed reader and wonder which nut nominated Germany for deletion. -- NeilN talk to me 05:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Should I remove my minor warning from that IP page? Looks like you were posting your more severe one as I was composing mine. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 09:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I shall remove then looks like they were doing it again as I was getting the warning together that you reverted anyways. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 09:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Looks like I'm going to need assistance at Harry's Place IP provides no source for content, then gets mad and starts blanking sections because they can't add their Unsourced material. 2 warnings issued Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 10:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, does that warning apply to ALL political bios and articles post 1932 or just certain ones? I guess I need to be more carefull about reading all the headers and warnings. Thank you. -- Malerooster ( talk) 16:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Neil. I had also posted an explanation on Malerooster's talk page, before I saw this. I wanted to let you know that in the course of that little revert war, there were also two potential violations involving the restoration of contentious material. The course of action was this: Material about a Saudi purchase from Trump was added to the article by Vesuvius Dogg; so far so good. It was deleted by Malerooster, so far so good; that removal identifies the material as contentious. However, it was re-added to the article by Jeppiz [7] (restoration of contentious material), removed again by Malerooster, restored again by Vesivius Dogg [8] (restoration of contentious material AND violation of 1RR), removed a third time by Malerooster, restored again by Volunteer Marek [9] (removal of contentious material), and removed by Anythingyouwant. You have warned Malerooster; you might want to see if anything needs to be done about the other violations. Thanks so much for your attention to this article! -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey,
I think a block extension and talk page access revocation for 85.74.31.101 are in order per the continuing WP:NOTHERE behavior reported at this AN/I. Could you take a look at this?
Thanks -- Dane2007 talk 01:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Please have another look, I only requested because I feel I will just end up Warring with the guy that is constantly saying the club is in Barnet even know they have moved out of the area. He even deletes the citation. Govvy ( talk) 11:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 18:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
User weweremarshall continues to edit war across several WWE Articles which currently have talk page discussions pending. User has been reverted by several editors, User has now reverted edits calling them Vandalism, which they are not and filed false reports against another user all while edit warring. Thoughts? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 00:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry you had to look for boomerang, I have another user vandalizing another admins page
here removing another users question and replacing it with a car picture, they were reverted by other users and myself and warned twice which they keep deleting
Chris "WarMachineWildThing"
Talk to me
01:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Facepalm LOL. Done. Softlavender ( talk) 02:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
...for protecting that article! I've just submitted another one to WP:RPP for the exact same reason! A User ( contribs) 02:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I restored it back to a more stable version for now using twinkle. After various content removals, Vandalism, and Unsourced material seen here can we get a semi protect on it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 03:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey, just a heads up, but the IP that you blocked a day ago straight out of the block has been edit warring again on the same page and shows no intentions of stopping. I really shouldn't be the one to do any further blocks as I'm involved but just wanted to drop you a line. Connormah ( talk) 13:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
They're at it again. Longer protection, possibly indef? Corkythe hornetfan (ping me) 01:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Neil, if you would, please take a look at the talk page discussion I'm currently involved in at the Donald Trump article. Then please look at the latest reversion at the article, done by the photographer who has been pushing for his photos to be in as many political articles as possible. I think it's COI, but realize there is no policy on images and COI that can be quoted or enforced. The edit warring there has been slow, but definite. There are those pushing for specific photos who keep claiming consensus when there isn't one. Plenty of editors were fine with the photo that's been longstanding at the article, and stated as much at the article talk page several times over the last several months. The latest round of this ended up with no clear consensus, just a couple of !votes over those who wanted to keep the longstanding image. My point here is not in the way of the photo as much as it is the blatant disregard for the DS rule at the article and ignoring your previous warning about same. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Also pinging MelanieN since she commented there re: edit warring and DS as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I was gonna come to you about that issue earlier today as it has gotten insane but Crash had already went to another admin so I just responded there. Thanks for the 4 days of some peace Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 03:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that a user closed two AfDs where I recently commented [10] and [11]. He/she is not an admin and made the closures without any justification per arguments made during these AfDs. I also noticed this discussion on their talk page indicating that they should not do any closures on controversial subjects. Was it all right on the part of user who made these closures? I do not really care that much about these pages, but would like someone uninvolved (like you) to quickly look at this. If you think the closings were appropriate, then OK, I do not mind. Let's keep them. Thank you, My very best wishes ( talk) 02:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Special:diff/738546185 you cited WPSNOW as reason to delete a redirect.
I will quote Wikipedia:Snowball_clause#A_cautionary_note:
I expressed a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement which you ignored. You treated this like a vote and by closing it after a mere two days you did not give adequate time for uninvolved parties to express their views about this. This is exactly the type of thing this note was out there for. Please re-open the discussion and let it persist a couple weeks. Ranze ( talk) 08:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Neil I'm not sure what you mean by "poorly sourced", the quote is from Tyler Breeze, it is dialogue from the ongoing series WWE NXT. There isn't any better support for a nickname's existence than for it to be spoken by the cast of the show during the show. I'm in the process of appealing that deletion by elaborating on details they may not have been made aware of, due to resistance of including the nickname on the article itself.
If Crash can reliably source Rock's nicknames and if those names exclusively refer to a single wrestler I would support his redirecting those unique names to the wrestlers too. I think the WWE website was still around during the AE but I don't know if they quoted him. Given the PG era it might be hard to find WWE-approved clips of his worse insults now. Ranze ( talk) 02:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Neil re special:diff/738813763 it's clear that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are a collective concept. We're told:
Under the "Derivation" section:
Thus guidelines are our instructions on how to apply policy and just as if not more important.
The (not a policy or guideline, but a supplement) essay Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays elaborates about this under Misconception 7:
This seems to be hair-splitting. WP:R may be "a guideline" rather than "a policy" but I posit to you that both of these fall under the umbrella term "Wikipedia policy" because guidelines are inherently part of the subject of policy (how we apply it) and so it is acceptable for me to consider WP:R to be a policy guideline. Ranze ( talk) 12:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I get the sense you mean 'guideline' to sound soft, kind of like how some people do with the word 'theory' even though "Theory" has a hard sense in Science and "Guideline" has a hard sense in policying.
Which portion of BLP applies here where the issue is a character calling another character something. A nickname applied to a character portrayed for an actor does not appear to be something that would fall under the BLP protections for that actor. For example " Worf is ugly" would not violate BLP concerns about Michael Dorn as an attack page, because there is a distinction between things expressed about a character and things expressed about an actor portraying the character.
Breeze insulted the appearance of Adrian Neville the fictional wrestling character not the living person portraying him, Ben Satterly. These guys do scripted arguments, Satterly consented to let the Breeze character call his Neville character whatever he called him, he's paid to do it, so it's not a BLP concern. Ranze ( talk) 16:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Pretty positive after their edits and geolocate [ this] is the same IP/person you blocked. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 08:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, they jumped to [ this] one after you blocked them, so apparently they really want on here lol Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 19:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
How and what is Mentorship? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 21:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi there I'm relatively new and inexperienced at editing on Wikipedia but I am well-educated (BSc & MSc). Could you please inform me of the reasons for the deletions of my contributions to the Sam Harris page? Is it because his own blog is not a reliable source? I have only reported facts on what he has done and promised to do
I will appreciate your feedback
Cheers Matt Wegs ( talk) 09:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I did thanks (after posting the last queries). I understand why one may class it as 'trivial' and 'spamish' but I believe the contribution helps to elaborate on his character, interests and philosophies. Additionally, the positive message, raising of awareness, and tangible effects on people's behaviour of Effective Altruism and Sam's pledges, seem relevant and important. Also, by linking in Effective altruism, GiveWell etc. it can help inform people of their existence in trying to improve the world, like in my opinion, Wikipedia does (e.g. I started to donate to Wikipedia once I knew it needed it to exist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Wegs ( talk • contribs) 10:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Drown it in bleach | |
Some bleach for your mind brain for having to view that preview. I hope it can scrub some of the filth and shame off. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC) |
Just wanted to say thanks for removing meat/sock puppet account I reported. I saw your message about it not being hoax or vandalism, but it all happened so quick I didn't get a chance to respond. Thanks about that!-- Mr.hmm ( talk) 17:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil. The RFC has been closed at the Trump article, regarding whether the lead will say in Wikipedia's voice that many of his statements are "false". The closer said there was a "rough consensus" to include, as compared to the "firm consensus" that would be needed per DS if the material is challenged and then reinserted. Following the RFC close, the material was inserted, then challenged, then reinserted. Would you please check whether the reinsertion was consistent with DS? Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I've commented at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_Clarification. Sandstein 07:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this, just in case you're keeping count, it's three. The latest is the third one. And then there was one interaction ban between the two of us. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I need your help with @ Bbundu:. They are disruptively editing List of WWE World Champions and have been warned, yet they keep doing so. I also think they may be violate WP:3RR soon. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 02:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes thank you Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 02:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm still kind of floored that they've been here for over a year, with more than 700 edits, without making a single talk page post or non-default edit summary. -- NeilN talk to me 03:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
116.212.224.37 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This IP is pretty persistent tonight in their vandalism. I notice that it's probably a school based on the block log. I put it on AIV but they're still going pretty hardcore since I put the report there, could you issue a block? Thanks! -- Dane2007 talk 03:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
66.87.121.65 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Feel like another one? They're after my user page now. -- Dane2007 talk 03:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
86.20.193.222 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Another sock of "Vote (X) for Change" it appears based on the same commentary on the reference desk. -- Dane2007 talk 02:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
You have responded to my unsourced edits on Jumla district and bullfighting. Thats good, but I did those editings because I am a local of the place where bullfighting is held in Nepal. and I have been to Jumla quite a lot. I acknowledge my lack of source, and will try to add one in my future posts. Thanks for your comments. Have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhikaridhiraj ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
They called me a bad name. :( lol. User talk:Crash Underride#Idiot. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 15:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, in the open Michael Hardy arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias ( T)( C) 19:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think I messed up what you were doing with my reply. Please feel free to remove my reply. I've copied it, and can post it again later. Sorry for interfering. (violation still visible in the diff of one my edits). --- Sluzzelin talk 23:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I looked at the edits and agree with you 100% they are not acceptable. I have checked the desktop & laptop machines that use this internet connection and find no evidence in history and cache of visiting those pages. Cache had not been deleted either.
There is a serious issue here as my children are too young to have done this. In order to get to the bottom of this matter could you please help me with the following.
1. The times noted were between 8:23 & 8:42 AM UTC. Which would mean approximately September 12th 11:42 PM Australian Eastern Time?
2. Does "(Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)"'' mean the Operating system off the device was a mobile (either Android/Apple IOS) device?
3. Please provide any other information you have.
Thank You in advance for your help in getting to the bottom of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.131.45 ( talk) 00:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you I will check mobile devices later today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.131.45 ( talk) 00:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Chriscross619 is understanding what I am explaining to them about Unsourced and Sourced material on articles, either that or they are playing with me. Other editors have warned them about various other stuff on articles. I just want them to understand and I don't think I'm getting through judging from the responses I got [ here] Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 02:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the sock activity at Talk:Peter Joseph (see today's history)? The same action is currently also at Talk:Jacque Fresco. The admin who dealt with it last time is not active, and my watchlist showed you near the top, so if you feel inclined, please have a look. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Another possible "97 IP" sock: Special:Contributions/97 IP 12. Linguist 111 If you reply here, please type {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message. 12:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Did someone recently suggest a new "rollback all edits" function over at Village Pump? Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be actively participating at ANI, and you were the first recognizable admin username I saw there, so I figured I'd ask, do you think you could look at this thread at AN/I and possibly follow up on it? The IP editor I mentioned isn't the only one hurling accusations around, and they seem to have gotten worse since I first posted that. The article in question has been fully protected, but there's more disruption going on at the article talk page and in the thread linked at ANI. I'd really appreciate it. The discussion started off toxic and seems to have just gone downhill from there, despite the efforts of a few of us to calm things down.
I've watched your page, so you don't need to let me know if you reply here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to keep coming back here, but (IMHO, take it for what it's worth) I think it's time that IP got blocked from editing. See the following:
All of those happened since the various warnings you posted. I think this IP editor is clearly not going to stop with the incivility or disruption. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, I believe User: Volunteer Marek violated discretionary sanctions with this edit at Donald Trump. The edit restored content which had been removed following its recent addition ( [13], [14]). The OP is aware of the requirements of discretionary sanctions. As an uninvolved admin, can you please intervene? CFredkin ( talk) 17:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll also note that there are discussions underway in Talk ( [15], [16]) on these edits. There is currently no consensus to restore them, and the OP has made no contributions to the discussions (despite the fact that I referred to them in one of my edit summaries). CFredkin ( talk) 17:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
At 14 September at 13:53, the following sentence was added to the opening paragraph of the lead: "He is the founder of Trump University and the New Jersey Generals football team." This sentence was removed at 16:33 on 14 September Then User:Volunteer Marek edited this BLP by restoring that sentence at 16:47 on 14 September. At that point (16:47) there was already a talk page discussion with no consensus for including this material (three editors had commented and none of them supported reinclusion of the disputed sentence). User:Volunteer Marek has previously been informed about discretionary sanctions at this BLP. [17] What can be done? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Reminder that WP:AE is available if you want to pursue another avenue for enforcement. Here's what you can expect from me:
-- NeilN talk to me 18:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The discretionary sanctions are intended to promote caution in inserting potentially contentious material, but he's realized that he can render any material "contentious" simply by reverting it. It's a pattern which, combined with his editing history, makes it clear what he's up to. He's gaming the discretionary sanctions, and I see other editors, including Marek, getting frustrated with it. More to the point, if the discretionary sanctions are giving editors like CFredkin or Anythingyouwant de facto veto power over content, then they're not being enforced in a productive way. MastCell Talk 19:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi NeilN. The edit restored material which did indeed have consensus on talk. See the discussion here. User:Buster7 expressed his opinion and correctly observed that omitting the info and substituting a link to an almost empty article is "sending our readers to an empty closet". The material itself was added, proposed, and discussed by User:Somedifferentstuff. User:Muboshgu also appeared to agree with the inclusion. Note that EVEN (and yes, that "even" is very much applicable) User:Anythingyouwant agreed that some info needed to be present in the article, stating that the text removed by CFredkin was "enough for now". Hence, CFredkin is the only one objecting to the material, consensus is clearly against them, yet they are insinuating in their edit summary that their removal of the material is with consensus. It's not, just the opposite.
More generally, User:MastCell above is exactly right. CFredkin has repeatedly acted in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner in a clear pattern of WP:GAMEing discretionary sanctions. On other articles related to the presidential race, just like this one, CFredkin automatically reverts any edit which they feel is insufficiently complimentary to Trump, or insufficiently critical of Clinton. Then they claim that discretionary sanctions give them some kind of Magical-Shield-Of-Protection-From-Being-Reverted, no matter how disruptive or obnoxiously POV their edit is. This case exemplifies it pretty well.
As to the Generals thing that is brought up by Anythingyouwant, yeah, that got caught up in the revision and I have no problem with that being removed from the lede. I did a partial self revert accordingly. However, I'm not clear why the mention of Trump University is being removed along with the obviously much less significant NY Generals. It seems like one reasoning is being used to make a different kind of edit. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Since I've been misquoted above, I'd like to correct the record. At the Trump talk page, I did not say that the material VM supports was "enough for now". What I said was "That seems like plenty for now, and it ought to be more concise in view of WP:Summary style." I subsequently edited the section in question, and here is what it looked like at the time of my last edit, before VM greatly expanded the section without consensus. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
If Volunteer Marek deserves sanctioning then so do half the editors at Donald Trump, in particular CFredkin for consistently gaming the system in regards to discretionary sanctions with his drive-by deletions. I know this is silly season but enough already. I can't even get started on Anythingyouwant (I was in awe of the descriptive response here) --- and low and behold, he strikes again [21] even though he knows he doesn't have consensus to remove the material. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I think is beyond the remit of a single admin and any sanctions for gaming the system need to be discussed at WP:AE. Even if I were to levy sanctions, they'd be appealed and we'd wind up there anyways. CFredkin, you'll have to wait 24 hours for the revert. Also, as I said before, you can get DS enforced at WP:AE. -- NeilN talk to me 23:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Apparently now, someone created an WP:SPA account with the main purpose of going around and reverting my edits on articles which may be subject to discretionary sanctions [22] [23]. This is obvious gaming and goading. Let me guess - if I revert this I might violate discretionary sanctions and CFredkin or Anythingyouwant will file yet another WP:AE report against me. This is precisely why a mindless application - without looking at the pattern of edits, like with CFredkin's tendentious behavior - of discretionary sanctions is so idiotic. It only takes a very small amount of cynicism and bad faith to game the hell out of them. Like it's being done here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it was you who recently temp-blocked an IP-hopping vandal or CIR, who was inserting commas before Jr.'s and Sr.'s, in the wrong position. Warnings on multiple user talk pages were ignored or never read. Back at it again, see Obadiah Bush for two of the IPs. I've spent the past 20 minutes fixing some of the damage in this round. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey Neil. Given your block of LackofMeNecktar, I thought you might want to be kept apprised of apparent socks. See my block here. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, It looks like Nangparbat is once again railing against me [25]. Can you please take care of it? Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the semi-protection. Mind you, ~all pages about advertising seem to be ghastly messes of bafflegab. :-/ Pinkbeast ( talk) 15:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
hi the info on the babur thread is from a propaganda site/blog the site is well know to publish anti Pakistani material and should not be classed as a reliable srouce for pakistan/chinese material.
i added info on the air india thread too will 3 sources with pictures and he took them down because he claimed the sources were not reliable. since when did one of the world largest avation sites are not reliable? i feel he removed it because it portrayed the airline negatively.
but infact go look back at my sources and you will find them to be fine and heck there pictures too and that's proof in its self.
if you paint something positively then people will think that it good but people need to know the bad side to.
i thought this site is balanced but im starting to have doubts now
regards blue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue fishy ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Saul Alinsky was self described as a 'small seed communist.' Thanks for editing my alteration to his article; we wouldn't want the truth to get out there, would we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polymarkos ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Just saw you blocks at Talk:Crash Override Network. You might be interested in this Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Mlpearc ( open channel) 20:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Neil. I'm still learning the ways of the Wikipedia editorship. I'm not as HTML savvy as I need to me. I appreciate the attention you have given to Petplan Australia. I'm a mom to a 3 legged chihuahua and I use petplan north america. There are two, existing wikipedia pages for Petplan: Petplan North America and Petplan UK. I am working hard to learn this system. I added a third wikipedia page for Petplan Australia with objective, factual information that links to legitimate external sources and internal wikipedia pages. What do you recommend I incorporate into my articles for future submissions so that I am not flagged for deletion? I'm not sure if we can ask for "wiki mentors" here, but I could sure use one. Thanks, again. Arzade ( talk) 00:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)arzade
@ NeilN Do news sources count as secondary sources? There's this from ABC http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-08/campaign-to-end-pet-insurer's-'cruel'-post-death-premiums/5876356 or The Sydney Herald http://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/choice-reviews-what-pet-insurance-really-covers-and-if-it-is-worth-it-20160415-go7d0o.html? I really appreciate your help on this. I'm trying to build up my credibility because I LOVE writing and Wikipedia especially. Thank you! Arzade ( talk) 01:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)arzade
Because trolls. Feel free to undo my protection at anytime and without need to consult me, yadda yadda yadda, first. :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Whoa - you guys are way over my head. Thank you for semi-protecting ~Oshwah~ Also, may I ask what revdel those revisions RD3 means? @Neil...thanks again for all your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzade ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Very helpful information, Adam9007 Thank you and NeilN with the resources and guidance. Arzade ( talk) 01:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Arzade
Figured they'd be back sooner or later. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 01:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
[27] TimothyJosephWood 13:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to pile on, but 88.251.9.133 (block evading) is mass-undoing my reverts. Dat Guy Talk Contribs 14:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, In my sandbox [28], I have documented another problematic IP user that you have dealt with in the past. I see two landline IPs and several wireless IPs, all of which are likely to belong to the same individual. Can we force him to open an account so that we have a proper record of activity? Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Neil, apologies for troubling you but editor Cmeiqnj has added a POV to the article. I amoungst others may well argue that the article has POV difficulties but IMO that is in tone not misleading information. Starting any work towards fulfilling the criteria needed to remove the label may well end up with an article that creates more POV problems than solves! This ramble based upon past experience but that was with religion and witchcraft, this may be far simplier. Thoughts? Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 14:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 15:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Leave this here. You, being the all wise and powerful admin can do as you see fit. lol. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 19:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Ummmmmm ok thats total bs......I'm just gonna shut up, no I'm not gonna post to it. You will always have my support. By the way
Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 01:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what the IPs thought they were gaining from any of it, but clearly y'all's were worse than mine, both of yours got revdel lol Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 00:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, NeilN
I really respect what you did with the article. The user who self-promotes F1 Challenge 1988-2014 in Wikipedia (EA Sports F1 Series page) is doing that since 2013.
Thanks, -- CristianLuisCLX ( talk) 21:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
See phab:T145912. Time to make this happen, in native MediaWiki :) Feel free to weigh in with your thoughts. Also pinging those I know have asked about this before: @ Edgar181, Bishonen, and NativeForeigner:. Best — MusikAnimal talk 23:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 02:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/100.37.136.56 looks a lot like Special:Contributions/68.132.32.203. -- Izno ( talk) 03:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
83.143.245.5 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Matches Contribs and Sockpuppetry Styles of Paulydee:
C'estpaspossible! (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Ohbuttheywill (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Looks like a duck to me - @ C.Fred: This might be of interest to you as well. Do these pages need protection possibly? -- Dane2007 talk 00:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
79.141.163.13 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Dane2007 talk 01:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
162.244.80.233 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Dane2007 talk 23:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
He's baaaack.... 77.243.183.89 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Dane2007 talk 02:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
[30] NeilN, this editor keeps stalking and targeting my edits [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] despite many warnings Spartacus! t@lk 04:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Neil, could you please take another look at this article and decide whether semi-protection is appropriate. You blocked one of the IPs who is adding unsourced ethnicity to the article for edit warring, but, as you can see, the person doing this is hopping and a block is unfortunately of limited value. I'm WP:INVOLVED, having reverted more than once, and can't do this myself. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 11:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Could we possibly get University of Louisiana at Lafayette protected from I.P. and new users until a consensus is built at the talk page? We're trying (emphasis because it may be a while with a couple of them...) to get a consensus on an abbreviation for the school, but new users/IPs keep changing it and not waiting to get a consensus. Corkythe hornetfan (ping me) 21:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi I see you got involved in the past on this Article about a week ago i stumbled on this article and did a bunch of changes to improve it. I saw this past week a new edit war breakout on this page and while user Truthseekr67 seems to be doing the correct thing by leaving comments and discussing the changes on the talk page the second user ( Masterofthename ) just reverted the changes. I stepped in and reverted his change but at the same time i have left him explanation on his talk page to explain that 1) he should leave comments on edits 2) he should join the conversation on the page talk page to discuss the changes and arrive at consensus. I don't want to "feed the fire", by doing another edit but after thorough review i don't think the sentence he is trying to maintain on the article should be there as its not sourced anywhere. Would you mind to step in as admin? Ntb613 ( talk) 01:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
References
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
We like your admin service, and this barnstar will work it out for you. Dog8923 ( talk) 03:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC) |
Dear editwar board admin, can you look at this /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Njdeda_Rlase_reported_by_User:TouristerMan_.28Result:_.29 Editor touristerman has reverted 4 times in one day. After my warning of brightline three revert rule and three reverts made by editor touristerman he stop and put tags in 4th edit. Then on edge of 24 hrs he made full revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way they can be given a hard topic ban? When I say that, you know when someone's banned, they can log in, but not edit. Well, do that, except for articles, re-directs, etc. that are in pro wrestling related categories? That way we don't have to worry about them violating the ban. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 23:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
For dealing with the person spamming the ref desks. Between you and GorillaWarfare the disruption, though fast and furious, was short lived. Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 00:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Science desk needs help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.19.245.153 ( talk) 09:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, NeilN! I think that keeping Refdesks Math and Science protected for IP editors in the past weeks is not a viable option. If there some problematic editors, I suggest they be blocked instead of keeping Refdesks protected. Thanks.-- 82.137.14.150 ( talk) 19:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick message to let you know you were mentioned in this thread -- samtar talk or stalk 14:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For your constructive presence. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:30F8:873F:7608:6364 ( talk) 04:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks 2601! -- NeilN talk to me 04:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, I mentioned you at arbitration enforcement ( here), though I'm not sure if the ping worked given that I signed the comment and then inserted your name (instead of vice versa). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Huge appreciation for your actions against blatant vandalism. The Ink Daddy! ( talk) 02:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC) |
Thank you! -- NeilN talk to me 03:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
yo}}
!#Should I? - That's a whole lot of red! You could really use User:Theopolisme/Scripts/autocompleter, makes replying to comments a whole lot easier. - NQ (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thanks for locking down my talk page (again). Fun to wake up to a number of notices about my talk page. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 12:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC) |
Please see their contributions They have Vandalized here twice and warned and now posted this using hate speech. The IP appears to be a school IP. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 13:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
They switched IPs it appears, page may need semied. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 14:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you sir, hopefully they don't switch again.
Chris "WarMachineWildThing"
Talk to me
Spoke to soon they're back Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 14:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Torben_S%C3%B8ndergaard needs a higher level of protection. There is planned an organized attempt to delete the page by followers of the subject. Read the last comment here: https://www.facebook.com/torbenksondergaard/posts/294975194206883 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannesSve ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi dear, it's International Day of Peace and i wanted to say happy peace day to you, so you may be interested in this association to join it , as you wish . happy editing. The Stray Dog Talk Page 18:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
IP 50.51.80.15 literally just got off a vandalism ban and has started again. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 22:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Should I create a SPI for User:Gunchuma and User:Aarushiyas? Both users had a hand in repeatedly recreating the dbed article. Also, anons 223.231.60.224 and 223.231.63.82 removing temps. Messaging you as the deleting admin directly as I have no experience reopening the AN/I discussion. Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 08:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Keri ( talk) 13:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Did you get a chance to draft up a discussion? If not no worries... I can help, or we can rope in the liaison folks. We might even consider opening a thread directly on WP:AN, that way we get a lot of feedback quickly. From there we can shape the requirements and I'll communicate back with my team. Thank you very much for your assistance! — MusikAnimal talk 18:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Arley1998 has made no constructive edits. The only edits they've made are vandalism edits adding themselves to articles and templates, as well as creating articles about them-self and relatives. User has already been warned numerous times, MusikAnimal even blocked them for 31 hours, yet the behavior persists. I think this pattern of behavior is a clear sign that they are WP:NOTHERE and need to be gone. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 22:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
But Krimuk90 clearly came back as User:Smaro sex. Same 'contribution' of plastering user pages with xrap. Just FYI. Muffled Pocketed 10:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, NeilN. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, it appears that Nangparbat is back to his tricks: 31.192.111.202, 31.192.111.236. Perhaps a range block? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Our buddy Masai Giraffe may be back. See User talk:FrIeDaDawSen. Same pattern of editing to create bizarre inaccuracies that look plausible on the surface. I may have overstepped to do a single-issue warning, but I think it's the same editor. I suppose an SPI and requesting a rangeblock might be next. Montanabw (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello. User:Torah28 continues doing what they want on the page Saoirse Ronan (see [37]). Should I be filing a new report? Thanks. Wolfdog ( talk) 14:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Saoirse Ronan is 'Irish-American'. She has dual citizenship of both Ireland and the United States. It's the correct way! Torah28 ( talk) 12:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Has been blocked three times in their brief wiki career. Twice for disruptive editing, and once for block evasion. Each time the block expires, they simply continue editing disruptively, ignoring warnings. In my opinion, it's time for an indefinite block. Thoughts? Sro23 ( talk) 18:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil: Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but here goes.
Thank you for the invitation to discuss my contributions with you. I can see that you have a great deal of experience with Wikipedia, this is my first attempt to contribute.
My concern with Wikipedia's content regarding MLM is that is is very one-sided, biased against any positive descriptions at all. It dwells on the so-called "controversial" nature of the business, without any attempt to explain why some 17 million Americans and 50 million individuals worldwide have chosen this "controversial" industry to participate in.
There is no real attempt to portray the successes of the industry, the fact that some of these companies have a track record stretching back more than 30 years. The fact that, leaving aside the top income earners and the lowest income earners, there are thousands of 'average" people who have earned more than $1,000,000 in their MLM career. NuSkin for instance has a "Million-dollar-earner" wall in their new head office in Provo, Utah that has more than 1200 names on it.
Companies such as Avon and Mary Kay are household names, trusted by two generations or more as a source of quality products at fair prices. Amway is approaching $10 Billion in annual sales, and has survived scrutiny from more than 60 countries.
Key note speakers at MLM companies include some of America's most notable individuals, including former presidents, Pentagon Generals, business leaders. Reputable companies are highly rated by the Better Business Bureau. Some have high Dun & Bradstreet ratings. The latest ones are now publicly traded, and meet the quarterly scrutiny of the SEC.
The criticism of the industry on the other hand, largely comes from a fringe group of commentators with very little credibility. I can't speak to why these people feel the necessity to constantly attack the industry and the people in it, but it does no service to Wikipedia to promote these people and their biases.
My suggestion to Wikipedia is to separate the attacks from the industry page if you feel the need to include them, and put them in their own category. I think you would be hard pressed to find another industry page that has such a biased and negative view. Search Auto Industry, Oil Industry or Arms Industry for instance and despite the constant attacks on these industries Wikipedia make no mention. These pages area full of industry facts. The MLM page on the other hand , is full of references to criticism, legality, lawsuits, price fixing, cults, and so on. This is a completely false reflection of the industry itself, but rather a compendium of those who have chosen to attack the industry.
And most of the info there is very dated. Kind of like using Ralph Nader's criticism of the auto industry in the 1960s as a focal point when discussing the auto industry. The criticism of MLM is - and should be on Wikipedia - a footnote to the evolution of the industry, not the defining characteristic of it.
If I might ask a personal question, do you have a personal bias to MLM? Have you had any (perhaps negative) personal experience which is colouring your view?
LeeFairbanks ( talk) 15:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Lee Fairbanks
Again, hope this is the right place to respond, these pages are very confusing.
I appreciate you taking the time to try and defend your page and you're resistance to updating it, but respectfully, I don't find your references to be "independent" sources. Nor are they factual. What is more factual than an MLM organization, and a law firm? The MLM sites you claim are "shills" use facts. Your sources are journalists. I am a journalist. I understand this industry very well. These articles are written to comment and exploit on a specific current event or topic. They are not scholarly articles. They are not based on facts. The first one, from thestar.com references pyramid schemes, complete with a full-colour diagram that explains what a pyramid scheme is, then talks about a family squabble. That's not an article about MLM at all. Courts around the world have clearly differentiated MLM from pyramid schemes, and all major companies abide by those differences. There are no facts in this article. Specifically, it speaks about the actions of individuals within the industry, not the actions of the industry itself. The second article from USA Today is also only 1 person's opinion, unsupported by any facts. It comes to the ridiculous conclusion that Michelle Van Etten is not a small business owner, but rather a customer. Here's a fact: The US government (and all government around the world as far as I know, and the company I work with is in 60 countries) require MLM distributors to declare their income as "business income". The third one, from Bloomberg, explains the phenomenal success of one MLM company, their amazing growth in sales. This side of MLM is not covered at all in your page. It's like writing about the auto industry and only covering the dealer network and not the manufacturer and then filling your page with comments from people who had problems with servicing and repairs. I will repost my edit, and give you one last chance to allow the updating of your site to properly reflect the topic. After that, I will take this complaint to the next level for mediation. There is no point in you and I continuing this personal debate. LeeFairbanks ( talk) 15:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Lee fairbanks
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. Where is the majority and minority views? Are they the views of a few journalists and commentators, or the actions and opinions of the more than 50 million people who are participating in the industry - who in fact ARE the industry?
I can't understand your unwillingness to update and improve your page, using industry statistics rather than the isolated opinions of a few headline-seeking journalists and malcontented bloggers. Most of your page is based on dated material, where are the facts and updates from 2010-2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeFairbanks ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Your choice of "fact-checked commentators" actually fall into this category from Wikipedia (note applicable section in quotes): Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, "but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy" (see junk food news).[5] You have chosen sources that are "rarely reliable" "generally not as reliable" and "not subject to the same rigorous standard". They are not "editorial commentary, analysts and opinion pieces by editors and op-eds" . In short you are cherry-picking into that you want to set up a bias against the industry and the people in it. I have included content on the so-called "controversy" plus info about "legal actions" as well as facts about the industry. In short, a much more balanced, fair and accurate summary that meets Wikipedia's mandate to the public. LeeFairbanks ( talk) 14:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Lee Fairbanks
Hey! Some time ago oyu put a temporary protection on University of Notre Dame because of vandalism. That protection expired on the 23rd, but vandals have come back. Could you put protection once again? Thanks! Eccekevin ( talk) 22:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Kader_Tree is clearly a sock of John Daker and wreaking havoc...-- Dane2007 talk 04:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
As for your comment "Socks don't get to dispute content", Yaysmay, the sock master, embroiled himself in a content dispute. Any sort of advice or warnings like WP:NOTNEWS or WP:ROUTINE often fall on deaf ears and thus why admins were forced to block his initial account, but we never expected him to be that relentless through that sock farm of his. Blake Gripling ( talk) 05:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, Thanks for deleting User talk:Pyfan/Barnstars and awards and helping HowDoesThisEvenwork's message find its way to the right place! Cheers, — Oli OR Pyfan! 14:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Tried to remove text only having sources written by Torben Søndergaard's himself from the Torben_Søndergaard article. And more should go according to the Wiki-standard. The article is simply not written according to the Wikipedia standard as hardly any of the sources verifiable, have no translations of sources in other languages, or are accessible. They are self-published, biased and the whole article is based on a claim of a movement that's non-existent.
There are hardly multiple reliable sources. The main sources are some tabloid newspapers and then Torben Søndergaard's own books, own website, own YouTube channel, and own opinion pieces in a minor Christian Danish newspaper. There is no movement. It's simply grandiose words from an upcoming YouTuber and conference speaker. When the critical stuff is gone from the article, this Wiki article is at best advertisement for a minor Danish ministry edited it's followers, fx RobbertDam, and the HMX-something guy who made a tutorial to other followers how to edit this page. The reason this page is getting attention is because Torben Søndergaard posted a link to it on his Facebook-page asking for help to make it positive - which is just as bad as negative - and then angry followers shared it.
And the Last Reformation is not really a worldwide movement. Writing a book, buying a website, making a Facebook-page, uploading videos to Youtube while stating something a hundred times does not make something real. This idea of a worldwide movement is simply an unfounded claim by Torben Søndergaard who simply hopes for a worldwide movement. There's maybe a few thousand active supporters worldwide and they, of course, vigorously all claim to have a movement, but - let's stay objective here - in fact, it's simply a claim.
In reality Søndergaard
Is he controversial? Probably. Does this make him noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia page? No.
Just look at the very modest activity on his Facebook page. This can in no way be a worldwide movement or a wiki-noteworthy person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowDoesThisEvenwork ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I think you're calling on the wrong case. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil. I think you were too speedy to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump tax evasion controversy. I voted to keep as a notable topic, when other material besides the debate is considered. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 20:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
FYI... Muffled Pocketed 11:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
You protected Pepe the Frog and now I can't edit it. All of my edits to it have been good. So could you "confirm" my account? I want to make the Esquire reference look like the others. It looks like most "confirm" request at the permissions page are denied so that's why I'm asking you. BigGuy88 ( talk) 17:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi NeilN!
I've noticed that there's now a temp lock on the page Leonard Kim due to an edit war. I am still getting my bearings straight, but it seems there's one IP address with a grudge that keeps removing the image on the page, saying it's a violation.
For future reference, I wanted to ask your counsel if it is or isn't?
If it's not in violation, would it be possible to revert the page back to September 10th, before the editing war started? -- Wallaby ( talk) 18:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Just so you understand the context of the 'persistent vandalism': http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/29/vegans-have-renamed-all-of-their-cheese-gary-6160907/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.246.112 ( talk) 19:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, on User talk:Darkness Shines, DS has identified two socks. The first one is I think LanguageXpert, going by the first few edits. The second one, I am not sure. But he is clearly a sock and has violated the "Ethnicity claim restriction". I hope you can take care of them. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Could this IP please be blocked. The user is a known pest who has been blocked before on this IP, but has edited via different IPs since the last block on this one. The person constantly vandalises sporting teams pages from Australia, mainly Perth, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide. It's been going on for over a year now. They keep coming back. It's hard to combat – perhaps long-term semi protection on all the pages this person has recently edited? Or is that too much / unjustifiable? DaHuzyBru ( talk) 12:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi There,
I have been following your recent edits on Israel Defense Forces. You seem like you truly know your way around Wiki. I would like to ask you help improve Zeek Wikipedia article. Any input from you would be greatly appreciated. Looking forward to hearing from you. Ymd2004 ( talk) 21:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey again, NeilN!
There's the same weird range of Canadian IP addresses who keep reverting any changes done to Leonard Kim - Is there any way to require registered users to make edits? This article keeps suffering the same pattern of editing wars, and I could really use the help to make it stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallaby ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, Nangparbat is edit warring to reinstate the edits he made as Sronunshiv. Can you please revert it and perhaps try a range block? Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Torah28 is again consistently reverting edits without any discussion as far as I can see. User:Bastun appears to be turning the page back each time. What's the next step? Should I be posting a new report to Administrators' Noticeboard/Edit warring or can we carry on from ("re-open") the archived report? Thanks. Wolfdog ( talk) 20:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, NeilN. I hate to ask since you already took time to protect this page once before, but the block-evading Kurzon / BaronBifford / JungLiao is back at Superman ownership disputes as yet another anon IP. On October 10, a day after page protection ended, he returned as 149.154.210.149 to make this edit, identical to this one he made as 188.188.84.162 on October 3, as well as other, earlier edits under different anon IPs. Since he was clearly ready and waiting for page-protection to end, and since he has show remarkable recidivism, I was wondering if it might be prudent to protect this page again from anon-IP editing for a while? With thanks for any help,-- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
This new article is being vandalized and blanked by unregistered users:
/info/en/?search=Mike_Cernovich_(author)
Could you please help put a stop to this? If the majority of editors vote to remove the article, fine, but it can't just be blanked out by people vandalizing Wikipedia. Please help, thanks. Neptune's Trident ( talk) 05:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Eloise Worledge
It's another WP:SNOW as Eloise Worlege is one of the most famous child abuctions in the city of Melbourne and Australia generally. Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 15:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Rather unexpected but be back soon. -- NeilN talk to me 21:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Glad you're doing alright Neil. I was beginning to wonder with your extended absence. -- Dane2007 talk 04:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, administrator NeilN, I separated the article Taiwan general election, 2016 to Taiwan presidential election, 2016 and Taiwan legislative election, 2016 as you can see the common practices in the past in {{ Taiwanese elections}}. I noticed you were the administrator who set protection to the original page. Wish you can extend the protection to the new two and I wonder if you can move the edit history to both pages? Thanks! -- Wildcursive ( talk) 11:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this not too long thread and see if a DS temp block is warranted for Zigzig20s? This is only a tiny part of their pattern of disruption in Trump articles, but I'm not going to spend time assembling the ANI (let alone ArbCom) case. Thanks. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
At least one user talk warning has been removed as harassment. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Well they have quieted down (gone away) for the time being, so I guess there's nothing that can be done to prevent further disruption. I also now see that you would have to issue one warning first.
Unrelated to that, after this edit, I noticed this in the message box: "An administrator has applied the restriction above to this article." I wanted to make sure I didn't violate something by that edit, being a dedicated non-admin. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
NeilN, I have now been advised by MrX that I was in fact out of line adding the template, and he removed it. That article being within U.S. politics, I don't see any valid reason not to place it under the restrictions, and I feel those restrictions are needed (although the 1RR is problematic from a productivity and quality standpoint). If we forked some content from Donald Trump, should that fork eliminate the restrictions on that content? We certainly need the part about talk page consensus being required for any disputed edit. In my view that should be required for any article, but it's especially important there. That was my justification, and my only valid justification, for removing content about allegations that Trump repeatedly raped a 13-year-old girl in 1994, while that content is under RfC. It would appear, then, that the content can be re-added unless these remedies are in effect. I attemtped to expedite the RfC to 4 days and that was rejected. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
My mistake. Looking deeper, I now see that you haven't edited since the 18th and are "traveling a bit for work". I'll try to pursue this AE thing elsewhere, but it would be great if an admin could put a prominent notice at the top of their TP when they're going to be unavailable for more than a day or two. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Just FYI, I took the issue to AN, here. I hope that's a good place for it. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
In this ANI, you told me to leave E.M.Gregory alone. I have found this conclusion to be very vague; I believe E.M.Gregory's complaints were that I have been editing on every article he's ever edited because I knew he just edited them. While I have stopped doing that for the most part, I did recently edit the 2016 Jerusalem shooting attack, an article that he created, because there were some errors, and then I ultimately renamed it to exclude "attack". He undid every single edit I made on the sole reasoning that I was warned at ANI not to do that.
Am I really supposed to avoid every article E.M.Gregory has ever edited? Or am I supposed to stop indiscriminately editing on every article he's edited? I'm legitimately confused here. Parsley Man ( talk) 18:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello NeilN:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable
Halloween!
– --
Dane2007
talk
19:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, NeilN. I could be wrong, but it looked like this AfD discussion showed a consensus to delete Sofia Richie: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sofia_Richie. Yet the article is still there. I've just noticed this now, and since you were the closing admin, I figured I should let you know. With regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Could you be kind enough please to remove the protection that you placed on this article so that all of us who contribute to wikipedia can have the same access as those who've decided they want to identify themselves with an account? That is the reason wikipedia was created; so that anyone can edit. It is very unhelpful to have to beg the permission of editors WesMouse and PootisHeavy every time anyone has a contribution. That is not the goal of wikipedia or it's objective. Thank you. 216.216.202.69 ( talk) 20:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Two notes: Whether or not there is protection and whether or not a user has created an account, an account holder is just as capable of disrupting a protected page, so punishing non account holders is vindictive as well as worthless. Secondly, no editor is above the wiki law, except apparently in the case of WesMouse, who forces editors to beg his permission to edit any Eurovision article, as they are protected. He immediately reverses any Eurovision edit on non protected pages and belittles editors with comments like "nice try, though". Yet not one single punishment has ever been handed to WesMouse for the sarcasm or abuse. This is not acceptable and goes against all and every tenet of why wikipedia was created. 72.245.246.219 ( talk) 21:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Dane2007 talk 02:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey Neil. Could this IP please be blocked on the same grounds as this IP – it's the same person. Cheers. DaHuzyBru ( talk) 17:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil. There seems to be an issue regarding Mike Adams' page. I have received warnings for "inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content" onto the page. There is currently a controversy regarding a certain cyber-vandal who previously destroyed the page, posted truly defamatory remarks, and got Mike Adams himself banned from Wikipedia so that he had no way of fixing the issue. All I have done is replace the new, stripped outline of an article with what was previously on the page. I have in no way added anything defamatory, nor anything that wasn't previously approved. This keeps being changed back to the stripped "article." Please look on this with proper discretion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianna Masson ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
IP 174.96.120.107 has done nothing but Vandalize articles, Blank articles, and be disruptive as seen here in their contributions. They have not made one productive edit that I can find and have been warned several times about it. Could you look into this please, Thanks Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 03:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you sir, hope your doing well. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 03:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Not on here as much, been trying to get adjusted to the new mechanic job, been a month so far so good. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 04:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I filed a Dispute Resolution Request to deal with the continuing and repetitive edits that various users have made to Elihu Yale's nationality. He was an Englishman. America had not been established and nor had Britain - so he could not be "American" nor "British". As precedent, Wikipedia shows Wentworth Miller ( /info/en/?search=Wentworth_Miller ), who was born in the UK but obviously from an American family and living in America, as "American". 99.4.120.135 ( talk) 22:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The article was vandalized not just this month but for the past months as well. Extend PC? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Some reverts were additions of useless info; some vandalism. What's your decision on the article? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil. This RFC has been sitting around for quite awhile. Would you please close it? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi NeilN.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neil, Hope all is well, Could you revdel [45] and [46] please, Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 19:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Just after a few hours after Pete_(Disney) got unprotected, you-know-who is back trying to insert his inane original research opinion back into the article. You don't suppose you could re-semi-protect the page?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 04:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.
Hey man! Just wanted to leave you a message and say, "Good morning"! Hope you have a great day! Cheers -- ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, NeilN. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I notice you blocked this address back in September for repeated minor unhelpful edits. I just flag that the user is back on site.
This guy's repeated unhelpful minor edits are pointless and annoying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.252.160 ( talk) 05:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Neil. Hope you've been well. Do you mind giving your opinion on what to do in the case of the David Blanchflower article? There is an IP hopper who keeps removing material on Blanchflower's previous marriage that resulted in a big legal matter, and I think that the IP hopper is Blanchflower himself. I took the matter to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection a couple of days ago, but Oshwah declined protection. Should I just keep reverting the IP hopper? I mean, the article is not a well-watched article. If I'm not there, the content usually stays removed until I notice that it's been removed. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I was on phone. Facepalm. Ya sh ! 07:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Respected Authority
This is with due respect to request not to delete the article created as " Mohammad Usman (Veteran Congress Leader)". This is a hard and tidy work been done. The person on which the article is been written is the respected and an honorable man. the society demands its wiki pages as he is the one of the survivor who has seen five decades of Congress being in the party since ages. He has done lot many contribution to the party and to the society as a whole. These all description has been written in the page which is very much important to have as a validation. the references can be crossed checked and you will find them as a match.
Its a sincere request that kindly keep the page alive. You may edit or ask for any modifications if required, but not to delete the page.
Thanking You Regards Adil adilusman009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adilusman009 ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Pamelyn_Ferdin&diff=prev&oldid=752886499 MartinSFSA ( talk) 12:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Seen here... Do you know who the master is? I have come across an IP range that is doing the same kinds of odd edits - am calling them "The 41.137.59.xx Editor" for now. A few of the associated IPs are: .50's, .72's edits, .80's edits, .28's edits, .111's edits etc., etc. Am discussing the issues with Samsara on his talkpage but if I'm going to possibly file an SPI I'll need to know the master. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 19:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello NeilN: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America 1000 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello NeilN: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 ( Merry Christmas!) 17:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello NeilN: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Mona778 ( talk) 05:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13 Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))
Hello NeilN: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Shearonink ( talk) 17:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello NeilN: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer Solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am an IP editor. Over the last year, I have made major contributions and improvement to the History of the United States and History of Native Americans in the United States. However, as an IP editor, I am not able to edit Native Americans in the United States since the page is protected. I request that you allow IP editors to edit that page again. I can assure you, I for one will make constructive contributions. However, if there is too much disruption I will be the first one to reverse my position. Thank you for you time. Kindly advise. ( 2600:1001:B003:D950:55ED:4959:8123:2B75 ( talk) 16:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC))
Wishing you a
Charlie Russell Christmas, NeilN! |
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw (talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
Iryna Harpy (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Hello NeilN: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, — MRD2014 ( Merry Christmas!) 18:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello NeilN: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Dane talk 08:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller
talk is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
hello, new to Wikipedia. i did a search about Cassandra Saturn and found it not listed. i see a deletion review: [1] i do see why that it happened because she was involved in it. it's not her fault. i'm one of her fans. um, i think you guys should get a heads up about her. like really huge heads up. she recently announced this December year that she's running for President of the United States of America in 2024. she wants to change things that are done in America, so she will run for Presidency at right time in the year of 2024. she's also determined to finish her graduation and transition into female fully in two years or so. still in college at that time. (she's deaf Transgender woman) and that she is LGBTQ activist.. however, she hasn't done any real life work yet but she plans to. i'm also not sure of any notable sources that could be used in the article.
she hasn't spoken about Wikipedia in long time.. so i'm afraid to ask her about adding sources for that article. i don't even know how to add sources but here's actual post made by her on her official presidential candidate campaign Twitter: [2] you should also read her posts that lined what she will do for America if elected as President. i mean, her ideas does sound good. i also know that she has done so much for people online. she even runs sites and forums for various things. i'd like to point out one thing: she actually pays/buys things for people in Star Trek Online. she has been doing it for long time. i don't know exactly how long. i mean, i hadn't been to her sites or forums yet but i find her very nice and kind person.
if here is any actual real sources that features her on televisions or other, i'd think that would be wise to list these as notable sources. still, she amassed huge number of followers on many sites. (her accounts) she is also known for what she does. everybody knows who she is online. she has long list of works, projects and activities so many things etc. i mean, come on. all these are right from beginning of 2008 to today.
by the way, she actually is known for defending herself and transgender girls. here's three sources: Bioware Photo [3] as shown on her Tumblr post: [4] and her defending a transgender girl on Facebook: [5] here you go. as you can see.. she's quite very known online. if you do google search the name of Cassandra Saturn, it brings up over nearly 392,000 results in that period. all because she does so much online, from accounts to other etc.. she is very busy girl. like really busy. she keeps to helping much as she can.
i know all of these might not be worthy enough but it's enough to warrant an attention to her. she might be a news source probably over within year or so. i don't know. i'm just saying.. you should find out about her more to determine that if a Article about her will be allowed on Wikpedia or not. one of her friends mentioned that she frequents on Wikipedia to do her research on variety of subjects before writing on what she thinks about them. (she's studying for her GED, so she has to do lots of subjects chosen by her classes from math to history and more) i think this Article is worth it, because she's actually famous online through what she does. just a little information fact for you. she met George Bye in 2007 just before she became Cassandra Saturn. the very same George Bye of ATG [6] she met him after writing him a letter, then was invited to visit him and his company just before ATG went bankrupt in May 2008. i asked her about it once, she had photos of herself and her mother, George himself in same room. it was historical for her to get a meeting with the man she had admired.
i mean.. that's pretty cool. to actually meet him in person. it was all real, verified by photos she has on her Facebook and other accounts. 172.58.40.106 ( talk) 04:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
alright. i got permission from Cassandra to use one of her images regarding George Bye and ATG on her personal website on the day she was presented a gift from George Bye in 2007 during a visit to the ATG Headquarters. [7] still think it's not notable? 172.58.40.180 ( talk) 00:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
References
i know that he doesn't but he is the head of Bye Aerospace. i asked Cassandra what were her thoughts on Wikipedia. and well... that's bit harsh, coming from her. i can see why she doesn't use her account here and remain clear of the conflict regarding herself. so when i told her that i was trying to get a wikipedia article about herself, she flat-out told me to dismiss it and never discuss it. she even said, if here is any wikipedia article about her, she will request that it be removed. she doesn't want to be part of Wikipedia's history. so i guess that's done. to me.. apparently, she still holds grudge against Wikipedia. i think you guys got on her bad side. thinking back on about the request for article about Cassandra Saturn to be created, that was the mistake on my part as well. 172.58.40.180 ( talk) 04:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 21:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
NeilN,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --
Dane
talk
02:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
NeilN,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (
talk |
stand clear of the doors!)
18:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
NeilN,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
MRD2014 (
Happy New Year!)
20:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
NeilN,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (
talk)
05:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Recently, I have added Archana Panda as Notable Alumni, SP Jain Institute of Management & Research. Her Facebook and several YouTube videos tell it all :
https://www.facebook.com/archana.panda
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=archana+panda
Best regards ! Happy New Year 2017 !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrayagNarayanMisra ( talk • contribs) 02:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Over the last few weeks there have been various IP addresses but I am sure the same editor who has been deleting a reference on Horatio Hornblower (see this edit for example) with the same edit message "low quality URL" each time. I have attempted to enter into some dialogue but have had no response. Could you please protect the page for a while to see if that discourages him/her. Thanks Dabbler ( talk) 03:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Dabbler ( talk) 13:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Is this an appropriate/legitimate talk page comment, an audio clip of crickets? MShabazz continues to restore it after I've removed it repeatedly, while posting a warning at my talk page to not remove "editors' legitimate talk page comments" Dan56 ( talk) 19:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I never new that wikepedia has so many rules its so hard to use! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VegetarianSatvic ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, this is a page you did some work on in 2014. I found it while working my way through the Dead-End list for November 2016. A major rewrite by Shawoman49 (an account apparently created solely for this purpose) seems to have rendered it not only linkless, but has undone much of the neutral POV that had been introduced. Also, all references to Wicca seem to have vanished. The edit summaries all indicate "permission from Patrick McCollum", which struck me as weird/wrong, and probably a pretty clear COI. I'm a relative newcomer here, and while I'm not actually convinced that this subject even passes GNG, I thought it might make sense to check in with an admin with a connection to the page before making any changes. I hate getting things off the Dead-End list but leaving them with other problems, you know? Any advice greatly appreciated, nerdgoonrant ( talk) 19:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, NeilN! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 03:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit to this article. I'm not sure that's the last we'll see of the matter. You may be interested in this. 32.218.152.233 ( talk) 15:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The IP editor removed a reference which I see was kept in place with my revert, thank you, I understand. I'm on chat with Wikipedia for help relating an eyewitness account, but I got your message on that just now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joplinplayer ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This is the cite that I saw removed when I accessed the page (i'm sorry I'm not as proficient in reporting and such), which you properly restored less my edit. Thank you. In 2015, Zepnick admitted to drunk driving after he was arrested for a traffic violation in Greenfield, Wisconsin.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joplinplayer ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The eyewitness cite is my own and there were 3 other witnesses. I looked on the Media Handbook as you suggested, but I would like your comment further on this.
OK, that was very helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joplinplayer ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This is also missing. Is it OK to put back? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joplinplayer ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I finally finished and released the Dangerous Assignment article! In case you've forgotten, you asked about my draft of this article about two years ago. GlennRay77 ( talk) 03:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |