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 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 48 |
Some things will never change [1]. RoguePilot ( talk · contribs) had been blocked for WP:BATTLEGROUND. I post this here because you were the admin who unblocked them.-- Jetstreamer Talk 01:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Please revisit Mitragyna speciosa. Thank you. -- Zefr ( talk) 01:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you. Because the Augean Stables of Wikipedia will apparently never stop needing cleaning. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
@ NorthBySouthBaranof: The day I'm called upon to handle actual crap is the day I hand back my bit. Changed enough kid diapers. Don't need to do it for (supposed) adults. -- NeilN talk to me 03:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
NeilN, I think the attack on my talk page might be stemming from this IP recently blocked: 216.221.38.221 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can you confirm? — IB [ Poke ] 04:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey NeilN. Any chance you could block this vandal? Cheers. DaHuzyBru ( talk) 05:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
What you make of this [3] edit summary? - Rogue1 23:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Please restore my original comment that you blackholed and add this RS under it.
"She had an abortion, stopped talking to Gjoni, blocked him on several forms of communication, and didn’t speak to him until the “Zoe Post,” as he titled it, went live."
http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/zoe-quinn-surviving-gamergate.html
The most effectual Bob Cat ( talk) 00:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I apologize you have to deal with my poor behavior, and unacceptable actions. It seems that you are the only one who has faith in me when it comes to editing. But I don't have faith in myself. After careful consideration, I have decided to give up editing. I may contemplate on returning, but after what has occurred, I believe it would be in my best interest to give it up. I hope you can forgive me, and I hope you can see that I have corrected my course of actions by apologizing to Jetstreamer and CBG17 as well. Goodbye, and I wish you the best...
- Rogue1 01:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).
contains_all
that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.You've got mail - wolf 03:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Define consensus, Neil.
Mfwitten ( talk) 05:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Are we there yet, Neil?
My arch nemesis, Edward, has agreed that the article in question should, in fact, not be categorized as it is:
I couldn't have said it better myself (well, I could have, and did); may I remove that category now without twiddling your administrative bits? Or, must we continue to pray for some Messiah to deliver unto us in the remote future an undeniable verdict on the matter? Mfwitten ( talk) 07:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
While this is likely 99.9% fake, should this be redvl? [4] HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 05:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I cleaned up some POV-y insertions of Hindu before the word India yesterday. They had been added by 120.60.155.33 ( talk · contribs) and other people had also cleaned up some of the instances. Today, I've just cleaned another three similar instances at Bhaktivinoda Thakur, together with some other POV-y changes. The IPs on this occasion were 120.60.146.169 ( talk · contribs), 120.60.148.56 ( talk · contribs) and 120.60.154.149 ( talk · contribs) - obviously the same person, moving quickly through different addresses.
I've now done a search for the phrase "Hindu India" and am seeing a lot more, eg: this by 120.60.128.13 ( talk · contribs). I think we have quite a problem with a Bengali pov-pusher but I have no idea how to deal with it. I know little about range blocks but suspect that is the likely way forward. Any ideas? - Sitush ( talk) 11:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to clean them all up because it makes it harder to show just how many articles are affected but I've just reverted edits by 120.60.139.90 ( talk · contribs), by 120.60.141.211 ( talk · contribs) and by 120.60.128.191 ( talk · contribs). I notice that Materialscientist has been reverting some examples also. - Sitush ( talk) 11:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Yugoslavia or Serbia - FIBA Basketball World Cup and Eurobasket Yugoslavia [5] Serbia [6] Serbia Nationalista User Bozalegenda promotes war pro editions Serbia. User:74Account
The articles correctly can only be edited by administrators, but the current editions are poorly edited because the editions of Bozalegenda User talk:74Account) 2 March 2018 (UTC)
It is undoubtedly not limited to two users, who are more diverse than Bozalegenda, because Bozalegenda first edits and then begins to reverse several articles of competition in which it was Yugoslavia to belong to Serbia, which only came into existence in 2003. And all blocked articles keep the radical vision of Bozalegenda. Bozalegenda is that it made war of editions against several users just look at the history of the articles. User:74Account
Where dozens edited, Bozalegenda comes and reverses, going against the official articles, and if you block the article for the view of it, it is because the blocker has a side, the side that everyone already knows, but that is not the official one. Yugoslavia or Serbia - FIBA Basketball World Cup and Eurobasket Yugoslavia [7] Serbia [8] User:74Account 11:59, 2 March 2018, Brazil (UTC)
I personally tired, I saw that it spread, several Serbs in several IPs did this in various articles, on behalf of the great Serbia, to take conquests from Yugoslavia and to give to Serbia. User:74Account 12:52, 2 March 2018, Brazil (UTC)
Just to make it clear. There were two discussions about Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro/Serbia national basketball teams here and here. Both times this user continued the same rhetoric that "HTML table is not reliable" or "FIBA doesn't decide this". I suppose a topic ban would be appropriate. Furthermore, similar behavior can also be seen on other Serbia-related pages. – Sabbatino ( talk) 16:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
NeilN, Bozalegenda has restarted their edit-warring on Yugoslavia related sports article [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. In this edit summary they show a clear refusal to accept sports results as they have been officially credited by a governing body. T v x1 21:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@ NeilN: User:Olsen24 has removed the block notice from his talk page before his block expired. SportsFan007 ( talk) 22:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
Ah ok, thank you!!! SportsFan007 ( talk) 23:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
Hi Neil (or friendly talk page stalkers),
I want to begin a discussion with an editor on Noble lie who wants to place a warning tag in front of content that suggests certain religious content are being labelled as false; like a disclosure or a spoiler alert to not upset anyone: [17], [18]. I completely understand why they feel this way but I am also pretty sure that's not how Wiki does it. Before I start a discussion I want to make sure I have the right policies. I don't believe this falls under censorship so what would this be called? HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 01:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Neil, I noticed that you recently deleted Lacework after I tagged it for G5 and G11. I was wondering if you could inform me which editor created the Lacework article that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lacework on 6 February. I am concerned that User:Idumont was spamming information [19] [20] about Lacework last September and November. SamHolt6 ( talk) 01:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Requested a Wikipedia:REVDEL.
-- KNHaw (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Could you take a look at Crack Stuntman? I am obsessed with blocking this user's socks. This user gave WikiLove to a blocked IPsock, significantly contributed to an article started by Electricbassguy, and restored edits done by previous socks. Sro23 ( talk) 02:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
i would just like to inform you that i see a potential edit eat between me and SportsFan007 brewing. I havent yet and don't intend to violate 3RR however an edit war complaint was filed and i dont see why considering talk pages were not used yet. Olsen24 ( talk) 03:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to add that i left him a message on his talk page and he/she didn't respond and deleted the message. Olsen24 ( talk) 14:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see the issue here. Thank you. Jbh Talk 15:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
After you declined their unblock request last month and tried to explain why to them, they're back and pushing again at Talk:Daniel Amen. At least twice now, they've attempted to issue an ultimatum: explain why they're wrong to their satisfaction within 24 hours or they'll start edit warring again. Over the night, they've managed to stumble upon an accurate point (about categories), which is dismaying, because it seems more likely to encourage them to continue fighting with others rather than cooperating, discussing and listening. I'm not suggesting that they need to be blocked again (not yet, anyways), but I'd dearly love if an admin were to keep an eye on things over there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, I see you warned this user recently. This account is
only 4/5-day old but it is making edits like an experienced user.
User:Premium Astroboy is also suspicious. The latter can be a sock of banned user
Swingoswingo. But do you have any idea about
User talk:יניב הורון ? -
Ascetic
Rosé 04:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Geolocate [22] says this IP is based in Japan by a company called Choopa, LLC. If you have blocked this IP on the basis that they are who I think you blocked them for then this differs to the previous location where probable IPs but not linked publicly by CU were shown as Sky Broadband IPs in the UK. I have put in a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests. My knowledge of proxies is limited and I was waiting to hear back from them about what they said before requesting a possible block, even still it is worth keeping in mind this possible proxy usage. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi NeilN,
FYI: You recently blocked MaxMedia ( talk · contribs) for AE for climate change. He's a sock of someone or other (I can't ever keep them straight), and he's gone ahead and created his next sock: Touch Points ( talk · contribs), two of the first four edits involve re-instating some of MaxMedia's reverted edits.
All the best, JBL ( talk) 11:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
this user is adding mining links, you should take a look: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/119.94.207.105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.130.87 ( talk) 19:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. However they might continue after the 31 hours block time is over, after all they get money whenever someone clicks the links they change on wikipedia so that is why there is such a strong incentive to do that. is someone going to be watching over him and to be blocked him again in the future if he does it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.130.87 ( talk) 17:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
MaryLowe Look what they uploaded. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
This is the kind of pile-on personal attacks that I was asking for intervention to put a stop to. If one editor gets away with it, others figure they can too. As I said, a productive discussion is taking place and a small group is bent on derailing it. Is this going to be allowed to continue escalating? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
And then there's the harassment. Re-posting the same unfounded accusation again and again. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] Prior to this obsession with accusing me of wanting to rename the article and change the subject entirely, this editor hounded me and repeatedly asked me to admit that I knew the Tesla car is not in Earth orbit, which I did agree to, again, and again, but he kept asking. This harassment is apparently a favorite tactic.
I do not look for sanctions every time any editors say "anything remotely negative". I ignore this kind of thing every day. But when it comes to this, this ongoing escalation, this focused harassment, and editors who think they have been given permission to bully others off an article, it is appropriate to ask for intervention. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey Neil I started the talk on Alina Zagitova and who you blocked revert the edit while the discussion is on going after another user User:Karl.i.biased told her on her talk that she should leave it for now. She has been very disruptive on Wikipedia. Can you do anything? Btw I’m coming to you so as not to violate 3RR again. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 06:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Tip of the iceberg?
MrX did an overwhelming scattershot of claims which will take a long time to address individually. He clearly has much more time to dedicate to harassing someone who doesn't cow to his bullying than I do to stand up to bullies.
I am wondering if you are willing to concisely address individual issues in conversation with me to establish some form of understanding, faith or goodwill going forward. I don't want to spend time explaining things if they aren't actually interested in understanding.
Before I address any of the new allegations, I want to discuss the original dispute which happened before it.
I would like to know if you have fully reviewed this segment of history: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:David_Hogg_(activist)&offset=20180304&action=history&limit=20
If you can confirm this, I will offer further comments. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 07:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Cullen's comment has me very confused. Neil you said you will explain how to appeal the topic ban.
How is it possible to do this when I am not allowed to discuss the edits where I am alleged to have violated BLP policy? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 08:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I think you know it isn't needed, but I acknowledge your refusal to let me appeal directly and your minimization of involvement to that of directing me to other processes.
Regarding stage 2:
Would I be correct in thinking the former (AE) rather than the latter (AN) is the appropriate place? This was suggested on my talk page by Beyond My Ken, after attempting to discuss it with you. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 18:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
What am I permitted to mention in the appeal at either place? Cullen has alleged that mentioning the name of the BLP article at all is violating a topic ban. Do you agree with that? If so, I require suggestions as to how I can appeal without being able to link to a history page showing my edits were deleted so that people can read what was deleted.
Please instruct me: does the topic ban you have instated even prevent me from linking to the history of a talk page of a BLP?
This is why I'm thinking AE would be better than AN, because while I would love to have non-admins provide some input, they wouldn't be able to see the deleted edits, so until I can appeal to have them un-deleted, it would not be an informed decision. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 19:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I created Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_ScratchMarshall and am posting to notify you about this. I interpreted "new BLP-related material" as not extending to the already-mentioned sources because they are not 'new'.
I have linked to history where linking diffs is no longer possible. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what this [32] is about, but your name was in it, so if you're interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. Sorry to be another person to bother you about him, but I'm currently involved and can't take administrative action myself. I was wondering if I could ask for your assistance/input, since you've intervened recently.
Anyways, as you pointed out, he's got 5 blocks for 3RR/EW, and he's being rather disruptive with his reverts at Kingdom Come: Deliverance. If you look at the page history, you'll see a series of reverts. the page history. To summarize what's going on:
So, to summarize, after 5 blocks over edit warring, he's reverting with misleading edit edit summaries and refusing to discuss. I defer to your judgement. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Not familiar with this sock/master but this popped up today and seems suspicious. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The No Spam Barnstar | |
You beat me to it! :D https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Front_Line_Systems,_Inc.&action=history ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC) |
I would like of know the purpose of the notices to me. I have made very appropriate edits and changes on articles and provided multiple valid citations and references. Let me know the reason for sending me these notices. --- User talk:Truthteller301
I don't think that this name meetings the user name policy either, specifically "Usernames that are names of posts within organizations, such as "Secretary of the XY Foundation", are not permitted, as such a post may be held by different persons at different times." (Commdiratsdt = Communication Director at Sigma Delta Tau, see last entry at https://sigmadeltatau.org/meet/our-leadership/national-office-staff/ ) Naraht ( talk) 19:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I left a note for a user on 1 March when they did a poor article move. I also reverted the move at that time but they have just sent Ramdasia back to Sikh Ramdasia again and this time I cannot revert it. They've also been making a mess of the article content today. Can you please help? - Sitush ( talk) 15:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
It's our favorite political expert (they haven't edited here yet but their xwiki contribs make it obvious and I've asked for a glock + cu on loginwiki.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Chrissymad: Not sure why CU would have missed this account but Hairygrim? -- NeilN talk to me 21:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Dear NeilN, sorry for disturbing you. But please pay attention to this issue. Again I have to ask you to see what the User Путеец does in Homosexual behavior in animals article. One example: when the user Flyer22 Reborn made very normal suggestion about article's development, User Путеец made this statement. Please pay attention to his words "After all, scientists also fall into two categories - homosexual and heterosexual" or another one statement "In addition, one-sex behavior of animals is used in politics, to protect the rights of LGBT people, legalization of same-sex marriage, as one of the evidence of the normality of this behavior" . Now, I hope, you see that this User is not in Wikipedia to make the articles better, he is here to push his agenda. Let alone, that many statements of the User:Путеец are against science, (for example, see Petter Bockman's respond), now Путеец are openly admits, that he is here to push some agenda, but not to make the article better. Please, take some actions. Regards. M.Karelin ( talk) 10:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
NeilN Please consider his accusation in fraud. [39]. Another user, not I, made a statement to administrators in RuWiki [40]. "An attempt to discredit a participant outside the Ruwiks by distributing diffs from Ruwiki with a distortion of the meaning of the said in these diffs to create a negative image of the opponent." In the cited references, there is no charge of fraud. I said that the organizers of the exhibition had juggling values the number of species of animals (indicated 1500 instead of 450). This not mean fraud. It can affect my reputation, and the reputation of Petter Bøckman. I found an error in an article that exists since 2007 [41]. The author of this error recognized her [42]. If it requires a call to administrators, tell me where to turn. Other my addresses and explanations here. [43] Help me please. Characteristic behavior. Stop work without argumentation and reading sources. [44] -- Путеец ( talk) 06:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Does this user violate WP:CANVASS Special:Contributions/Shahin.shn? Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 12:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
...appears to be back from his coffee break. GMG talk 20:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
They're back edit-warring over categories at least on Sleepy Hollow (film). Still no talk page posts - article or user space. Ravensfire ( talk) 01:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I thought that was a bit strong. I hadn't thought of interpreting as a suggestion he'll be leaving, however. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Then where is the place to get assistance with it? 2600:1702:1690:E10:5DB1:E494:B72E:DDE8 ( talk) 19:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Dear NeilN, thanks for your today's involvement in the situation with the Homosexual behavior in animals article. More than 20 days some Users ( including you) and I asked User Путеец to work in the style that you demanded him today (preliminarily discuss the edits on the article's Talk page). You do not imagine how much efforts were wasted simply to asking him not to make edits in the article without preliminary consent. After 20 days, it finally happened, and only after your involvement. I hope, now the situation will be more or less corrected. Thank you. Sincerely. M.Karelin ( talk) 19:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
User:National AntiVirus is back to their old tricks. See Special:Contributions/National_AntiVirus - Eduard Shevardnadze and USSR–USA Maritime Boundary Agreement, for instance. It might be time for a longer block. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 03:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Dear administrator, please look at those two remarks of the User Путеец - [47] and [48]. Please do some actions, I cant work in this conditions. M.Karelin ( talk) 20:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the vandal warning template! :) TheMitochondriaBoi (Wanna talk?) 20:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
If a sockpuppet appears, might I suggest a semi-protect? Mr rnddude ( talk) 17:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Good evening.
I did not include that paragraph for some sort of racist or malicious intent. This event is actually happening, and the South African parliament is legitimately considering this motion.
Here is a Reuters article discussing the provision.
The inclusion of that last paragraph was an attempt to observe a neutral point of view. You are incorrect to say that South Africa's ruling party is not aspiring to steal Boer lands. They are, and they may pass the bill.
I am insulted that you removed my changes on the basis that you disagree with them.
A Reuters article is not original research.
--
2602:306:39D6:CBA0:D835:9D67:6048:D2EB (
talk) 00:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Good evening.
I received your second message and wish to reply. The inclusion of the South African bill propsing land theft of Boers was added into a section discussing allegations of Boer persecution in South Africa. To counter the citation from the left-wing Africa Check organization, I added a documented example of an attempt by the ruling party of South Africa to actually persecute Boers.
As the White Genocide article concerns persuections of whites in the South Africa section, I believe that a well-sourced, documented reference to the SA land theft attempt against Boers is pertinent to the information in the article.
This paragraph was insulting removed as "original research", despite citations. Reuters is not original research.
-- 2602:306:39D6:CBA0:D835:9D67:6048:D2EB ( talk) 00:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello NeilN,
How to propose an article to good article label ? At French Wikipedia, it's easy but here, I don't understand... (Sorry for my English, I'm not an englishmen).
Thank's for your precious time. Danfarid133 ( talk) 06:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Neil. I don't know if this edit summary needs a revdel or not. I'd be grateful if you could take a quick look. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me
I was accused of making a legal threat here. Could you intervene? Plagiarism isn't a crime or a tort. Carte Rouge ( talk) 14:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm asking you again to stop ignoring the personal attacks against me. You are aware of the history here and I have asked you multiple times to respond. This is an uncivil personal attack. All I'm asking is for comments directed at me to not contain insults, name calling, and false accusations. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Howdy podner. Interesting to see this one [49] From an editor who is well aware that's a no-no, having promoted spurious claims against me alleging that I had done the same thing when I was sanctioned. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hypocresy - The time shown in my screen does not correlate with the time in the Talk History so I don't have the exact diff. So I am pasting it here from the Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster: "The kind of hypocrisy one sees in these situations is disgusting. It's entirely based on a double standard that "it's OK when I do it because I'm righteous". - [50]
Liar - [51]
Drunk- [52].
I'm sure there are more instances of insulting at other editors in addition of his disturbing POV pushing and warring. His combative behavior at that article is singular. All his motions to change the article's subject were rejected by all editors involved. Unanimous rejection. Nobody agrees with his POV, synthesis and angle. He posted several topics under different names/titles demanding -basically- the same thing: that the article be primarily about a commercial ad, and he even proposed to move the article to "Tesla ad (2018)". He has been around long enough to recognize when his POV was detected and declined, but also long enough to learn how to WP:GAME THE SYSTEM. He is in utter denial his repeated motions were rejected, and remains combative. I think there were 2 or 3 ANI incidents prompted by his warring; If "trolling" is not the appropriate word, I don't know how else it can be described. Thank you. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 23:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I’ve asked BatteryIncluded many times to let all this go and drop the stick. No luck. — Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I've added the diff to the quote above. Other classic quotes can be found at the bottom of this AN thread, and in this ANI thread Dennis replied to SkyWarrior with, "You should be ashamed of this. You're ganging up to bully another editor, instead of focusing on article content." The "Multiple editors ganging up this way" presumably including you, Neil, along with Insertcleverphrasehere, since the three of you had the temerity to disagree with him on that occasion. I don't think he's trolling, necessarily, but he has much the same MO as a troll. nagual design 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you think my goal of wanting to give weight that is approximately proportionate to the the quantity of coverage in the sources is some kind of troll? I don't insist on any one specific layout or tone or structure, but at the very least I think we should try to match what we see in the sources. I have been personally attacked repeatedly when I try to address this. New editors have posted on Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster, and have been rebuffed. When they complain the article's weight is out of balance, nobody acknowledges that these editors are lending support to the same issue I am trying to raise. If you want to say I should use nicer language, fine, but in what way am I trolling? I have provided an extraordinary amount of evidence that this article has a POV problem. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't accuse me of doing anything disruptive or opposing consensus when I wasn't even involved. BatteryIncluded and several other editors insisted the comments about me had to remain in that thread so that the off-topic drama could escalate. Why?
If it were true that there is lopsided agreement that it was partially marketing, what would that look like to you? Is there anything that would convince you? I've counted up the sources and shown them side by side. Not good enough? What would be good enough?
I added a scholarly opinion of Klaus Klostermaier to an article Bhimbetka rock shelters . He is a prominent German-Canadian scholar on Hinduism and Indian history and culture and has a PhD in "Ancient Indian History and Culture" from the University of Bombay in 1969.
Two wiki-users named User:D4iNa4 & User:Doug Weller are removing the above mentioned content added by me.
One of them , User:Doug Weller, is specifying 3 reasons for this.
1. He is saying Klaus Klostermaier is not an archaeologist. So his opinion can't be included in this article.
But this is an article related to Bhimbetka rock shelters, and what is wrong in adding any scholarly opinion related to this? why are these wiki-users insisting that only an archaeologist's opinions can be added to this article? Does this article has any speciality which other wiki-articles does not have? So by this logic, in an article about a novelist, we can not add an opinion by a historian about that novelist, because the historian is not an expert in novel writing? That is weird logic...These two uses seem to have some kind of hidden agenda.
2. He is saying Kalus Klosermaier is not a reliable source
Klaus has a phD in Indian History and culture. Isn't that reliable enough, to express his opinion? Please note that i am only adding more scholarly content related to Bhimbetka Cave Paintings, to the article and not trying to validate any claim. I have not made any claims in the content added by me to the article.
3. He is saying the dating of Klaus as the cave painting being older than 10000 BCE is wrong.
But archelogical Survey of India in their publication has clearly stated that the cave painting in question here is of mesolithic era. (that is before 10000BCE) So Klaus is very correct in his dating.
Above all, why all this fuss about adding an opinion by a scholar. Why these two users are so opposing against the opinions of Klaus, is what i dont understand. WHat is wrong in adding an opinion by a scholar like Klaus? If they have any citation from any other scholar which criticize the opinion of Klaus, they can add it also. Nobody is prohibiting them. Please note i am not trying to make any personal claims in the content i added, but i am only adding the opinion of Klus Klostermaier about Bhimbetka rock shelter paintings. Now they are accusing me of edit-war, while they are the ones who removed the content i added with out giving any reason.
Please intervene in this issue for a solution. This user Doug Weller was earlier banned for 24 hours too.. Please check here.. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:FactChecked1_reported_by_User:Doug_Weller_(Result:_Blocked_24_hours) ( Banasura ( talk) 15:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC))
Hey Neil,
I've talked with you about this before. I doubt I can convince you one way or the other, but I'd like to say my piece anyway. Background:
You're not the blocking editor, but I would appreciate your summary of this. I'm trying to understand your thinking, but your terse comments on the discussion don't quite elucidate it (ie what exactly is it that you found missing?). Another question: Does consensus matter - that is, does it matter if the material I restored was removed by the other editor against the consensus? The reporting editor suggested so, and you implied it as well. François Robere ( talk) 10:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- The post I was pinged in has been removed but I'll reply anyways. My "terse" comments are usually seen as clear and direct - something that you may want to keep in mind when asked questions about your own behavior. I asked you about or referred to accepting a 1RR restriction four times. None of your four responses contained a clear "yes, I will accept 1RR". Instead, most were long-winded responses about how your reverts weren't really reverts or blaming other editors or pushing for other editors to be sanctioned or a combination of all three. Be more terse in giving answers to terse questions. As for consensus, if your changes are being reverted, especially by multiple editors, it's obvious you don't have it. Unless you can point to a RFC or a more formalized decision, admins aren't going to put much stock in your "my edits have consensus" arguments. -- NeilN talk to me 14:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of the lot of administrators come across here around here, you seem like one of the more reasonable ones. However, even you, in your reply, repeat two related things I've come to expect from the administerial process on Wiki:
First, they don't "dig deep". ANI discussion is always very shallow, narrow and limited, and no one makes the effort of going through edit histories or talk pages. For example, a user who's misspoken is admonished, and no one cares if they were led there by others truly maddening actions; or, in this case, a user's edits are reverted, but no one wonders why or what effort was made to prevent it - everything is examined superficially, temporarily and no one tried to understand how events unfolded. Take this my case, for example: you claim I was being reverted by "multiple editors", but the fact of the matter is I was only being reverted by three editors, of which two are "opposing parties", and the third was an uninvolved editor who only did so since he got the same superficial impression that you did (he's very much part of the consensus now). Nevertheless no one cares, because a superficial examination of the edit log shows seemingly-arbitrary reversals, and that's the end of it.
Second, they tend to have a very narrow perception of "proper" conduct on Wikipedia. For example - Wikipedia demands consensus, and you ask for an RFC "or a more formalized decision", but... how many people start an RFC to resolve an argument? How many arguments are resolved through RFCs? A fraction of all discussion! Most discussions are finalized and consensus is achieved by mutual understanding, not by RFCs. RFCs are a formal device that's simply not used in the vast majority of cases; does this mean the vast majority of discussions don't achieve consensus? Yet you clearly state that it's meaningless, and there's no point in even trying to show it as I did (by the way, this is the state of the consensus at the moment, with only 3/19 against). If it's not "codified", it doesn't exist.
Both of these suggest administrators simply don't put much weight into human behavior. Events, circumstances, human nature - none of those is being considered. If a user makes an acerbic comment he will be reprimanded regardless of what drove them there (I've seen several of those on WP:3O, and I usually opt to express my understanding of their frustration rather than strictly reprimanding them for expressing it); if a user files a complaint, submits a reply or asks for assistance from an administrators, they must not only cite a specific policy, but use a specific phrasing or their message won't be processed.
I don't know how you perceive it, but it seems to me that many administrators don't deduce, interpret or study what's presented to them; instead they make technical decisions, on technical matters pertaining to very nuanced and non-technical human affairs. The result? Not only do administrators fail to deal with legitimate concerns (like the edit war I asked you to intervene in and you refused, and it's now spread to another article), but the fallout demoralizes everyone. François Robere ( talk) 17:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I have a strong feeling this IP [59] is LittleDipper, who has resorted to socking following the decline of their unblock request. Would you consider semi-protecting the page? Thanks, Khirurg ( talk) 05:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Both with the block and with the talk page access removal you got there before I did, but I would have done the same if you hadn't. So many of us put so much effort into trying to help the editor, and he or she might have learnt how to contribute in acceptable ways and so avoided being blocked, if only he or she had listened to what we said. Oh well, you can't help those who won't be helped. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 19:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Could you take a look at List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes? It seems like the same IP you just blocked is at it again under a different IP, I requested semi protection for the article. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi NeilN. Regarding this post of yours [61]. Did you mean to say that it is not within the scope of AN/ANI/AN3 for the community to impose a topic ban or site ban for whatever reason it sees fit? That has never been my understanding. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
So I get back from a pleasant Wikibreak to find this obviously bad deletion. I'm curious if looking back on this conversation, you'd have any thoughts on how things might have been done differently? NickCT ( talk) 14:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Another one. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I know being an admin must not be easy, and when two longtime, generally upstanding editors get into it, that can be more infuriating than open-and-shut cases. While I was under the impression that the compromise photo was going to be used until the RfC close, and while I'm sorry to see a bright-line 4-reverter get away with it, I do appreciate your kind words about us both, and your patience generally, here and elsewhere. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
209.93.13.37 has issued another personal attack ("jealous Hungarian"), he learned nothing from his two previous blocks for violating WP:NPA. Greetings, Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
See this user here, /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/YorkshireTeaLover
The account solely exists to cause disruption and vandalism on a single page, despite multiple reverts, the User insists on making the same change over and over.
What action should be taken? 185.9.19.152 ( talk) 23:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Any admin noticing this might like to look at this edit. I have never encountered the case but checking the contribs shows admin attention is needed. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI. Copied this to AE for them. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
In the Proto-Indo-European homeland article, I have made some additions with multiple authentic citations and references but editor User:Joshua Jonathan has removed the content I added without even trying to build a consensus or providing valid reasons. The user is trying to make a personal judgement and interpretation on the content by calling it invalid and fringe, even after dozens of references and citations, this is against Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. I would appreciate if the content is discussed and agreed upon consensus rather than passing judgement and threats. --- User talk:Truthteller301
Hi, Neil! Could you do me a favor? As you know I don’t like to make admin decisions for articles I am involved in. Could you take a look at this edit by User:Volunteer Marek? As you can see from the history, they immediately re-added something that had been “challenged by reversion”. VM also made a comment at Bish's talk page when I initially reported it there (she said she doesn't deal with that kind of thing). Thanks! -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi NeilN! I'm messaging you about this user because you placed a three-month block on his account for edit warring back in February. I was patrolling this article just now and I'm seeing what might be similar edits from QuinteroP as Julioxo, as both are adding pictures to various sections of the article. I did a quick spot check and didn't find an instance where both accounts added the same exact image, but this QuinteroP account was created after your block on Julioxo was applied, and suddenly this new account is exerting the same behavior on this article as Julioxo. The diffs in question are here, here (where Julioxo adds his changes back to the article), and here (the edits by QuinteroP). I wanted to get your opinion and input before I proceed with creating an SPI... I have suspicions, but I don't feel that I have definitive proof yet - what do you think? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
hello, is Rusf10 opening this Talk:Bergen County Executive#RFC on biographic information on Alansohn's article really in the spirit of his voluntary interaction ban particularly as Alansohn has been interaction banned. 185.244.215.246 ( talk) 15:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
You helped me previously with a minor task and I'm wondering if you can help with something larger. We're attempting to change the definition of "bookkeeping" to reflect what the current state of the industry and of the people who are doing today's work.
Here is the page that we're trying to modify and the back-and-forth modifications being made. No one thought this would be so controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bookkeeping&action=history
We're bookkeepers. I like to tell my prospective clients that we're not your grandfather's bookkeeper because the work and the workers are so different now and the word does not really do justice any longer.
It rather appears as if the editor removing our work isn't really looking at the links as proper, but as we are in the industry, we believe they are and are being improperly removed. No one wants to fight but the page here is so outdated and really does need to come up to modern times. The people here trying to make these changes are real advocates for the industry and I stand behind them (Ingabird and VanessaPolymath).
Can you assist us here in getting these needed changes incorporated? Or at least offer us some advice to getting it done, please? Evanvalken ( talk) 22:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Evanvalken
We're all bookkeepers and acquaintances. They were kind of upset that their changes were removed so asked others to jump in. I've asked them to be patient while we work this out. I'm actually not sure why you're calling the first link an advertisement. It doesn't appear that way to me. Why is it a copyright violation? Can you help me understand that? I didn't post the stuff, I'm just trying to help get it right now. I've asked that she take down her Facebook post asking for people to get involved and asked her to be patient while we figure out what's wrong with the citations. I don't mind working a bit for this but if you can point me in the right direction, I'd be grateful. Thank Evanvalken ( talk) 22:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Still not sure why you're calling it an advertisement. I noticed a few minutes ago that more explanation was sent to her on her talk page and asked her if she'd read it for explanation. I didn't realize she been sent this. She owns the copyright on the article also so that's why she was saying word for word from the article. I much better understand the problem now and I'm sorry I took up your time when she had the information all along. I appreciate your help and I've learned more about editing here. I still believe the bookkeeping page needs to be updated, but I see that its approach needs to be completely different from this one. Evanvalken ( talk) 23:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @NeilN. How do I go about releasing my words under a free-use license? Also, I don't understand how the quoted sentence is any more promotional than the rest of the page. I am merely trying to explain what qualifications are expected of the modern bookkeeper and how that differs from the expectations for bookkeepers in the past. Could you offer some ideas on how to make it less "promotional?" Thanks again. Ingabird ( talk) 00:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Mr NeilN;
Kindly see this [75]. This is getting out of hand, they have a purpose as a French Organization to remove Egypt. I added 2 documentaries and i can even translate + add Dalida's own Masry (Egyptian Arabic Language) patriotic songs. She made very passionate songs for Egypt, called her self Egyptian and Egypt as her homeland in (Helwa Ya Balady) (Ahsan Nas), yet that team is racist towards her homeland + claims ownership of the page, why?. The head of the team even ignored your message to him on his talk page. This is ridiculous and this is far from truth, the woman was endlessly passionate towards her home and showed that clearly in her art and interviews. Mina Alfonse ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello NeilN,
I'm hoping you can help me bring my edits into compliance with Wikipedia guidelines so that we can them added to the "Bookkeeping" page. The changes made are not spam or promotional. The content used from the cited sources is used with the full permission and support from those sources. The article that I cited is a reputable accounting journal, not a blog or promotion. If there is a way to indicate that it is used with permission, please educate me on the proper process.
The other contributors that have been trying to show their support for the change are fellow leaders in the accounting profession. We may not make changes in Wikipedia often, but we know accounting and are working to educate. We would really appreciate your assistance in making this happen.
There is no "sock puppetry" going on here. I am a recognized leader in the accounting profession, acclaimed by CPA Practice Advisor Magazine as one of the Top 40 Under 40 and Most Powerful Women in Accounting. Vanessa Barrett, who added the citation to the Institute for Certified Bookkeepers, is a valuable member of the bookkeeping profession and of the Institute for Certified Bookkeepers. I don't know what Caleb Jenkins posted, as it seems all edits have been hidden. Caleb is a thought leader in the accounting profession, also recognized by CPA Practice Advisor magazine as one of the Top 40 Under 40. We thought that by having other people show their support for the changes that it would lend validity to them, but instead it seems to have detracted from the credibility of our update. How do we fix this?
Please let me know what we need to do to bring this update into compliance and get it published so it will stay.
Thank you, Ingabird ( talk) 23:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Ingrid Edstrom, March 22, 2018
For your clarification:
This edit was not the mere insertion of a space, but rather amounts to the effective deletion of my userpage, since if it would not be there, the content from Wikimedia would show. -- Mathmensch ( talk) 07:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Neil. I saw your comment there. If you want to ask a polite, logically constructed question, my user talk page is at User talk:John. Look forward to seeing you there. -- John ( talk) 07:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thank you for making wikipedia a better place to be. Thewinrat ( talk) 02:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC) |
Thank you, Thewinrat. But given the section right above this one, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't point out the other editor's edits weren't exactly vandalism, but rather decidedly non-neutral. They've stopped now, largely thanks to you, and hopefully they've read what I've written on their IP and user talk pages. -- NeilN talk to me 04:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
An otter for you! | |
Thank you for the revdel on my user talk page EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC) |
User: Yassir_Yusufzai, appears to be removing large chunks of referenced information over multiple articles, using the same edit summary("I removed some incorrect information because although the citation mentioned was a good source, it was inaccurately quoted."). I have posted a warning on their talk page, after asking them to take their concerns to the talk page on Nader Shah.
Considering the vastness of this editor's disruptive editing, some in more modern areas, I have chosen to not revert Yassir Yusufzai in those articles. Although, some of Yassir's editing is extremely questionable. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to keep bringing this up, but could we move towards closing the case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Thewolfchild? It looks like the discussion has pretty much died down. – dlthewave ☎ 15:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Neil N. let me ask you why is someone sometimes keep removing text from Panyd talk page? 178.222.124.229 ( talk) 00:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi NeilN,
Sorry about this massage. Because this massage is not part of Wikipedia. I am just infrom you that what pepole think about you? Don't take this serious. Please see (Redacted). I had founded this information, when I was searching your name in Google. When I was reading, I was feeling bad about you. :'( Thank You, Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 13:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, concerning the categories on the Stana Katic page, does the term "of XX descent" denote nationality or ethnicity? I assumed it was the latter and if that is the case, then the actress would normally be of Serbian descent. Furthermore, a category exists for the Serbs of Croatia, which would include someone of her ancestry. Abonzz ( talk) 19:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
What does "of descent" refer to : ethnicity or nationality? Can you please clarify this? Thanks for your time Abonzz ( talk) 20:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. In that case, I'll add back the missing category. Abonzz ( talk) 20:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Neil. Just a word of warning as you evaluate this block review, the basis for which, for all I know, may be totally legit. I watch this user's page because during the course of a dispute some months ago they led me on wild good chases by lying to me repeatedly. It was a huge waste of time and I don't want to see it happen to anyone else, including you.
They literally fabricated refs out of thin air to sources that didn't exist and when I asked to see the sources they said they would track them down, then never did, then when they finally admitted that the sources didn't exist, they said they were relying on e-mails they received from so-and-so, then I asked them details about the e-mails and they said they would track them down, then never did, etc. etc.
I'm not seeking to get this user in trouble for past behavior, as it was months ago and for all I know an isolated incident, but you should take their representations with a huge grain of salt. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, my talk page has been vandalized several times in the recent past by IPs. Can you put it under semi-protection? Thanks, - Thucydides411 ( talk) 18:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI, you blocked this user a few days ago for his inability to comprehend that Wikipedia doesn't accept. OR. I nominated his Draft:Constitutional (Democracy (Republic) at MfD [76], and today he edited there using an IP. [77]. I reverted his edit, with an edit summary saying that he could not edit Wikipedia under any name or using an IP. [78], and I'm about to put the same message on his user page. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
15 days ago in special:diff/828627380 you said:
This was an extensive discussion and it is not clear to me what reasons in particular you meant. I don't believe I should be appealing this topic ban any further until I fully understand your thought process. I realize you do not want to lift it unilaterally and instead want it to be a community discussion, but am hoping you could privately help me understand underlying policy here.
Instead of me trying to dig through others' paraphrasing and try to guess at which part you have drawn upon to support your sanction, is it possible for you to link to specific policies and quote the aspect which you think is applicable?
I only just now noticed WP:ARBAPDS was mentioned. I believe I was too riled up on March 7 when I came back after the 3-day block, and noticed the topic ban, and made rushed and confused responses on AE and ANI which people found disruptive and resulted in a 7-day block.
Since that ended on the 14th, I've spent a couple weeks just trying to put it all out of my mind, and I can do that a while longer, but today it crept back in and caused me to review this and read more closely.
Part of what bothers me is this "ARBAPDS" issue was not mentioned to me by MrX on March 1 when he initially contacted me. If this had been cited in isolation I think I would have noticed it then. I think it's bad faith to ban someone based on a policy example which hasn't been explained to them.
I'm reading it now. I don't intend to appeal again to lift this until I read it a few more times in coming weeks. I think the last 4 letters refer to "American Politics Discretionary Sanctions". It mentions:
I am thinking instead of asking that the topic ban be entirely rescinded that I could simply ask it be narrowed to just this? It doesn't appear that this 2015 decision was intended to apply outside of post-1932 American politics. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 15:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I do no not own article Dalida, and I am in conflict of interest with that other user that edits the page. You are right, I musn't use bad language as I used. I said those words because I got pissed of that person who doesen't know the main facts about Dalida even edits main wiki page of her. I can't own article, but I am literally co-worker of Dalida's director, and he is elder man that gives me instructions what to do and how to.distribute her. He is even her younger brother, so I am sad that anyone can just enter and write anything. Okay, so is the valid solution for me just to keep editing Dalida as "French-Italian" each time as that other user changes it? Plus, the cite that the user ads is not valid to prove... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DalidaFan ( talk • contribs)
Hi NeilN, thanks for your protection of The Citadel page. One recent user, Realsnappy18, looks an awful lot like a previously blocked user, Strgzr1. Jpgordon wasn't able to find anything on checkuser, he thinks because the info on Strgzr1 and socks previously tied to him are stale. Would you be able to take a look and see if there's anything more that can be done with Realsnappy18? Billcasey905 ( talk) 07:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Neil,
Some thoughts offered in the spirit of WP:HERE, which reminds us that we value the ability to learn from constructive criticism.
I sincerely hope to promote reflection, no offense intended. 108.243.118.137 ( talk) 17:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Just a quick note to say thank you. It's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it - and you do it diligently! Scr★pIron IV 19:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC) |
@ ScrapIronIV: Thank you. Lots of diligent folks here helping out! -- NeilN talk to me 20:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Neil, Could you block 92.27.20.76 who's obviously a sock of Hillbillyholiday, Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 00:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello NeilN. One of our colleagues, @ Greg L: seems to be having some challenges with respect to the DS civility thing. [79] SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 31 March 2018 (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 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 48 |
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 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 48 |
Some things will never change [1]. RoguePilot ( talk · contribs) had been blocked for WP:BATTLEGROUND. I post this here because you were the admin who unblocked them.-- Jetstreamer Talk 01:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Please revisit Mitragyna speciosa. Thank you. -- Zefr ( talk) 01:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you. Because the Augean Stables of Wikipedia will apparently never stop needing cleaning. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
@ NorthBySouthBaranof: The day I'm called upon to handle actual crap is the day I hand back my bit. Changed enough kid diapers. Don't need to do it for (supposed) adults. -- NeilN talk to me 03:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
NeilN, I think the attack on my talk page might be stemming from this IP recently blocked: 216.221.38.221 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can you confirm? — IB [ Poke ] 04:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey NeilN. Any chance you could block this vandal? Cheers. DaHuzyBru ( talk) 05:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
What you make of this [3] edit summary? - Rogue1 23:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Please restore my original comment that you blackholed and add this RS under it.
"She had an abortion, stopped talking to Gjoni, blocked him on several forms of communication, and didn’t speak to him until the “Zoe Post,” as he titled it, went live."
http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/zoe-quinn-surviving-gamergate.html
The most effectual Bob Cat ( talk) 00:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I apologize you have to deal with my poor behavior, and unacceptable actions. It seems that you are the only one who has faith in me when it comes to editing. But I don't have faith in myself. After careful consideration, I have decided to give up editing. I may contemplate on returning, but after what has occurred, I believe it would be in my best interest to give it up. I hope you can forgive me, and I hope you can see that I have corrected my course of actions by apologizing to Jetstreamer and CBG17 as well. Goodbye, and I wish you the best...
- Rogue1 01:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).
contains_all
that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.You've got mail - wolf 03:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Define consensus, Neil.
Mfwitten ( talk) 05:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Are we there yet, Neil?
My arch nemesis, Edward, has agreed that the article in question should, in fact, not be categorized as it is:
I couldn't have said it better myself (well, I could have, and did); may I remove that category now without twiddling your administrative bits? Or, must we continue to pray for some Messiah to deliver unto us in the remote future an undeniable verdict on the matter? Mfwitten ( talk) 07:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
While this is likely 99.9% fake, should this be redvl? [4] HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 05:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I cleaned up some POV-y insertions of Hindu before the word India yesterday. They had been added by 120.60.155.33 ( talk · contribs) and other people had also cleaned up some of the instances. Today, I've just cleaned another three similar instances at Bhaktivinoda Thakur, together with some other POV-y changes. The IPs on this occasion were 120.60.146.169 ( talk · contribs), 120.60.148.56 ( talk · contribs) and 120.60.154.149 ( talk · contribs) - obviously the same person, moving quickly through different addresses.
I've now done a search for the phrase "Hindu India" and am seeing a lot more, eg: this by 120.60.128.13 ( talk · contribs). I think we have quite a problem with a Bengali pov-pusher but I have no idea how to deal with it. I know little about range blocks but suspect that is the likely way forward. Any ideas? - Sitush ( talk) 11:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to clean them all up because it makes it harder to show just how many articles are affected but I've just reverted edits by 120.60.139.90 ( talk · contribs), by 120.60.141.211 ( talk · contribs) and by 120.60.128.191 ( talk · contribs). I notice that Materialscientist has been reverting some examples also. - Sitush ( talk) 11:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Yugoslavia or Serbia - FIBA Basketball World Cup and Eurobasket Yugoslavia [5] Serbia [6] Serbia Nationalista User Bozalegenda promotes war pro editions Serbia. User:74Account
The articles correctly can only be edited by administrators, but the current editions are poorly edited because the editions of Bozalegenda User talk:74Account) 2 March 2018 (UTC)
It is undoubtedly not limited to two users, who are more diverse than Bozalegenda, because Bozalegenda first edits and then begins to reverse several articles of competition in which it was Yugoslavia to belong to Serbia, which only came into existence in 2003. And all blocked articles keep the radical vision of Bozalegenda. Bozalegenda is that it made war of editions against several users just look at the history of the articles. User:74Account
Where dozens edited, Bozalegenda comes and reverses, going against the official articles, and if you block the article for the view of it, it is because the blocker has a side, the side that everyone already knows, but that is not the official one. Yugoslavia or Serbia - FIBA Basketball World Cup and Eurobasket Yugoslavia [7] Serbia [8] User:74Account 11:59, 2 March 2018, Brazil (UTC)
I personally tired, I saw that it spread, several Serbs in several IPs did this in various articles, on behalf of the great Serbia, to take conquests from Yugoslavia and to give to Serbia. User:74Account 12:52, 2 March 2018, Brazil (UTC)
Just to make it clear. There were two discussions about Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro/Serbia national basketball teams here and here. Both times this user continued the same rhetoric that "HTML table is not reliable" or "FIBA doesn't decide this". I suppose a topic ban would be appropriate. Furthermore, similar behavior can also be seen on other Serbia-related pages. – Sabbatino ( talk) 16:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
NeilN, Bozalegenda has restarted their edit-warring on Yugoslavia related sports article [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. In this edit summary they show a clear refusal to accept sports results as they have been officially credited by a governing body. T v x1 21:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@ NeilN: User:Olsen24 has removed the block notice from his talk page before his block expired. SportsFan007 ( talk) 22:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
Ah ok, thank you!!! SportsFan007 ( talk) 23:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
Hi Neil (or friendly talk page stalkers),
I want to begin a discussion with an editor on Noble lie who wants to place a warning tag in front of content that suggests certain religious content are being labelled as false; like a disclosure or a spoiler alert to not upset anyone: [17], [18]. I completely understand why they feel this way but I am also pretty sure that's not how Wiki does it. Before I start a discussion I want to make sure I have the right policies. I don't believe this falls under censorship so what would this be called? HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 01:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Neil, I noticed that you recently deleted Lacework after I tagged it for G5 and G11. I was wondering if you could inform me which editor created the Lacework article that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lacework on 6 February. I am concerned that User:Idumont was spamming information [19] [20] about Lacework last September and November. SamHolt6 ( talk) 01:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Requested a Wikipedia:REVDEL.
-- KNHaw (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Could you take a look at Crack Stuntman? I am obsessed with blocking this user's socks. This user gave WikiLove to a blocked IPsock, significantly contributed to an article started by Electricbassguy, and restored edits done by previous socks. Sro23 ( talk) 02:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
i would just like to inform you that i see a potential edit eat between me and SportsFan007 brewing. I havent yet and don't intend to violate 3RR however an edit war complaint was filed and i dont see why considering talk pages were not used yet. Olsen24 ( talk) 03:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to add that i left him a message on his talk page and he/she didn't respond and deleted the message. Olsen24 ( talk) 14:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see the issue here. Thank you. Jbh Talk 15:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
After you declined their unblock request last month and tried to explain why to them, they're back and pushing again at Talk:Daniel Amen. At least twice now, they've attempted to issue an ultimatum: explain why they're wrong to their satisfaction within 24 hours or they'll start edit warring again. Over the night, they've managed to stumble upon an accurate point (about categories), which is dismaying, because it seems more likely to encourage them to continue fighting with others rather than cooperating, discussing and listening. I'm not suggesting that they need to be blocked again (not yet, anyways), but I'd dearly love if an admin were to keep an eye on things over there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, I see you warned this user recently. This account is
only 4/5-day old but it is making edits like an experienced user.
User:Premium Astroboy is also suspicious. The latter can be a sock of banned user
Swingoswingo. But do you have any idea about
User talk:יניב הורון ? -
Ascetic
Rosé 04:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Geolocate [22] says this IP is based in Japan by a company called Choopa, LLC. If you have blocked this IP on the basis that they are who I think you blocked them for then this differs to the previous location where probable IPs but not linked publicly by CU were shown as Sky Broadband IPs in the UK. I have put in a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests. My knowledge of proxies is limited and I was waiting to hear back from them about what they said before requesting a possible block, even still it is worth keeping in mind this possible proxy usage. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi NeilN,
FYI: You recently blocked MaxMedia ( talk · contribs) for AE for climate change. He's a sock of someone or other (I can't ever keep them straight), and he's gone ahead and created his next sock: Touch Points ( talk · contribs), two of the first four edits involve re-instating some of MaxMedia's reverted edits.
All the best, JBL ( talk) 11:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
this user is adding mining links, you should take a look: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/119.94.207.105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.130.87 ( talk) 19:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. However they might continue after the 31 hours block time is over, after all they get money whenever someone clicks the links they change on wikipedia so that is why there is such a strong incentive to do that. is someone going to be watching over him and to be blocked him again in the future if he does it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.130.87 ( talk) 17:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
MaryLowe Look what they uploaded. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
This is the kind of pile-on personal attacks that I was asking for intervention to put a stop to. If one editor gets away with it, others figure they can too. As I said, a productive discussion is taking place and a small group is bent on derailing it. Is this going to be allowed to continue escalating? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
And then there's the harassment. Re-posting the same unfounded accusation again and again. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] Prior to this obsession with accusing me of wanting to rename the article and change the subject entirely, this editor hounded me and repeatedly asked me to admit that I knew the Tesla car is not in Earth orbit, which I did agree to, again, and again, but he kept asking. This harassment is apparently a favorite tactic.
I do not look for sanctions every time any editors say "anything remotely negative". I ignore this kind of thing every day. But when it comes to this, this ongoing escalation, this focused harassment, and editors who think they have been given permission to bully others off an article, it is appropriate to ask for intervention. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey Neil I started the talk on Alina Zagitova and who you blocked revert the edit while the discussion is on going after another user User:Karl.i.biased told her on her talk that she should leave it for now. She has been very disruptive on Wikipedia. Can you do anything? Btw I’m coming to you so as not to violate 3RR again. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 06:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Tip of the iceberg?
MrX did an overwhelming scattershot of claims which will take a long time to address individually. He clearly has much more time to dedicate to harassing someone who doesn't cow to his bullying than I do to stand up to bullies.
I am wondering if you are willing to concisely address individual issues in conversation with me to establish some form of understanding, faith or goodwill going forward. I don't want to spend time explaining things if they aren't actually interested in understanding.
Before I address any of the new allegations, I want to discuss the original dispute which happened before it.
I would like to know if you have fully reviewed this segment of history: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:David_Hogg_(activist)&offset=20180304&action=history&limit=20
If you can confirm this, I will offer further comments. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 07:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Cullen's comment has me very confused. Neil you said you will explain how to appeal the topic ban.
How is it possible to do this when I am not allowed to discuss the edits where I am alleged to have violated BLP policy? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 08:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I think you know it isn't needed, but I acknowledge your refusal to let me appeal directly and your minimization of involvement to that of directing me to other processes.
Regarding stage 2:
Would I be correct in thinking the former (AE) rather than the latter (AN) is the appropriate place? This was suggested on my talk page by Beyond My Ken, after attempting to discuss it with you. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 18:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
What am I permitted to mention in the appeal at either place? Cullen has alleged that mentioning the name of the BLP article at all is violating a topic ban. Do you agree with that? If so, I require suggestions as to how I can appeal without being able to link to a history page showing my edits were deleted so that people can read what was deleted.
Please instruct me: does the topic ban you have instated even prevent me from linking to the history of a talk page of a BLP?
This is why I'm thinking AE would be better than AN, because while I would love to have non-admins provide some input, they wouldn't be able to see the deleted edits, so until I can appeal to have them un-deleted, it would not be an informed decision. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 19:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I created Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_ScratchMarshall and am posting to notify you about this. I interpreted "new BLP-related material" as not extending to the already-mentioned sources because they are not 'new'.
I have linked to history where linking diffs is no longer possible. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what this [32] is about, but your name was in it, so if you're interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. Sorry to be another person to bother you about him, but I'm currently involved and can't take administrative action myself. I was wondering if I could ask for your assistance/input, since you've intervened recently.
Anyways, as you pointed out, he's got 5 blocks for 3RR/EW, and he's being rather disruptive with his reverts at Kingdom Come: Deliverance. If you look at the page history, you'll see a series of reverts. the page history. To summarize what's going on:
So, to summarize, after 5 blocks over edit warring, he's reverting with misleading edit edit summaries and refusing to discuss. I defer to your judgement. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Not familiar with this sock/master but this popped up today and seems suspicious. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The No Spam Barnstar | |
You beat me to it! :D https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Front_Line_Systems,_Inc.&action=history ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC) |
I would like of know the purpose of the notices to me. I have made very appropriate edits and changes on articles and provided multiple valid citations and references. Let me know the reason for sending me these notices. --- User talk:Truthteller301
I don't think that this name meetings the user name policy either, specifically "Usernames that are names of posts within organizations, such as "Secretary of the XY Foundation", are not permitted, as such a post may be held by different persons at different times." (Commdiratsdt = Communication Director at Sigma Delta Tau, see last entry at https://sigmadeltatau.org/meet/our-leadership/national-office-staff/ ) Naraht ( talk) 19:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I left a note for a user on 1 March when they did a poor article move. I also reverted the move at that time but they have just sent Ramdasia back to Sikh Ramdasia again and this time I cannot revert it. They've also been making a mess of the article content today. Can you please help? - Sitush ( talk) 15:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
It's our favorite political expert (they haven't edited here yet but their xwiki contribs make it obvious and I've asked for a glock + cu on loginwiki.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Chrissymad: Not sure why CU would have missed this account but Hairygrim? -- NeilN talk to me 21:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Dear NeilN, sorry for disturbing you. But please pay attention to this issue. Again I have to ask you to see what the User Путеец does in Homosexual behavior in animals article. One example: when the user Flyer22 Reborn made very normal suggestion about article's development, User Путеец made this statement. Please pay attention to his words "After all, scientists also fall into two categories - homosexual and heterosexual" or another one statement "In addition, one-sex behavior of animals is used in politics, to protect the rights of LGBT people, legalization of same-sex marriage, as one of the evidence of the normality of this behavior" . Now, I hope, you see that this User is not in Wikipedia to make the articles better, he is here to push his agenda. Let alone, that many statements of the User:Путеец are against science, (for example, see Petter Bockman's respond), now Путеец are openly admits, that he is here to push some agenda, but not to make the article better. Please, take some actions. Regards. M.Karelin ( talk) 10:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
NeilN Please consider his accusation in fraud. [39]. Another user, not I, made a statement to administrators in RuWiki [40]. "An attempt to discredit a participant outside the Ruwiks by distributing diffs from Ruwiki with a distortion of the meaning of the said in these diffs to create a negative image of the opponent." In the cited references, there is no charge of fraud. I said that the organizers of the exhibition had juggling values the number of species of animals (indicated 1500 instead of 450). This not mean fraud. It can affect my reputation, and the reputation of Petter Bøckman. I found an error in an article that exists since 2007 [41]. The author of this error recognized her [42]. If it requires a call to administrators, tell me where to turn. Other my addresses and explanations here. [43] Help me please. Characteristic behavior. Stop work without argumentation and reading sources. [44] -- Путеец ( talk) 06:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Does this user violate WP:CANVASS Special:Contributions/Shahin.shn? Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 12:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
...appears to be back from his coffee break. GMG talk 20:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
They're back edit-warring over categories at least on Sleepy Hollow (film). Still no talk page posts - article or user space. Ravensfire ( talk) 01:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I thought that was a bit strong. I hadn't thought of interpreting as a suggestion he'll be leaving, however. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Then where is the place to get assistance with it? 2600:1702:1690:E10:5DB1:E494:B72E:DDE8 ( talk) 19:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Dear NeilN, thanks for your today's involvement in the situation with the Homosexual behavior in animals article. More than 20 days some Users ( including you) and I asked User Путеец to work in the style that you demanded him today (preliminarily discuss the edits on the article's Talk page). You do not imagine how much efforts were wasted simply to asking him not to make edits in the article without preliminary consent. After 20 days, it finally happened, and only after your involvement. I hope, now the situation will be more or less corrected. Thank you. Sincerely. M.Karelin ( talk) 19:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
User:National AntiVirus is back to their old tricks. See Special:Contributions/National_AntiVirus - Eduard Shevardnadze and USSR–USA Maritime Boundary Agreement, for instance. It might be time for a longer block. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 03:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Dear administrator, please look at those two remarks of the User Путеец - [47] and [48]. Please do some actions, I cant work in this conditions. M.Karelin ( talk) 20:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the vandal warning template! :) TheMitochondriaBoi (Wanna talk?) 20:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
If a sockpuppet appears, might I suggest a semi-protect? Mr rnddude ( talk) 17:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Good evening.
I did not include that paragraph for some sort of racist or malicious intent. This event is actually happening, and the South African parliament is legitimately considering this motion.
Here is a Reuters article discussing the provision.
The inclusion of that last paragraph was an attempt to observe a neutral point of view. You are incorrect to say that South Africa's ruling party is not aspiring to steal Boer lands. They are, and they may pass the bill.
I am insulted that you removed my changes on the basis that you disagree with them.
A Reuters article is not original research.
--
2602:306:39D6:CBA0:D835:9D67:6048:D2EB (
talk) 00:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Good evening.
I received your second message and wish to reply. The inclusion of the South African bill propsing land theft of Boers was added into a section discussing allegations of Boer persecution in South Africa. To counter the citation from the left-wing Africa Check organization, I added a documented example of an attempt by the ruling party of South Africa to actually persecute Boers.
As the White Genocide article concerns persuections of whites in the South Africa section, I believe that a well-sourced, documented reference to the SA land theft attempt against Boers is pertinent to the information in the article.
This paragraph was insulting removed as "original research", despite citations. Reuters is not original research.
-- 2602:306:39D6:CBA0:D835:9D67:6048:D2EB ( talk) 00:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello NeilN,
How to propose an article to good article label ? At French Wikipedia, it's easy but here, I don't understand... (Sorry for my English, I'm not an englishmen).
Thank's for your precious time. Danfarid133 ( talk) 06:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Neil. I don't know if this edit summary needs a revdel or not. I'd be grateful if you could take a quick look. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me
I was accused of making a legal threat here. Could you intervene? Plagiarism isn't a crime or a tort. Carte Rouge ( talk) 14:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm asking you again to stop ignoring the personal attacks against me. You are aware of the history here and I have asked you multiple times to respond. This is an uncivil personal attack. All I'm asking is for comments directed at me to not contain insults, name calling, and false accusations. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Howdy podner. Interesting to see this one [49] From an editor who is well aware that's a no-no, having promoted spurious claims against me alleging that I had done the same thing when I was sanctioned. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hypocresy - The time shown in my screen does not correlate with the time in the Talk History so I don't have the exact diff. So I am pasting it here from the Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster: "The kind of hypocrisy one sees in these situations is disgusting. It's entirely based on a double standard that "it's OK when I do it because I'm righteous". - [50]
Liar - [51]
Drunk- [52].
I'm sure there are more instances of insulting at other editors in addition of his disturbing POV pushing and warring. His combative behavior at that article is singular. All his motions to change the article's subject were rejected by all editors involved. Unanimous rejection. Nobody agrees with his POV, synthesis and angle. He posted several topics under different names/titles demanding -basically- the same thing: that the article be primarily about a commercial ad, and he even proposed to move the article to "Tesla ad (2018)". He has been around long enough to recognize when his POV was detected and declined, but also long enough to learn how to WP:GAME THE SYSTEM. He is in utter denial his repeated motions were rejected, and remains combative. I think there were 2 or 3 ANI incidents prompted by his warring; If "trolling" is not the appropriate word, I don't know how else it can be described. Thank you. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 23:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I’ve asked BatteryIncluded many times to let all this go and drop the stick. No luck. — Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I've added the diff to the quote above. Other classic quotes can be found at the bottom of this AN thread, and in this ANI thread Dennis replied to SkyWarrior with, "You should be ashamed of this. You're ganging up to bully another editor, instead of focusing on article content." The "Multiple editors ganging up this way" presumably including you, Neil, along with Insertcleverphrasehere, since the three of you had the temerity to disagree with him on that occasion. I don't think he's trolling, necessarily, but he has much the same MO as a troll. nagual design 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you think my goal of wanting to give weight that is approximately proportionate to the the quantity of coverage in the sources is some kind of troll? I don't insist on any one specific layout or tone or structure, but at the very least I think we should try to match what we see in the sources. I have been personally attacked repeatedly when I try to address this. New editors have posted on Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster, and have been rebuffed. When they complain the article's weight is out of balance, nobody acknowledges that these editors are lending support to the same issue I am trying to raise. If you want to say I should use nicer language, fine, but in what way am I trolling? I have provided an extraordinary amount of evidence that this article has a POV problem. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't accuse me of doing anything disruptive or opposing consensus when I wasn't even involved. BatteryIncluded and several other editors insisted the comments about me had to remain in that thread so that the off-topic drama could escalate. Why?
If it were true that there is lopsided agreement that it was partially marketing, what would that look like to you? Is there anything that would convince you? I've counted up the sources and shown them side by side. Not good enough? What would be good enough?
I added a scholarly opinion of Klaus Klostermaier to an article Bhimbetka rock shelters . He is a prominent German-Canadian scholar on Hinduism and Indian history and culture and has a PhD in "Ancient Indian History and Culture" from the University of Bombay in 1969.
Two wiki-users named User:D4iNa4 & User:Doug Weller are removing the above mentioned content added by me.
One of them , User:Doug Weller, is specifying 3 reasons for this.
1. He is saying Klaus Klostermaier is not an archaeologist. So his opinion can't be included in this article.
But this is an article related to Bhimbetka rock shelters, and what is wrong in adding any scholarly opinion related to this? why are these wiki-users insisting that only an archaeologist's opinions can be added to this article? Does this article has any speciality which other wiki-articles does not have? So by this logic, in an article about a novelist, we can not add an opinion by a historian about that novelist, because the historian is not an expert in novel writing? That is weird logic...These two uses seem to have some kind of hidden agenda.
2. He is saying Kalus Klosermaier is not a reliable source
Klaus has a phD in Indian History and culture. Isn't that reliable enough, to express his opinion? Please note that i am only adding more scholarly content related to Bhimbetka Cave Paintings, to the article and not trying to validate any claim. I have not made any claims in the content added by me to the article.
3. He is saying the dating of Klaus as the cave painting being older than 10000 BCE is wrong.
But archelogical Survey of India in their publication has clearly stated that the cave painting in question here is of mesolithic era. (that is before 10000BCE) So Klaus is very correct in his dating.
Above all, why all this fuss about adding an opinion by a scholar. Why these two users are so opposing against the opinions of Klaus, is what i dont understand. WHat is wrong in adding an opinion by a scholar like Klaus? If they have any citation from any other scholar which criticize the opinion of Klaus, they can add it also. Nobody is prohibiting them. Please note i am not trying to make any personal claims in the content i added, but i am only adding the opinion of Klus Klostermaier about Bhimbetka rock shelter paintings. Now they are accusing me of edit-war, while they are the ones who removed the content i added with out giving any reason.
Please intervene in this issue for a solution. This user Doug Weller was earlier banned for 24 hours too.. Please check here.. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:FactChecked1_reported_by_User:Doug_Weller_(Result:_Blocked_24_hours) ( Banasura ( talk) 15:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC))
Hey Neil,
I've talked with you about this before. I doubt I can convince you one way or the other, but I'd like to say my piece anyway. Background:
You're not the blocking editor, but I would appreciate your summary of this. I'm trying to understand your thinking, but your terse comments on the discussion don't quite elucidate it (ie what exactly is it that you found missing?). Another question: Does consensus matter - that is, does it matter if the material I restored was removed by the other editor against the consensus? The reporting editor suggested so, and you implied it as well. François Robere ( talk) 10:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- The post I was pinged in has been removed but I'll reply anyways. My "terse" comments are usually seen as clear and direct - something that you may want to keep in mind when asked questions about your own behavior. I asked you about or referred to accepting a 1RR restriction four times. None of your four responses contained a clear "yes, I will accept 1RR". Instead, most were long-winded responses about how your reverts weren't really reverts or blaming other editors or pushing for other editors to be sanctioned or a combination of all three. Be more terse in giving answers to terse questions. As for consensus, if your changes are being reverted, especially by multiple editors, it's obvious you don't have it. Unless you can point to a RFC or a more formalized decision, admins aren't going to put much stock in your "my edits have consensus" arguments. -- NeilN talk to me 14:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of the lot of administrators come across here around here, you seem like one of the more reasonable ones. However, even you, in your reply, repeat two related things I've come to expect from the administerial process on Wiki:
First, they don't "dig deep". ANI discussion is always very shallow, narrow and limited, and no one makes the effort of going through edit histories or talk pages. For example, a user who's misspoken is admonished, and no one cares if they were led there by others truly maddening actions; or, in this case, a user's edits are reverted, but no one wonders why or what effort was made to prevent it - everything is examined superficially, temporarily and no one tried to understand how events unfolded. Take this my case, for example: you claim I was being reverted by "multiple editors", but the fact of the matter is I was only being reverted by three editors, of which two are "opposing parties", and the third was an uninvolved editor who only did so since he got the same superficial impression that you did (he's very much part of the consensus now). Nevertheless no one cares, because a superficial examination of the edit log shows seemingly-arbitrary reversals, and that's the end of it.
Second, they tend to have a very narrow perception of "proper" conduct on Wikipedia. For example - Wikipedia demands consensus, and you ask for an RFC "or a more formalized decision", but... how many people start an RFC to resolve an argument? How many arguments are resolved through RFCs? A fraction of all discussion! Most discussions are finalized and consensus is achieved by mutual understanding, not by RFCs. RFCs are a formal device that's simply not used in the vast majority of cases; does this mean the vast majority of discussions don't achieve consensus? Yet you clearly state that it's meaningless, and there's no point in even trying to show it as I did (by the way, this is the state of the consensus at the moment, with only 3/19 against). If it's not "codified", it doesn't exist.
Both of these suggest administrators simply don't put much weight into human behavior. Events, circumstances, human nature - none of those is being considered. If a user makes an acerbic comment he will be reprimanded regardless of what drove them there (I've seen several of those on WP:3O, and I usually opt to express my understanding of their frustration rather than strictly reprimanding them for expressing it); if a user files a complaint, submits a reply or asks for assistance from an administrators, they must not only cite a specific policy, but use a specific phrasing or their message won't be processed.
I don't know how you perceive it, but it seems to me that many administrators don't deduce, interpret or study what's presented to them; instead they make technical decisions, on technical matters pertaining to very nuanced and non-technical human affairs. The result? Not only do administrators fail to deal with legitimate concerns (like the edit war I asked you to intervene in and you refused, and it's now spread to another article), but the fallout demoralizes everyone. François Robere ( talk) 17:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I have a strong feeling this IP [59] is LittleDipper, who has resorted to socking following the decline of their unblock request. Would you consider semi-protecting the page? Thanks, Khirurg ( talk) 05:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Both with the block and with the talk page access removal you got there before I did, but I would have done the same if you hadn't. So many of us put so much effort into trying to help the editor, and he or she might have learnt how to contribute in acceptable ways and so avoided being blocked, if only he or she had listened to what we said. Oh well, you can't help those who won't be helped. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 19:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Could you take a look at List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes? It seems like the same IP you just blocked is at it again under a different IP, I requested semi protection for the article. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi NeilN. Regarding this post of yours [61]. Did you mean to say that it is not within the scope of AN/ANI/AN3 for the community to impose a topic ban or site ban for whatever reason it sees fit? That has never been my understanding. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
So I get back from a pleasant Wikibreak to find this obviously bad deletion. I'm curious if looking back on this conversation, you'd have any thoughts on how things might have been done differently? NickCT ( talk) 14:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Another one. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I know being an admin must not be easy, and when two longtime, generally upstanding editors get into it, that can be more infuriating than open-and-shut cases. While I was under the impression that the compromise photo was going to be used until the RfC close, and while I'm sorry to see a bright-line 4-reverter get away with it, I do appreciate your kind words about us both, and your patience generally, here and elsewhere. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
209.93.13.37 has issued another personal attack ("jealous Hungarian"), he learned nothing from his two previous blocks for violating WP:NPA. Greetings, Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
See this user here, /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/YorkshireTeaLover
The account solely exists to cause disruption and vandalism on a single page, despite multiple reverts, the User insists on making the same change over and over.
What action should be taken? 185.9.19.152 ( talk) 23:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Any admin noticing this might like to look at this edit. I have never encountered the case but checking the contribs shows admin attention is needed. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI. Copied this to AE for them. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
In the Proto-Indo-European homeland article, I have made some additions with multiple authentic citations and references but editor User:Joshua Jonathan has removed the content I added without even trying to build a consensus or providing valid reasons. The user is trying to make a personal judgement and interpretation on the content by calling it invalid and fringe, even after dozens of references and citations, this is against Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. I would appreciate if the content is discussed and agreed upon consensus rather than passing judgement and threats. --- User talk:Truthteller301
Hi, Neil! Could you do me a favor? As you know I don’t like to make admin decisions for articles I am involved in. Could you take a look at this edit by User:Volunteer Marek? As you can see from the history, they immediately re-added something that had been “challenged by reversion”. VM also made a comment at Bish's talk page when I initially reported it there (she said she doesn't deal with that kind of thing). Thanks! -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi NeilN! I'm messaging you about this user because you placed a three-month block on his account for edit warring back in February. I was patrolling this article just now and I'm seeing what might be similar edits from QuinteroP as Julioxo, as both are adding pictures to various sections of the article. I did a quick spot check and didn't find an instance where both accounts added the same exact image, but this QuinteroP account was created after your block on Julioxo was applied, and suddenly this new account is exerting the same behavior on this article as Julioxo. The diffs in question are here, here (where Julioxo adds his changes back to the article), and here (the edits by QuinteroP). I wanted to get your opinion and input before I proceed with creating an SPI... I have suspicions, but I don't feel that I have definitive proof yet - what do you think? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
hello, is Rusf10 opening this Talk:Bergen County Executive#RFC on biographic information on Alansohn's article really in the spirit of his voluntary interaction ban particularly as Alansohn has been interaction banned. 185.244.215.246 ( talk) 15:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
You helped me previously with a minor task and I'm wondering if you can help with something larger. We're attempting to change the definition of "bookkeeping" to reflect what the current state of the industry and of the people who are doing today's work.
Here is the page that we're trying to modify and the back-and-forth modifications being made. No one thought this would be so controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bookkeeping&action=history
We're bookkeepers. I like to tell my prospective clients that we're not your grandfather's bookkeeper because the work and the workers are so different now and the word does not really do justice any longer.
It rather appears as if the editor removing our work isn't really looking at the links as proper, but as we are in the industry, we believe they are and are being improperly removed. No one wants to fight but the page here is so outdated and really does need to come up to modern times. The people here trying to make these changes are real advocates for the industry and I stand behind them (Ingabird and VanessaPolymath).
Can you assist us here in getting these needed changes incorporated? Or at least offer us some advice to getting it done, please? Evanvalken ( talk) 22:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Evanvalken
We're all bookkeepers and acquaintances. They were kind of upset that their changes were removed so asked others to jump in. I've asked them to be patient while we work this out. I'm actually not sure why you're calling the first link an advertisement. It doesn't appear that way to me. Why is it a copyright violation? Can you help me understand that? I didn't post the stuff, I'm just trying to help get it right now. I've asked that she take down her Facebook post asking for people to get involved and asked her to be patient while we figure out what's wrong with the citations. I don't mind working a bit for this but if you can point me in the right direction, I'd be grateful. Thank Evanvalken ( talk) 22:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Still not sure why you're calling it an advertisement. I noticed a few minutes ago that more explanation was sent to her on her talk page and asked her if she'd read it for explanation. I didn't realize she been sent this. She owns the copyright on the article also so that's why she was saying word for word from the article. I much better understand the problem now and I'm sorry I took up your time when she had the information all along. I appreciate your help and I've learned more about editing here. I still believe the bookkeeping page needs to be updated, but I see that its approach needs to be completely different from this one. Evanvalken ( talk) 23:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @NeilN. How do I go about releasing my words under a free-use license? Also, I don't understand how the quoted sentence is any more promotional than the rest of the page. I am merely trying to explain what qualifications are expected of the modern bookkeeper and how that differs from the expectations for bookkeepers in the past. Could you offer some ideas on how to make it less "promotional?" Thanks again. Ingabird ( talk) 00:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Mr NeilN;
Kindly see this [75]. This is getting out of hand, they have a purpose as a French Organization to remove Egypt. I added 2 documentaries and i can even translate + add Dalida's own Masry (Egyptian Arabic Language) patriotic songs. She made very passionate songs for Egypt, called her self Egyptian and Egypt as her homeland in (Helwa Ya Balady) (Ahsan Nas), yet that team is racist towards her homeland + claims ownership of the page, why?. The head of the team even ignored your message to him on his talk page. This is ridiculous and this is far from truth, the woman was endlessly passionate towards her home and showed that clearly in her art and interviews. Mina Alfonse ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello NeilN,
I'm hoping you can help me bring my edits into compliance with Wikipedia guidelines so that we can them added to the "Bookkeeping" page. The changes made are not spam or promotional. The content used from the cited sources is used with the full permission and support from those sources. The article that I cited is a reputable accounting journal, not a blog or promotion. If there is a way to indicate that it is used with permission, please educate me on the proper process.
The other contributors that have been trying to show their support for the change are fellow leaders in the accounting profession. We may not make changes in Wikipedia often, but we know accounting and are working to educate. We would really appreciate your assistance in making this happen.
There is no "sock puppetry" going on here. I am a recognized leader in the accounting profession, acclaimed by CPA Practice Advisor Magazine as one of the Top 40 Under 40 and Most Powerful Women in Accounting. Vanessa Barrett, who added the citation to the Institute for Certified Bookkeepers, is a valuable member of the bookkeeping profession and of the Institute for Certified Bookkeepers. I don't know what Caleb Jenkins posted, as it seems all edits have been hidden. Caleb is a thought leader in the accounting profession, also recognized by CPA Practice Advisor magazine as one of the Top 40 Under 40. We thought that by having other people show their support for the changes that it would lend validity to them, but instead it seems to have detracted from the credibility of our update. How do we fix this?
Please let me know what we need to do to bring this update into compliance and get it published so it will stay.
Thank you, Ingabird ( talk) 23:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Ingrid Edstrom, March 22, 2018
For your clarification:
This edit was not the mere insertion of a space, but rather amounts to the effective deletion of my userpage, since if it would not be there, the content from Wikimedia would show. -- Mathmensch ( talk) 07:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Neil. I saw your comment there. If you want to ask a polite, logically constructed question, my user talk page is at User talk:John. Look forward to seeing you there. -- John ( talk) 07:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thank you for making wikipedia a better place to be. Thewinrat ( talk) 02:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC) |
Thank you, Thewinrat. But given the section right above this one, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't point out the other editor's edits weren't exactly vandalism, but rather decidedly non-neutral. They've stopped now, largely thanks to you, and hopefully they've read what I've written on their IP and user talk pages. -- NeilN talk to me 04:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
An otter for you! | |
Thank you for the revdel on my user talk page EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC) |
User: Yassir_Yusufzai, appears to be removing large chunks of referenced information over multiple articles, using the same edit summary("I removed some incorrect information because although the citation mentioned was a good source, it was inaccurately quoted."). I have posted a warning on their talk page, after asking them to take their concerns to the talk page on Nader Shah.
Considering the vastness of this editor's disruptive editing, some in more modern areas, I have chosen to not revert Yassir Yusufzai in those articles. Although, some of Yassir's editing is extremely questionable. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to keep bringing this up, but could we move towards closing the case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Thewolfchild? It looks like the discussion has pretty much died down. – dlthewave ☎ 15:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Neil N. let me ask you why is someone sometimes keep removing text from Panyd talk page? 178.222.124.229 ( talk) 00:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi NeilN,
Sorry about this massage. Because this massage is not part of Wikipedia. I am just infrom you that what pepole think about you? Don't take this serious. Please see (Redacted). I had founded this information, when I was searching your name in Google. When I was reading, I was feeling bad about you. :'( Thank You, Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 13:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, concerning the categories on the Stana Katic page, does the term "of XX descent" denote nationality or ethnicity? I assumed it was the latter and if that is the case, then the actress would normally be of Serbian descent. Furthermore, a category exists for the Serbs of Croatia, which would include someone of her ancestry. Abonzz ( talk) 19:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
What does "of descent" refer to : ethnicity or nationality? Can you please clarify this? Thanks for your time Abonzz ( talk) 20:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. In that case, I'll add back the missing category. Abonzz ( talk) 20:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Neil. Just a word of warning as you evaluate this block review, the basis for which, for all I know, may be totally legit. I watch this user's page because during the course of a dispute some months ago they led me on wild good chases by lying to me repeatedly. It was a huge waste of time and I don't want to see it happen to anyone else, including you.
They literally fabricated refs out of thin air to sources that didn't exist and when I asked to see the sources they said they would track them down, then never did, then when they finally admitted that the sources didn't exist, they said they were relying on e-mails they received from so-and-so, then I asked them details about the e-mails and they said they would track them down, then never did, etc. etc.
I'm not seeking to get this user in trouble for past behavior, as it was months ago and for all I know an isolated incident, but you should take their representations with a huge grain of salt. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, my talk page has been vandalized several times in the recent past by IPs. Can you put it under semi-protection? Thanks, - Thucydides411 ( talk) 18:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI, you blocked this user a few days ago for his inability to comprehend that Wikipedia doesn't accept. OR. I nominated his Draft:Constitutional (Democracy (Republic) at MfD [76], and today he edited there using an IP. [77]. I reverted his edit, with an edit summary saying that he could not edit Wikipedia under any name or using an IP. [78], and I'm about to put the same message on his user page. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
15 days ago in special:diff/828627380 you said:
This was an extensive discussion and it is not clear to me what reasons in particular you meant. I don't believe I should be appealing this topic ban any further until I fully understand your thought process. I realize you do not want to lift it unilaterally and instead want it to be a community discussion, but am hoping you could privately help me understand underlying policy here.
Instead of me trying to dig through others' paraphrasing and try to guess at which part you have drawn upon to support your sanction, is it possible for you to link to specific policies and quote the aspect which you think is applicable?
I only just now noticed WP:ARBAPDS was mentioned. I believe I was too riled up on March 7 when I came back after the 3-day block, and noticed the topic ban, and made rushed and confused responses on AE and ANI which people found disruptive and resulted in a 7-day block.
Since that ended on the 14th, I've spent a couple weeks just trying to put it all out of my mind, and I can do that a while longer, but today it crept back in and caused me to review this and read more closely.
Part of what bothers me is this "ARBAPDS" issue was not mentioned to me by MrX on March 1 when he initially contacted me. If this had been cited in isolation I think I would have noticed it then. I think it's bad faith to ban someone based on a policy example which hasn't been explained to them.
I'm reading it now. I don't intend to appeal again to lift this until I read it a few more times in coming weeks. I think the last 4 letters refer to "American Politics Discretionary Sanctions". It mentions:
I am thinking instead of asking that the topic ban be entirely rescinded that I could simply ask it be narrowed to just this? It doesn't appear that this 2015 decision was intended to apply outside of post-1932 American politics. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 15:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I do no not own article Dalida, and I am in conflict of interest with that other user that edits the page. You are right, I musn't use bad language as I used. I said those words because I got pissed of that person who doesen't know the main facts about Dalida even edits main wiki page of her. I can't own article, but I am literally co-worker of Dalida's director, and he is elder man that gives me instructions what to do and how to.distribute her. He is even her younger brother, so I am sad that anyone can just enter and write anything. Okay, so is the valid solution for me just to keep editing Dalida as "French-Italian" each time as that other user changes it? Plus, the cite that the user ads is not valid to prove... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DalidaFan ( talk • contribs)
Hi NeilN, thanks for your protection of The Citadel page. One recent user, Realsnappy18, looks an awful lot like a previously blocked user, Strgzr1. Jpgordon wasn't able to find anything on checkuser, he thinks because the info on Strgzr1 and socks previously tied to him are stale. Would you be able to take a look and see if there's anything more that can be done with Realsnappy18? Billcasey905 ( talk) 07:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Neil,
Some thoughts offered in the spirit of WP:HERE, which reminds us that we value the ability to learn from constructive criticism.
I sincerely hope to promote reflection, no offense intended. 108.243.118.137 ( talk) 17:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Just a quick note to say thank you. It's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it - and you do it diligently! Scr★pIron IV 19:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC) |
@ ScrapIronIV: Thank you. Lots of diligent folks here helping out! -- NeilN talk to me 20:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Neil, Could you block 92.27.20.76 who's obviously a sock of Hillbillyholiday, Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 00:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello NeilN. One of our colleagues, @ Greg L: seems to be having some challenges with respect to the DS civility thing. [79] SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 31 March 2018 (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 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 48 |