User talk:NeilN/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Speedy deletion request by blocked user

Hello Neil, as I was going through speedy deletion requests, I found this one which was tagged by User:Supdiop 2. When I wanted to ask that user about it, I noticed that they were just blocked by you for disruptive editing. What was the nature of the disruption? Does it warrant checking this user's other speedy deletion requests? — Sebastian 08:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: The main account Supdiop went off the rails for a bit after their unsuccessful RFA and had to be temporarily blocked for disruptive editing. They then switched to their alternate account which I also blocked for the same thing (basically refusing to drop the stick). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I checked, and saw no other recent CSD nominations from that user. Still, that might be something to look out for in cases like this. — Sebastian 06:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Chris Oyakhilome

Hi Neil, this is Glory (Life-Giving Spirit), I got a message to talk to you about edit-warring, which is what I never wanted.

I just thought that assuming Oyakhilome has the monetary value listed on his page, it doesn't add up. However, instead of causing a way, I won't make the correction again. I'll leave the page as it is.

Thanks for your time Life-giving Spirit (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Life-giving Spirit. If you think your change is correct, you should talk to the other editor (Edwardx) using their talk page or the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello NeilN:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

• Happy (belated) Halloween! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hello. A couple of days ago you rangeblocked 2600:1005:b040::/42 and protected a couple of aircraft articles (F-16, UH-60 and possibly more) because of repeated disruptive editing by an IP-hopper (Verizon, NYC). Well, he's at it again, now using Special:Contributions/2600:1005:B027:8D8F:AC93:246E:D66D:89AB and Special:Contributions/2600:1005:B015:551B:D102:A5B9:8A01:370E, and several other IPs in those ranges too... Thomas.W ^talk 18:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• This user has also created Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Bilcat, which is misplaced and lists the wrong username anyway. I've tagged it as G3 for speedy deletion, as that's the most appropriate DB I could find. Thanks for anything you can do in this situation. - BilCat (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Blocked that IP range. A lot of articles were edited so holding off on protection unless the disruption resumes. @BilCat: Deleted as a WP:G5. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. - BilCat (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Dankyhashpants

Hello Neil,

You warned this editor about their conduct at Bill Cosby last December. They just added a BLP violation to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: And it's the same violation they were warned about. Blocked 72 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems they are adding unreferenced musical genres as well. Though far less serious, this does not bode well for their success as an editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: And you were right. Their second attempt at an unblock request earned them an indefinite with talk page access removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wowzers! No "Editor of the Month" award for them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Which blocked or banned user previously created the Sexual aggression article?

Neil, the following log by MuZemike states: "19:08, 9 July 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs) deleted page Sexual aggression (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban)."

So which blocked or banned user previously created that article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Leucosticte. It was just a redirect to Sexual assault. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That is what I thought, and it aligns with this and this. Alison hasn't yet gotten back to me on the matter, but all evidence points to Beembly (talk · contribs) being User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte (etc.). Thanks, Neil. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, Flyer22. Spot-on as usual, unfortunately. Check my block logs for the dozen or so other Tisane accounts. You might want to review their edits and page creation for the usual POV - Alison ^❤ 09:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way

Please reply to my message on my talk page. Was I like harassing? I am totally upset because my Packers were terrible. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I wrote a long message on my talk page. See there --74.130.133.1 (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

regarding user 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD (talk · contribs)

User 162.74.52.147 (talk · contribs) who has edit-warred Nuclear triad and INS Vishal few days ago is now back as 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD (talk · contribs) and he is now back doing the same edits to the pages he repeated violating WP:NPOV on INS Vishal and now has done the same against consensus on Nuclear triad and . He appears to have disregard for consensus, NPOV and identifying reliable sources. I stopped reverting his edits so as not to violate 3RR. 162.74.52.147 (talk · contribs) was reported and blocked as being a sockpuppet of Shulinjiang (talk · contribs). He continuosly IP hops and comes back and does the same violative edits to the same pages. 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock of 162.74.52.147 (talk · contribs). I do not know what are required to open a sockpuppet investigation so can you please look into it. standardengineer (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

standardengineer, please see this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Direct Democracy Ireland

Neil, you are welcome to mention my name, but I have not been the only one reverting this and other SPIs on the article. It is a minor party with neutrally put, an avid following. I list some party members who have edited the talkpage, article or both below.

• Cormac325
• Martinbyrne68
• Martinbyrne6
• Magicrat1961
• SaoirseBeag
• Jeff Rudd
• DDI
• Ecablt1
• Larrymccarthy

Now it is a piece that is on my watchlist, as I am sure you have on yours. I am not a supporter, and dont have any hard feelings against them, but constant views that they are being cast in a bad light on here, including the new page coming soon, with the article being rferenced over 40 times, which for the size means practically every line. While I try to maintain what is actually cited, which is what this encyclopeda is about, the frustration being born of out so many SPAs adding and removing without sources, or with primary on this artcile is why I have RPP. Any ideas, and dont say talk, because all that is talked back is about what they define themselves as, which is a 2 year broken record. Murry1975 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

And Railsparks is WP:NOTHERE. Murry1975 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Murry1975, sounds as if you'd like more watchers on the article. Perhaps post a neutral note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland asking for editors to keep an eye on the page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Revdel request

This revision should probably be hidden. Cheers. clpo13_(talk) 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

KKK List

Just wanted to let you know that we might be expecting some more fun BLP violations due to the Anonymous operation against the KKK: more details here and here. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 21:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

GAB, already experienced the fun :-) [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Everyone beats me to all of the good stuff these days! GAB^Hello! 21:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Edits by CounterTime

Have a look at the edits by the new user CounterTime in Apostasy in Islam and Al-Baqara 256 articles. The new user has engaged in personal attacks here, and has been advised against disruptive behavior by Iryna Harpy and I, here and here. In Apostasy in Islam, I have welcomed a talk page discussion but received no response. The new user continues to edit war. Best regards, RLoutfy (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear NeilN. Have a look at this version of the article on Q.2:256 after my improvements and see this version by RLoutfy (changes listed here and here) which he keeps popping up. Now please sir, why does he suppress all the improvements that I have made and was the first to engage in an edit war? Thanks. --CounterTime (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: I pulled you up on your ignoring WP:BRD on the Jizya article. I am not well acquainted with the nuances of Islam, but I can identify POV-pushing and refusing to respond to another editor who is trying to discuss changes being made to an article's content. So far, you have not established that further sources you've introduced are reliable (not even verifiable for cite checking)... and particularly that Thomas Arnold is still considered to be reliable. Comments you have made on talk pages are WP:UNCIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Understand that I don't even care whether or not you are correct: you are breaching the WP:FIVEPILLARS that are the backbone of what it means to be a contributor here.

There are a number of articles surrounding the subject area that have been undergoing radical changes based on POV and an unjustifiable overuse of WP:PRIMARY sources. I'm sorry that I'm not able to assist further as a third party when it comes to theological doctrine, RLoutfy. This situation strikes me as being in need of another form of dispute resolution. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Hello. Thanks for your comments, I hope that we'll -together- help this encyclopedia become better. I, personally, think that the main reason you think that Arnold's (author and co-founder of important institutions or undertakings in Islamic studies such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam and the School of Oriental [and African] Studies. He's a very prominent orientalist, whose legacy is admired by both orientalists and many Muslim scholars.) popular and monumental work 'The Preaching of Islam' is because you aren't familiar enough with that field, and I'm not attacking you or something, just saying a possible cause of misunderstanding. And while we're at it, @RLoutfy himself used very old works, such as the Geschichte des Qorâns (1860) of the german orientalist Theodore (see the history and talk page of Al-Baqara 256).

Can you be more specific when you state "POV-pushing"? I'm astonished that my edits sound as POV to you, when this radical edit by @RLoutfy doesn't.

You also say that "refusing to respond to another editor who is trying to discuss changes being made to an article's content", I have responded to all of @RLoutfy's comments, see here, here and here.

Yes, I violated WP:UNCIVIL one time in @RLoutfy's talk page. I'm sorry for that. But other than that I remained very patient with user @RLoutfy.

There's a reason why I used some WP:PRIMARY sources in the Q.2:256 article, first translations of known tafsirs such as the one of al-Tabari, ...etc or of works of scholars like Ibn Qayyim (e.g. Ahkam Ahl Al-Dhimma) don't exist, one is thus in need of directly taking from them, but I agree that there should be a consensus on translation. I hope you get what I'm saying here.

Thanks in advance! Have a nice day! --CounterTime (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear @NeilN: and @Iryna Harpy:, It seems that @RLoutfy has been engaged in active misquoting, see here, please have a look at it. --CounterTime (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear @NeilN: and @Iryna Harpy:, I found again that @RLoutfy has unsurprisingly been engaged in active misquoting, see here, please have a look at it. --CounterTime (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: My apologies, but I'm currently involved in other article disputes to the point of not knowing how to prioritise my time. More to the point, I am not in a position to engage in extensive reading in order to familiarise myself with the details of the subject matter in order to be able to give a reasonably qualified NPOV opinion. I can't speak for NeilN, but I think this is something for the WP:DRN where editors/admins will be in a position where they are prepared to dedicate time to the arguments and references under dispute. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

direct democracy ireland

user murry1975 is still persistant with its citable material if it suits him i am now asking for murry1975 to refrain from the DDI page E.G he said a wordpress could not be used and when i pointed out that the article was a wordpress he turned around and said it was a very good opinionated articles editors are supposed to unbiased and neutral and this clearly isnt the case,Railsparks (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Railsparks, have you carefully read through our reliable sources guideline? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Page of Mark Adair

Can you please send me an email. I am Marks agent and would like to put you through to have a conversation with him. (Redacted) John2732 (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

John2732, you can email me using the "email this user" link found in the sidebar to the left. Alternatively, have a look at Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. Emailing info-en-qwikimedia.org will put you in touch with a volunteer group specializing in dealing with confidential information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You are a great administrator, who solves problems quickly and easily. And you deal with vandalism really well and because of you, there vandal count is dropping every day. You are one of the greatest admins I've ever met.Spike789 Talk 01:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

high risk merchant account

Hello Neil, My article on High risk merchant account is removed no matter how many times I revise it. There is a huge importance for merchants to know the difference between a merchant account and a high risk merchant account. We have been in the industry for 10 years and everyday we deal with educating people on the differences. I wanted to create a qiki page that explained this. In short, just so you can understand. Typical banks like " Chase bank, Bank of America, wells fargo, ect" will only set up merchant accounts for retial stores that "physically can touch" a persons credit/debit card. Places like, dry cleaners, clothing stores, restaurants, jewelry, ect. They WILL NOT set up merchant accounts for industries such as: Call centers, Diet Pills online, MLM, Hotel discount websites, Coupon sites, Debt collection agencies, credit repair agencies, tech support companies, ect. These companies need a "high risk merchant account" because all of their customers are not face to face with the merchant and there is a higher probability for chargebacks or stolen credit cards. Their rates will be higher and there will be more rules and regulations with these "high risk merchant accounts" That being said, I really would like to create the page to educate the public on the vast differences but it seems that due to the lack of awareness of wiki editors they think it is advertising, so if you could help me better understand I would really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmp17 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Bmp17 The version of the article that I saw had no references. Articles need to be written about notable subjects, and notability is determined when a subject receives significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Without references, that cannot be determined. Frankly, based on what I saw, the entire contents could be included as a paragraph in another existing article—not sure which, but I'll leave that up to you. Maybe Credit card fraud? Looks like "card not present transaction" is already mentioned there. There is also an article about Card not present transaction I don't know that the content you wish to submit requires its own article, though. We could create a redirect from High risk merchant account to wherever the paragraph you submit winds up, so that anyone searching for that term gets the information they need. The content, though, would have to be well sourced. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Bmp17, I see you've once again recreated the article with the same issues. I have prodded it. Please read what Cyphoidbomb wrote above as it contains very useful advice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Millennials

Hi, when you have a moment could you ask the admin who locked the Millennials page to unlock it? We were talking it out on the talk page and MusikAnimal decided to lock the page during the talk session. The action wasn't needed and seems biased. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9500:6879:44D5:DB6D:A53A (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the precise reason it was semi-protected. Let the talk page discussion play out, reach a consensus, and the changes will be implemented. You are free to make an edit request at any time — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9500:6879:44D5:DB6D:A53A (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Combination Lock hoax inserter

I'm sure you remember Stewartvinrese123, who kept insisting on making up this show, creating articles on it, and inserting it into Grey DeLisle. Take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stewartvinrese123 and Combination Lock (Game Show). Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks to be taken care of. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Generation Z

Hi, could you take a look at the direct quote from Stats Canada on Generation Z please? See the talk page. The opposing editor want to paraphrase instead of using a direct quote from the source. Paraphrasing twists the meaning and a direct quote is actually what the source says. Isn't that the definition of OR? 2606:6000:610A:9500:6879:44D5:DB6D:A53A (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you can answer this: what is the Wikipedia policy when an news article misquotes the original source? And that can be easily proved on their website. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9500:40A5:2C2:AE1B:2669 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Stats Canada should be left out of the generations articles. They have a very confusing and convoluted explaination of a cultural generation. For example, they claim that there is a generation who were born during a five year period of time -- that is ridiculous. See page 6 of this document [2] We should leave them out. Do you agree? 2606:6000:610A:9500:40A5:2C2:AE1B:2669 (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, could you weigh in on unlocking the page? The requesting editor McGeddon has an apparent conflict of interest. He/she requested the lock then continues to edit the page at-will. The lock is until Nov. 11 which is unreasonable amount of time since the disputed content is being discussed on the talk page for a few days now. 2606:6000:610A:9500:BD14:DEDA:EF05:DFC4 (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I realize you are busy but could you respond about this issue. It's a apparent conflict for an editor to request a lock on a page and then continue to edit the page at-will. Do you see that? 2606:6000:610A:9500:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The protecting admin, CambridgeBayWeather, would take that into account when evaluating page protection. Since you jump IPs (not your fault), page protection is a better option than blocking one of your IPs to stop the edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well the locking admin just said this to my request to unlock the page: "Looks like dispute to me. Use the talk page and discuss it". 2606:6000:610A:9500:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Which is good advice. I can't actually do anything here. Registered editors are not prohibited from editing semi-protected articles they've requested protection on and you've just been reported to WP:ANEW which undercuts any argument that you've stopped edit warring on articles. My advice: either register an account or live with the fact that if you revert multiple editors, the article will be protected to stop that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but you could ask the Gen Z locker to unlock right? 2606:6000:610A:9500:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

DOY deletions

I support your removing crap from the already overburdened DOY pages, but the editor who undid your prior edits may have MOS on his side. I mean you can claim BOLD but he can revert, .... My point is that maybe those which are non-notable or stubs which haven't been improved since they were created should be PRODded or AFDed. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Quis separabit?, I opened a discussion here. I can see it adding it to one article, but sixteen? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see I made a mistake in thinking these were non-notable individuals, not the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence, which I would still agree is insufficiently notable to merit 16 references; perhaps one as you suggest. Just to clear that up. Quis separabit? 03:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Got your message

I have heard of "Vote X for change", however, Elockid didn't state this was the reason why he reverted, he just reverted a report made about him. Like I said in the edit summary, it generally doesn't look good when you revert something about yourself, and yes I looked at the post he was talking about. Thanks for the heads up on that post, I won't touch it again if it's reverted. (I was writing on that board and got edit conflicted with that IP's post the first time :) ) KoshVorlon 18:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Randomness

Hi What u doing Tonight

Eating dinner, I expect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

:) GAB^Hello! 01:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What an odd conversation to be having on Wikipedia... 156.12.251.17 (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you come here often? Bishonen | talk 04:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC).

You know on Wikipedia, it's a complete crapshoot. I bet Drmies never thought their answer to the original question would be, "Getting RSI while removing licking breasts redirects". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a sec--almost done. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

How YOU doin'? Phew, that section is done. God knows how much more. I wonder about his RSI on 20 September. I'm glad he wasn't interested (AFAIK) in other parts of the female anatomy. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh shit. And I thought I covered that topic already. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: A while ago, I realized that Wikipedia is the 21st century equivalent of sausages. This situation certainly lends some credence to that observation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm done--I can't even see straight anymore. And there's a lot more shit that needs to be shoveled. Later, Drmies (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Utterly SERIOUS question: I would like to know what sign everyone on this thread is. I'm serious. Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm seriously partial to this one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  

Borcker

There's been a lot of bizarre activity over at Footjob, and I strongly suspect that it is connected to blocked sockmaster Borcker, who pulled a lot of similar shenanigans. This occurs the very day your kind protection of the article expired. I think that we're dealing with a very persistent and devoted vandal here. Glad I'm not dealing with this at work, otherwise my browsing history would seem rather disturbing. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 00:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

GAB, thanks for the heads up. Re-protected 6 months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks! I think I might pull together an SPI tomorrow on these guys. GAB^Hello! 01:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely block. I have never seen a more aggressive vandal. Perhaps someone with previous experience? GAB^Hello! 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

GAB, they know about AIV so probably. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

88.144.241.175

Neil, since I see you online would you take a look at 88.144.241.175, an IP jumper ranting about the same POV c.f. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucyintheskywithdada, and put your foot down if you feel fit. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sam Sailor, blocked. If more socks show up, please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Bird Set Free (Sia song)

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that a user has been adding Adele as a writer for the song "Bird Set Free" by Adele on both the song's page and the album's page (This Is Acting). If you could let them know that they're edit warring, since they've done it a few times now in the same day, I would appreciate it. 156.12.251.17 (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Warned for adding unsourced material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Case regarding User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte's articles

Neil, per this, will you add the latest post from this editor at User:Flyer22 Reborn/Leucosticte's commentary? I'm not asking you to restore the diff-links so that they are no longer revision deleted; I'm only asking for the post. Administrators will obviously be able to see what the diff-links reveal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil; taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Shaun King (activist)

Neil, the issue is certainly a BLP one. The reliable sources cited treat the issue as a statement of fact. The rewrite ignored what those sources said and, in fact, intentionally misrepresented and lied about what the sources said. The sources do not attribute the matter of his racial heritage to "King says." This is not only a violation of BLP, but a violation of the even more foundational WP:V, as the new text was not supported by the sources supplied. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: "however, King says he is the son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father" is derived from "prominent social justice activist Shaun King told The Washington Post Thursday that he is biracial because he is the son of his white mother and a black man whose identity he does not know." This is not an obvious BLP violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Neil, you missed the sources that are in-line cited to support the specific statement. King is the son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father[6][15]. Those sources are this article and this article. The former specifically states, as fact, The son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father. The latter specifically states, as fact, TwitChange, the winner of the most creative social good campaign in 2010, was a Black-owned company. Neither reliable source treats his racial heritage as a matter of POV or attributes it to King. It is an obvious BLP violation to misrepresent what those sources say about a living person's racial heritage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: And you can discuss what sources to use on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

And those sources are there, and have never not been there, and what they have said has not changed. The edits by Winklevi and then by the IP, who took up the cudgel, changed the text in a manner not supported by the sources but left the sources intact, as if they supported what was being said. Changing the text of a biographical article to say something not supported by the sources is a BLP violation, and a verifiability violation. I'm not sure what part of this you're missing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: As I stated initially, "King says" is not a misrepresentation of "Shaun King told The Washington Post". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The section in question is not and never was cited to The Washington Post. It was, and is, cited to two reliable sources which state his racial heritage as a matter of unquestioned fact. The text was changed; the sources cited were not. If there was an intent to change the sources cited, one would think the "experienced editor" would have done so. They did not — they simply changed the text of a living person's biography in a manner that misrepresented the cited sources and expected to walk away. If they believe that other sourcing should be used, that's a discussion worth having on the talk page, and I've opened a discussion to that end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Sorry, yes, you're right. I was looking at the sources in the Questions regarding race section. So I'll semi-protect the article. However, if Winkelvi puts in proper sourcing then it becomes a matter for discussion and reverts may be seen as edit warring. Winkelvi, I do not recommend you change the text without discussing first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to take a second look at this issue, Neil. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries about me doing anything to the article in the near future, NeilN. The editors who have been guarding the article for months now have successfully chased away another editor there. Not much unlike the Ahmed Mohammed/clock boy article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Thank you for your persistence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The current pp template is inappropriate and should be removed or replaced. Artw (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Artw, full protection is appropriate in a content dispute. And despite NorthBySouthBaranof's RFPP report, the text was originally written by an experienced editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent

Hi Neil, the Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent page is undergoing a slow edit war, and the 1RR discretionary sanctions might help. Can you take a look? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection

Hi NeilN, Please protect Israelis article for 1 month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by דאמיזרצס (talk • contribs) 12:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi דאמיזרצס. Please read our protection policy. There's not enough recent disruption to merit protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

hi

could you comment at wikiproject med talk page, last section [3](I had pinged you about a possible SPA) thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Yes, I got the notification. Just working through the list :-) Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

note:

I do understand what you're saying; and I appreciate the feedback. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  17:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Mudar Zahran

Hello, you blocked ip address @82.3.238.241: for a week. I kindly request an indefinite period of time, per Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Indefinite blocks. Considering the fact that he posted 4 highly aggressive toned legal threats in less than 15 minutes.--Makeandtoss (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, we don't indefinitely block IP addresses per WP:IPBLENGTH: "IP addresses used by blatant vandals, sockpuppets and people issuing legal threats should never be blocked for long periods unless there is evidence that the IP address has been used by the same user for a long time." If the editor comes back with that IP or another one without retracting the threat then we will reblock again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: "Unless there is evidence that the IP address has been used by the same user for a long time"... which is the case here. IP contribution explicitly shows that the same person has been exclusively using this IP address for about 368 days, which I guess is more than enough.--Makeandtoss (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, what I find in these cases is that one of three things happens. 1) They retract the threat. 2) They switch IPs and start socking. 3) They stop editing altogether and disappear. If they start editing with the same IP without retracting then the next block will be much longer (but still not indefinite). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Uhm why still not indefinite? (Regardless of the fact that they have several other options to escape the indefinite block on the IP). --Makeandtoss (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, because that's straight policy: "IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely." We block for one year, two years, three years... but not indefinitely. We assume at some point in time, another person will get that IP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe 1 week is too insignificant, anyway, thank you for your time.--Makeandtoss (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, you realize the editor is de facto indef blocked, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Unless he retracts, no?--Makeandtoss (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, correct. He was blocked for making legal threats. He can be unblocked if he retracts those threats. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Which is sort of the problem here.. He will probably retract, and his stance becomes as if no abusive legal threats were ever made.--Makeandtoss (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, if he was reported for making legal threats and blocked for making legal threats that block can't suddenly be for something else. If he retracts and then continues editing disruptively then he'll be blocked again for that behavior. BTW, no need to ping editors on their own talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, sorry to disturb. But is this type of action allowed on wikipedia? [4].Makeandtoss (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, it's an offwiki action but it's still prohibited per WP:MEAT. The article is fully protected for 2 weeks and the IP is blocked for 6 months so right now all that needs to be done is watching for signs of meatpuppetry when protection expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Suspected tampering of information on Agoda.com to provide misleading info on wikipedia

Hi,

Please compare information on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoda.com) on the number of employees. It is written by Asheshong (an employee of Agoda) that the the company has over 2,000 employees worldwide. On 22 Oct, I had left an message to him that the Agoda.com show 1300 instead.

This is the google cache version on 3 Nov, showing 1300. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.agoda.com/info/about-agoda.html?asq=jGXBHFvRg5Z51Emf/bXG4w==

However, the information had been changed to 2000 in the "Live" version (http://www.agoda.com/en-sg/info/about-agoda.html?asq=aDXiC8E8RTUAwy3fLvyxI6ZwabNakf/QIq3PImRy+t6pks4y+437qH2ICjErBu0VHTS7uuP9x4PNjhfAlPM4Yv3lkvQoQ27oSvHJHQjqE9rCREf7MehOqWBRcpHGJjwQP12kFnRKRI0YEWacb5qD11XwByl4sGhSgkTH4aHFI24=&cid=1651632&tag=ad91fe07-6cf6-4571-99c2-ce65ad3206b6)

It seem to be a case of tampering of own website's information to provide misleading information on wikipedia. Please look into this.

Boonchong chua (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Boonchong chua: Have you considered the possibility that the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page led someone at the company to check the employment stats from the company's website and compare those to personnel records? Finding a discrepancy of 700 employees may have motivated that person to request that the person responsible for the website fix the issue. The company is part of Priceline (verified independently) and it seems unlikely that they would publish incorrect info about employment numbers just to trick Wikipedia.  Etamni ^mobile | ✉ | ✓ 20:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Etamni Hi, prior to 22 Oct, the figure show 2000 and it was updated to 1300 and it stay there at least till 3 Nov. Coincidentally, the figure was reverted back to 2000 AFTER I left a message with a employee who had written the page. It look like a case of update of company's profile according to wikipedia instead of the other way around. Updating the company's profile page is not like updating one's blog, surely there had to be approval and confirmation before doing so. If I am totally wrong, it would seem like there is someone in the company (with certain level of permission) who change information carelessly? Also, there are no other ref to support the company profile. Would this ref be acceptable as reliable source?

Boonchong chua (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Boonchong chua: I apologize for the delay. As mentioned on my own talk page, I've been without internet for a few days. I cannot speak for the company we are talking about, but I've worked for large corporations before and sometimes out-of-date information continues to be displayed on company websites, internal sites, etc. until someone figures out who is responsible for the information and gets them to change it. This is especially likely to happen if there have been personnel changes in the department that is responsible, and nobody is quite sure who is actually in charge of updating some minor trivial bit of information. In my opinion, a company's own website can be considered reliable for non-controversial information about the company, and for determining a company's official position regarding certain controversial issues. If there is no specific reason to distrust the employment numbers, then go ahead and use them and cite the source. Do keep in mind that employment numbers may be different depending on what department is reporting them and how they are calculated. This may seem counter-intuitive, but different numbers might result if, for instance, one person is just counting how many people get pay checks each pay period, while another person may include employees at subsidiaries, and someone else may count independent agents or contractors or temps as employees based on the fact that the company is essentially employing them, even if they are not technically "employees" of the company. I would be happy to discuss this further, but it should probably be on my talk page instead of here. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  02:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Etamni Hi, that still does not explain why the figure was change from 2000 to 1300 and back to 2000. Is it a simple case of wrong update? If it was, then does it raise a concern for such a unconfirmed and unverified update? Curiously, how come Asheshong somehow suspected that the figure was wrong and checked with his own company and surprisingly turned out he is correct in his suspicious which lead back to the company's website being changed back to the original 2000???

Boonchong chua (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sa925 again

So, recently off a 48 hour block for disruptive submission of post-credits content at The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water, Sa925 has resumed the disruptive submission of blah blah blah. I'll get your bright yellow bucket ready. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Langah (caste) and Langah (tribe)

Hello. I made a mistake by moving Langah (caste) page to Langah (tribe) as that page already existed and was redirected to Langah (clan). It was a honest mistake and I did not know that those page existed. Can you please revert them and I will try to merge them. WikiBulova (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiBulova, the article is back at Langha caste. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop!

I don't know what your fixation is with me and I don't care. You have been needlessly rude, I am doing my best. I don't care who this guy is I just know that the article started off very badly, my lack of experience didn't help, and as I've discovered recently mobile and web options are different. History is not available on mobile. In addition there have been other contributors and editors whose additions have been valuable. I have helped with other articles and intend to do so when I can and with more caution. I recently had a discussion with another editor GB and their proposal to help the article was a good one, but a lack of co-operation on the part of the other individual is a roadblock. I'm sorry you are finding this difficult, but I prefer to work with people like GB because middle ground is a good route. I don't own the article and neither does anyone else. I shouldn't have started with a living person article, they are trickier than I thought. Hope you take time to consider what other editors have had to offer, I'd rather work as a team. If you feel anything I have said here is evidence that I need to be blocked from this topic, I'm sorry you feel that way. Thank-you for your efforts as well, I have noticed them. CheckersBoard (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@CheckersBoard: Given your editing history, edits, and multitude of warnings you've received from various editors your assertion that you "don't care who this guy is" falls completely flat. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Guss what? I explained most of that already so someone here has tunnel vision and a mission and it's not me. You want a flame war pick someone else. You're obviously more interested in a fight than editing and quite frankly I don't care what you think because you've just come in to do battle. Don't talk to me anymore. Go bother someone else. Talking to you achieves nothing. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckersBoard (talk • contribs) 03:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Pervert barn star guy

Hey, can a hard block that will take out this dude's IP be applied? This is the second instance of this as you know, plus a very ducky set of pornographic block templates that were done by an IP6 in between. John from Idegon (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I did do an autoblock (hardblock). Did you mean something else? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For dealing quickly with a troll at the Reference Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

removal of Pashtuns by the (now protected) punjabi wiki page

so there are multiple reasons why not to include them here are some: pashtuns have a different culture ,totally different clothing ,history and origin than punjabis

same goes for balochs and balochs are like pashtuns iranic people and aren't closely related to punjabis and they weren't added before and pashtuns also lived extremly isolated due to them living in the mountains

Pashtuns are an iranian ethnic group originating from afghanistan

pashtuns in afghanistan didn't have a lot of contact with punjabis

pashtuns rarely married punjabis since it was against the pashtunwali (f.e. in afghanistan is a small punjabi minority who live extremly isolated)

pashtuns live on the iranian plateau and punjabis on the Indian subcontinent

pashtuns are waaay closer related to the iranians

if punjabis and pashtuns are related it's distand and definitely not as close as punjabis and sindhis are related to each other

pashtuns lived extremly isolated , punjabis were great merchants all over india

pashtuns also have different phenotypes than punjabis

pashtuns weren't added before one user Filpro keeps on adding them although a lot of people removed it , he keeps on adding them which I don't understand, we have talked about this in the punjabi talk Vikingswarri (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Vikingswarri, and you can discuss this on the article's talk page. Not here, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC

i did aand pashtuns and balochs were removed but filpro added pashtuns and balochs and you protected it then , meaning it can't be reveresed by m so i ask you kindly to remove balochs and pashtuns like before  :)

Vikingswarri, protection means the edit warring must stop and discussion must start or continue. If consensus does not emerge then please look at WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, he already agreed and , more than one people keeps on removing pashtuns,he said his reasoning why he added them , is because they are neighbouring each other not because they are related which doesnt make any sense since that tab is abot related ethnic groups not neighbouring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingswarri (talk • contribs) 10:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

me

Ill stop, but the reggie wayne one was pretty funny though lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redskinsfan2001 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

note

There are people here on wiki that I have a huge amount of respect for. You are one of them. I tend to be insecure by nature, and when I get questioned I tend to back-off. I really appreciate your note. I'm an old man searching for the right things to do, let me get back to ya. — Ched :  ?  06:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Grey DeLisle protection duration

I see you just protected the article until May 2016 from sockpuppets, but quickly reduced it to just January. Out if curiosity, was there any particular reason for reducing the time length? Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: That's not what I meant to do. I meant to apply 6 months PC, 2 months semi. Fixed now - thanks for alerting me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. It just seemed odd to reduce semi-protection length so abruptly. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Potential superpowers

Hello NeilN. Wondering how to proceed here. It is clear to see from this discussion that while myself and Iryna want to see the "Other contenders" section restored, Jirka.h23 unfortunately just wont accept fact. A case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it perhaps?Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Any suggestions? Do we return to the consensus and GA review during the summer of last year?

As you know, myself and Iryna have already expressed a wish to do so, due to concerns of WP:UNDUE and others. It would also be nice if the article were to actually deserve/keep its GA status. But I am not willing to make the necessary changes that will only be immediately reverted by Jirka.h23, who will not accept that there is a huge disparity in academic support for countries like Russia, as opposed to China etc. It needs to be explained to him, by someone with more authority than myself, that the necessary changes are in accordance to Wikipedia policy. It would be nice to hear your thoughts on this. I understand you are busy, but I would appreciate your time.Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Antiochus the Great, I'm still thinking about what to do here. How about a WP:DRN case? That would focus on substantive issues and keep the process moving. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I was also thinking of bringing it to the attention of WikiProject International relations. Cheers for the reply.Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Kulwant Ladhar

I'm not sure who this is directed at, and I don't care, but I thought I should let you know. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

note

I reverted pure vandalism. Which is page blanking, which is exempt from 1RRMakeandtoss (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Content dispute, not "pure vandalism" and you're very lucky you weren't blocked. Continue the same behavior when protection expires and you will be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, it was by mistake anyways.Makeandtoss (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Tommy Sotomayor

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Saraiki dialect

Hi Neil, would you please watchlist Saraiki dialect for a while? The article has been periodically disrupted by a sock operator called LanguageXpert. Their usual MO is to promote a POV about their nation's languages and then act really attitude-y about their perspective over others. There's been some attitude-y edits as of late from a 39.* IP. LanguageXpert was suspected to be using this range. Thanks, my good sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-published source added to Millennials

Could you give your expert opinion on this please: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dale_Carnegie_Training_Center_.2F_Millennials — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610A:9500:ACEF:1314:2DCF:1044 (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

58.187.163.215

Thanks. Anything I should be doing to monitor him? SireWonton (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

SireWonton, no need. He hasn't edited since you first warned him so my guess is that he's gone away. I'll keep an eye out to see if he resumes. Basically, admins usually won't block unless an editor vandalizes after a final warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Is what I gave him (Template:uw-vandalism1) appropriate, and should I give it to other users who haven't been warned about vandalism but should be? Also, what are my rights to give out warnings (I know I can't block or ban), but is there a level reserved for admins? SireWonton (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

SireWonton, I would have given a uw-disruption1 because I wouldn't be sure what the intent was there. The level was appropriate and you can read more about them here: WP:UWLEVELS. There are no levels reserved for admins. If you come across a bit of vandalism an editor wasn't warned for consider how long ago the vandalism took place. If it's more than 3-4 hours for IPs or a few days for registered users then I usually won't bother warning because it's likely they've moved on. I also won't warn if they've received a warning for vandalism they've done after the vandalism I've spotted (sometimes editors don't check the vandal's history after they've caught the latest bit). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix

Neil,

I think you know how much I respect you but oh my gosh, this Neelix situation is a catastrophe. When I read your comments defending him, I am just amazed. He is clearly a net negative to the project, clearly a person with serious problems incompatible with our project to build an NPOV free encyclopedia, and clearly someone who needs to be desysopped and blocked promptly. Please take another look at this and see what a disaster it is to avoid acting promptly and decisively in this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Let's see what I've actually said so far:

• Blocking and desysopping need discussion [5]
• A call to desysop in a discussion. I believe I was the third support. [6]
• Frustration at the Arbcom bureaucracy and wishing they would get on with it. [7]

I don't see how this is "defending Neelix". What I am poking holes in, however, is the notion that there's some grand conspiracy to keep Neelix unblocked and with his bit. No, it's just Wikipedia's usual plodding pace (which I expressed frustration at). Remember there were at least two admins ready to block Neelix at a drop of a hat (and at least one of them is rather an activist admin) but that didn't happen. I doubt their inaction was to defend Neelix or part of a conspiracy but rather waiting to see where the community stood. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am one of the very last ones to posit a conspiracy, and I have not looked at everything you have said. I am confident that most of it makes sense. But I am really deeply disappointed by the inaction of our administrator/arb corps in this matter, which seems crystal clear to me as just a low level, rank and file editor.

A few weeks ago, I noticed an unusual lesion on my ear and went to see my dermatologist. She immediately recognized it as a likely skin cancer and cut it away with a razor blade, and sent the tissue for biopsy. I will have a Mohs procedure soon. Why can't the administrators do the same with the malignant Neelix? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you very well with your health, Cullen! That's a bit of a near miss or scare! Meanwhile, one good effect of the delay is that we're seeing more and more of the Neelix and Neelix-related iceberg appear every day. I think it's actually going to take years to undo his POV empire entirely, and even it (the walled empire of advocacy articles and the side-articles created to prop them up) is itself often rotten with bad sourcing, unfounded claims, and bizarre errors, not to mention absurd bloat, POV, and lack of notability. It's disheartening to say the least, and the number of man-hours that in the end will be spent on this cleanup will probably unprecedented, at least in my experience here. And I'm not even talking about the 80,000 redirects. Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::Neil, I couldn't agree with Cullen328 more. I am mortified that this wasn't handled swiftly, and embarrassed to be part of an organization that can in any way condone this behavior. I keep hearing what a toxic place for women Wikipedia is, but really hadn't seen it first hand. Until now. In 2015, a man cannot commit actions in ANY social setting that reduces women to a list of parts. A man cannot engage in creepy stalker like behavior. (Robert John Bardo comes to mind, frankly. It's creepy.) I realize that being sexist and creepy are not in and of themselves policy violations, but one of our pillars is IAR. Pretty sure Jimbo put that in to cover situations like this, where obvious common sense is not codified in policy. Prayers for you, Cullen. Prayers for Wikipedia too. Any takers for bets on which news magazine puts this on their cover next week? John from Idegon (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your supportive remarks, Softlavender. Yes, I will be fine with the proven treatments of modern medical technology, though it would be much worse if I relied on naturopathy or homeopathy. Figuratively, those seem to be the Wikipedia treatments. The "good effect" that you mention is, in effect, the result of the pathology reports being done by editors motivated to excise the cancerous pus that Neelix has deposited throughout this encyclopedia. I do not have the appetite for such work, but commend those that do. The failure, though, is that he has not yet been desysopped or blocked, though I see that he has finally been topic banned from creating redirects. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you also, John from Idegon. I truly appreciate your remarks. I am a guy who has defended this encyclopedia during several controversies, or remained silent during many, under the theory that the project as a whole was outstanding and transcended petty little controversies. But this case (unless I am blind to something) illustrates the utter failure of our current team of administrators and arbs to deal in the most simple way with something deeply loathesome and disruptive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and John from Idegon: Before you put further blame on admins, you should recall that admins are supposed to carry out community consensus and not act as self-appointed moral stewards. Failure to remember this in the past on the part of some admins has resulted in admonishments and desysoppings. By my quick count, the indef blocking discussion at ANI had these results: 11 for indef block, 2 for 1 year block, 2 neutral, 14 opposing blocking. So obviously the situation isn't "crystal clear" to many editors. If it had been, you'd get 70% to 80% supporting and Neelix would be blocked right now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Your point is very valid, Neil. I guess that I am as disappointed with the editors who tolerate this type of behavior as much as anything else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

One of the perks of being a boss is you get to listen to the underlings whine.  :) My disappointment is with the community. My hope, albeit fleeting is that the arbs realize that their job is to look out for the community, not just rubber stamp it. This cannot be tolerated. John from Idegon (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that Neelix has resigned as an adinistrator and is under a topic ban on redirects. Various editors are trying to clean up his walled garden of obsession. So that's all good. There must be a better way, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Desysops by quick-motion that are initiated by an arbitrator. In other words, this should not have failed because of bureaucracy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

White people#Ever-expanding infobox

In the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy we can see as treat the racial issue of people who are so ancient that no one has artistic source as they were physically, and yet exist this article argumenting each group hypothesis to give by truth certain beliefs about the Egyptians. As you see them, this article should Not exist, because in that age not is not written that nobody classified to other groups as whites, blacks, or asians--Vvven (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vvven: I am confused as to what exactly you want done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

i try to mean this article is saying an ancient egyptian was white, or ancient egyptian were black, and their article is valid, i said Da vinci was white because f.e. all his pictures confirm this, as they say the unrecognizable color of ancient egyptians, they affirm was black or white, for example in that article is it that a scholar say "When I visited the sphinx ... on seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features" i mean just for seeing the little damage shynx of gyza, he saw that It looked like a black face, i affirm in my case that da vinci was white because in his pictures he completelly see as white, and his descendants were europeans--Vvven (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) Academic consensus says that Cleopatra was white and Greek, and thousands of years old Egyptian funeral art clearly shows that the ancient Egyptian ordinary people where white/Mediterranean, and looked exactly like the people who live there now. Thomas.W ^talk 17:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vvven:, okay, I have no idea why you brought this to my talk page as I'm not involved in that particular dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Thanks. for show that you said is true and thats beliefs are definite, you need go to a debate about Ancient Egyptian race controversy, we are debating here if my edits are valids in the White people article (are the article images) althought you can contribute in the debate--Vvven (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Vvven, pings won't work if you add them after you post. I suggest you go to Thomas.W's talk page and engage him there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No, please don't. I have no intention of joining that discussion since I engage plenty of fringe-pushers elsewhere on en-WP, and have no desire to also engage the "Cleopatra was black"-crowd. Thomas.W ^talk 18:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vvven: No, we're not debating that here. Please use the article's talk page and engage Carwil who is the one who removed Da Vinci. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: this is difficult to understand man? no. i talking about is why in Da vinci image you has different rethoric than in Ancient Egyptian race controversy if are differents articles with the same stated problem (just your argument)--Vvven (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vvven: Yes, this is difficult to understand because I wasn't the one who specifically removed Da Vinci. [8] I have no interest in this debate. Please take it elsewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

sorry, very sorry, i dont know i was debating to you, a little confusion, sorryfor quit your time--Vvven (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Warning to your disruptive editing and 3RR in November 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
--178.73.210.113 (talk)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Very strange how you show up after the editor adding that cruft to Kim Yuna has been indef blocked for edit warring. Ignoring talk page consensus as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A Sahgal

Hi Neil, I have pointed out the COI policy to this user [9], but it has fallen on deaf ears. All the edits are unsourced. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Editors with a COI can still edit articles (although they are obviously discouraged from doing so). I've added some referencing info to their talk page. Some of the content should be added back in if a source can be found. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ibisevic height issue

It is becoming obvious that we won't settle our differences on the matter, so I think that a third unbiased party should be involved, for example you. Someone with authority, who will read both sides' arguments and make a final ruling, which both David and I must respect and not change it anymore. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

HankMoodyTZ, I suggest using WP:3O. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

How does that work and has it proven to be efficient? Sorry, I'm quite new around here.

HankMoodyTZ, did you read the introduction and instructions? It's effective if both editors agree to listen to the neutral third party. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A look at at the Cecil situation

Hi. While you're under allegations of supporting an administrator cabal... but much more to the point, since I think you have some judgement based on past interactions... can you keep a tab on what's going on at here (and related places, which is a handful) please? I'm not asking you to do anything, just to keep an eye, since I have the sensation of something escalating, given I think the admin in question isn't acting very admin-like, although MusikAnimal just protected the page following a request. LjL (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: I actually edit conflicted with MusikAnimal writing a response to you. Although an admin can edit the article, all hell would break loose if they did so. I've seen an admin immediately blocked for doing that a few months ago even though it wasn't their fault (their edit went through a few seconds after full protection was applied so they didn't get a warning message). As to the protection itself, I came close to fully protecting it myself about an hour ago and would have if one more revert had been made. Implementing protection often sucks in these types of cases because someone is going to be unhappy and you're going to hear about it, even though you have no personal opinion on the content. If there are complaints, I will sometimes lift protection if the involved editors can show they've achieved consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, we have not achieved consensus, but it looked to me like we had all stopped edit warring (only one editor ever went close to WP:3RR anyway I think, there were just a few involved) and were discussing, albeit heatedly (I'm really not fond of the concept of WP:BLP being used to shut down discussion of sources, and I actually care about that much more than about the specific instance of Cecil the poor lion). But if you assure me that no shady deals are likely going to happen... this is actually all I'm asking you, to keep an eye in case. LjL (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the protection level back to semi, under the condition edit warriors will be subject to blocks (which goes without saying, really). Hope this can be taken as a peaceful compromise, and that you understand why I felt full-protection was warranted — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated - although hopefully of no practical impact, since we will be discussing well after the original protection expiry date instead of edit warring.

(edit conflict) LjL, I'll keep an eye out. And I've said, "BLP invocation is not magic fairy spell" on more than one occasion :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP is taken very (too?) seriously by some, sometimes as a license to WP:CENSOR. That's why I find it a particularly worrisome issue. Unfortunately, I feel the full extent of that policy is justified more by legal concerns of the WMF than encyclopedic concerns. LjL (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

About Reagan (given name)

Why is the page protected? --74.131.36.145 (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Kids messing about. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? Tell mewhy the page is protected? --166.170.52.35 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, you have 31 hours to click on the link above and see for yourself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Another Troll Messing with the Tommy Sotomayor article

Here is the latest troll as you can see from their history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.25.102.133

Thank you for dealing with them quickly earlier today. This may be the same person again under a different IP who is trying to vandalize the page again so maybe they should be blocked for a period of time, your call though. Thanks again. Neptune's Trident (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I posted to the talk page earlier with clear instructions that the article must be nominated at AFD to be considered for deletion. If the disruptive CSD and PROD tagging continues I will consider upgrading the PC protection to a semi. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again. By the way, there was another troll vandalizing the Tommy Sotomayor article again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/100.33.36.252

Neptune's Trident (talk)

Zude Nomination for deletion

I would like to nominate Zude for deletion but that article is locked and I can't add the tag. Tomtasget (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Tomtasget, please read WP:BEFORE. If, after doing so, you still feel the article should be deleted then please write up a policy-based reason for deletion and I will make the nomination on your behalf. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. thanks for your patience and guidance. It's appreciated. Would you please nominate this as a Db-g11. The article is primarily promotes a service and would need to be substantially and fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Tomtasget (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tomtasget: You know that's a speedy delete reason (and a speedy delete was rejected) and editors participating in the AFD are going to say a rewrite is not a reason for deletion, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

NeilN thanks. The other valid policy based reason is Db-web since the zude service never importance or significance (other than to the article owner). I'd still argue that Db-g11 applies Is there a way to add that as a kicker reason?

Tomtasget (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Tom, I don't think any admin is going to speedy delete the article no matter how many times you ask. If this article is to be deleted it will have to be done through consensus at WP:AfD. HighInBC 16:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Tomtasget, suggest you read WP:CORP and frame your rationale based on that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

OK: Doesn't pass WP:CORP. Insufficient Audience. The media cited are of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals). The one citation that would meet this (boston.com) makes no reference to Zude in any manner. Independence of sources, other citations are self published or are not sufficiently independent. Finally advertising and promotion is rampant in the article and needs to be significantly cleaned and scoured. Tomtasget (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Tom you make some strong arguments but you are making them in the wrong place. Administrators cannot unilaterally delete articles for the reasons you are giving, however the community can come to a consensus to delete an article for these sorts of reasons. This discussion is done at Articles for deletion. HighInBC 18:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: You're missing half the conversation :) I fully protected the article due to edit warring on both sides and indicated I would nom the article for deletion on behalf of anyone who had a policy based reason for deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Thanks. But the Article is locked and he needs to nominate for me.

@Tomtasget: And done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zude. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

My bad, I will try to pay more attention. HighInBC 19:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spliff Joint Blunt/Archive

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spliff Joint Blunt/Archive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive

I believe that this is the same https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_November_10&diff=690261720&oldid=690248990 sock who then continued under this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.187.27.194 today after receiving an indefinite block.--68.231.26.111 (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it. Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

and he now continues here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/178.135.80.235 --68.231.26.111 (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

and more of the same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/178.135.80.176 --68.231.26.111 (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected some of the favorite targets. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

although i am not sure how to prove it - this new sockpuppet appears to be the same guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xk9 - i do notice that this new sock appears on nov 13 just after last week's nov 12 bans --68.231.26.111 (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

openned an spi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt --68.231.26.111 (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That wording looks very familiar :-) You need to give a reason why those diffs make you think this is Spliff. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

dont i have enough at the spi yet?--68.231.26.111 (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Craigslist/Daniel Leivick

Re: "Protecting admin last edited in July" [10] He was active in late October.[11] Samsara 23:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Samsara: Ah, okay. I just looked at the contribs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hinduism in Iceland

Hi, could you please take a look at 197.225.195.92 contributions? He seems to be related to Nikhil1234567 (talk · contribs) and his IP farm (see ([12]). Most of his edits add circular "see also" links or empty Hinduism sections to "Religion in Country x" articles. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

JimRenge, yes, same behavior. Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Reincarnated as 41.136.23.202, contributions. Examples [13], [14], [15]. JimRenge (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

JimRenge, IP blocked, registered account indef blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Urgent request for page protection: November 2015 Paris attacks

As soon as possible please. Rob984 (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Rob984, please post this to RFPP or ANI. I'm generally slower to protect when ongoing good faith edits would be prevented and there's not heavy vandalism on an "in the news" article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Eagles of Death Metal

What you deleted was essentially on the mark, albeit terribly written and uncited. I've fixed it. Have a look. I'm not at all sure the article needs to be protected. - Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Jmabel, repeated speculation that they're dead? Yes, the article needs protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah. What you just deleted didn't state that, and I didn't look through the article history. In any case, there is now solid citation for them appearing at the club at the time of the attacks. - Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For consistently protecting the encyclopedia from the interests of vandals and social engineers. Esquivalience t 01:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Same old same old

Hello N. A few weeks ago you rev/del some nonsense from my talk page - and I forgot to thank you at the time - many apologies. Well a new IP 184.151.190.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) performed the same edit on a couple pages so if you wouldn't mind taking care of this it would be much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 05:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No idea of the context and if page protections are required (will let Neil do that), but I saw the edit on Ponyo's page which is on my watchlist and I blocked the IP. —SpacemanSpiff 05:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who it is either or why we have come into their view. Thanks for the block SpacemanSpiff. MarnetteD|Talk 05:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff and MarnetteD: Revdelled. This charmer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks N. I got this to you in a more timely fashion this time :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Things are becoming very messy

The user Paulvinpaulson you blocked might have some off-wiki friends. Editors are giving their cell phone numbers and spamming the same sites and also claim that they don't do paid editing. Now why will they say that, if they don't do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mbsibin

--Galaxy Kid (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Neil, you and I are overlapping a lot today :) I've left a note on the SPI, there's another related and pending SPI. I've wasted a boatload of time on this account and have removed autopatrolled and placed a restriction on uploading any media. Appreciate another set of eyes to look at the socking. —SpacemanSpiff 06:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff Thanks for joining in. I am completely drained off dealing with these users. However Rajeshbie may not be linked by Check User. He has contact with them through E-mail and cell phone. They don't use his device for editing --(My assumption).Galaxy Kid (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hate speech posted on Tommy Sotomayor article

This editor has been posting hate speech on the Tommy Sotomayor article, as seen in the second link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Seatedbean

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Sotomayor&diff=prev&oldid=690585101

And this editor has also been vandalizing the article as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/100.33.36.252

Neptune's Trident (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Upgraded PC protection to semi. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Church of Saint Sava

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Not with one revert in the last month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please See Talk:Jeff Brown (entrepreneur and investor)

Please see WP:OUTING work by user SRepetti on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeff_Brown_(entrepreneur_and_investor) Thanks SelgeBrown (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Libel issue:

Hello; I'm not a regular user and probably made a mistake of not including the point reached about the "controversies section" of the talk page of Aziz Sancar. The dispute was taken to discussion page to solve the dispute; I've added the portion to talk page; can you help with the matter? Thanks Mulkhan (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Mulkhan, actually I helped by protecting the page and not blocking you for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

André Marin

Hey Neil. CheckersBoard is again making inept edits to the André Marin page: [16]. This edit is redundant to content that's already on the page under the "Office complaints" subsection. Also makes no sense why this is in a new section when the content is about his time as ombudsman. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

FuriouslySerene, inept is right. Reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. I don't think the community should have to constantly police the page from this editor, perhaps some sanctions are in order if he/she continues with the COI/inept editing. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Cemile Sultan

Vandalizm You removed her descendants

Sources here https://archive.org/stream/GenealogyOfTheImperialOttomanFamily2005#page/n13/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nalanidil, I strongly suggest you read what is not vandalism. Your document is not a reliable source: "This genealogical study is the first publication of our family association..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the other SO CALLED sources of the article from Mahfiruz, Halime Sultan and so on...is also Not reliable source. It's a selfmade story from the User Retrieverlove, This user always wrote Circassian noble and relations to all woman from different cettury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are this Book are not a reliable source ? This was made by the member of the former Ottoman Dynasty https://archive.org/stream/GenealogyOfTheImperialOttomanFamily2005#page/n13/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nalanidil, no peer review, no editoral oversight, no academic acceptance indicated. I could write up a book claiming my ancestors and current relatives are members of the British peerage and it would be about as reliable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ok, than all selfmade Historians like here in Wikipedia as this Retrieverlover who created nonsense articles about the womans in the ottoman harem is more trustworthy? there also no any reliable sources...OMG...No...

Nalanidil, random functionaries in the Turkish government are also not reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Evader

I believe this might be another one User:166.171.123.86. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Fragment semi

There were also lots of other edits that stack from the vandalism from October 6th 2015. Still then, no one had EVER noticed but the IPs. That is a significant amount of disruption. Looks like socks to me. 115.188.191.246 (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's really not. It was a brief spate of vandalism occurring over a month ago. The page won't be protected because of that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of the Israeli government EW

[17]. VQuakr (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

IP editor you blocked back causing trouble

86.25.147.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back after being blocked. I just reverted some very annoying vandalism of theirs on the Battletanx article; changing release dates so they don't match the source given. Seems they're also forcing through earlier edits on other articles where they were previously reverted. Eik Corell (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Eik Corell, blocked 3 months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Re reverting this

this last example of what was a serial reverting or blanking without talk page participation over several articles, which was then sanctioned a few minutes later for edit warring, I wonder if this can be reverted without my falling on the IR tripwire? The source introduced Michael Sells has been discussed on the talk page: there seems to be no substance in the objections, there is nothing controversial about that scholar -and the edit was the kind of drive-by support revert which plagues the I/P area. I think it vandalism, because it was so blind, that the editor even elided totally uncontroversial fixes to the bibliography, like authorship links, merely, I assume, because I did them. Thanks for your consideration.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, I wouldn't revert. Make your case on the talk page and see if someone agrees. This also pushes the currently blocked editor to respond instead of just reverting when the block expires (assuming their revert is undone within the next couple days). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite correct,and I won't revert but there is no point in arguing this because there is no argument to be made that would justify drive-by removal of academic sources by specialists in the fields. The source though of impeccable scholarship is of the kind disliked at sight. The argument was summed up by this exchange:

User:No More Mr Nice Guy asked Where's Zero, who demands only the very best sources for historical articles?

And User:Zero0000 replied to the effect that it was the best source around

There should be some rule that disallows drive-by removal of sources of such high quality, esp. by edit warriors who never address the talk page. They plague that area of wiki. Still, your call is technically correct, even though the blocked editor is an obvious sock, though I can't prove it, and they are even more unamenable to rational persuasion than the average editors in that abandoned area, so talking to them is pointless, or rather a formality required by our protocols. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

One final point before I drop this. I suggest the page be locked as it stands. A revert war has begun, and while 3 editors have restored the last version as I left it, they had legitimate reasons for at least a partial revert, because the 3 reverters named below are consistently removing material that has nothing to do with Michael Sells, since they cancelled not only yesterday's material, but tweaks I made to take into account talk page objections, and edits made to fix errors on the page or provide uncontroversial links. I.e. they elided this,this,this, this,this,a spelling correction, for God's sake!,this,this, an authorlink, bibliographical corrections, this,this and some others, none of which have anything to do, despite the edit summaries, with the contested source.To me, this reads as though the objection is not to Michael Sells, but to my editing that page, and thus is not policy based, but personal.

I.e.,

• this by User:7uperWkipedan,
• this by User:Bad Dryer
• and this by User:Dymych

These are behavioural problems because all 3 drive-by editors are removing totally innocuous fixes like (a) my correcting the wrong publication date (2011 =2010); (b) my addition of the full title for Hitler’s Shadow; (c)reverting the delinking the second reference to Philip Mattar, and Zvi Elpeleg, since they are linked up page;(d)reverting my bibliographical links to Peter Beaumont, Israel Gutman, David Kenneth Fieldhouse, Gudrun Krämer, Klaus-Michael Mallmann, Moshe Pearlman (e) reverting even the most innocuous correct of the name of fr:Eric Rouleau to Érik Rouleau; (f)reverting my correcting of Joso to Jozo in Jozo Tomasevich and then delinking it. I feel a certain responsibility since I wrote most of the page, and I regard periodic fixes and minor improvements, wholly uncontroversial, to be part of my work here. None of these 3 editors has ever added a drop to that 200,00kb page, All three have automatically elided even the spelling and link corrections, without examining the text, nor addressing the talk page. The provisonal consensus on the talk page User:Pluto, User:Zero0000, and myself against two other editors who have never participated significantly in the composition of the page, says Sells fits the RS criteria, and yet the edit summaries by the reverters says we must gain consensus? The whole procedure in this shenanigans has no resemblance to normal rational wiki protocols on editing practice.Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Somehow, Nishidani missed the following "drive by editors", who also reverted without discussion:

• this by User:Tanbircdq
• this by User:Huldra
• this by User:RolandR

Some casual observer of this might come to the conclusion that this is simply because those drive-by reversions were to Nishdani's favorite version, but surely that can't be it - as such one-sided, misleading and tendentious appeal on an administrator talk page should be grounds for a swift topic ban. So what do you suppose caused it? As far as I can tell, Wikipedia policy is WP:BRD - Nishidnai introduced a bold change, it was challenged and reverted. Now we are supposed to be discussing it , seeking consensus for inclusion. Instead, we have Nishidani's supporters using their numerical advantage to force their favored but contested version into the article w/o discussion, apparently with some tacit approval from adminstrators. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Bad Dryer, please note I addressed both sides in my talk page post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to get the record straight - here (I/P) even the 'abc' gets disordered by chat - when the claim is made that

'Somehow, Nishidani missed the following "drive by editors", who also reverted without discussion',

the editor is ignoring the fact that I mentioned them above:

A revert war has begun, and while 3 editors have restored the last version as I left it,they had legitimate reasons for at least a partial revert

I.e. (a) I oppose mindless revert wars (b)unlike those 3, you and the other two did not examine what you were doing,to distinguish reverting Sells from reverting my corrections of spelling errors, wrong dates, and my fixing of personal links. The editors you mention restored my later tweaks, which are not imputable or controversial, and thus their restorations were of material elided by careless automatic reverters. This whole episode exhibits all the pathologies of that area. No research, no examination of the merits of each edit, false edit summaries, but mere mechanical reverts of contributions on sight out of dislike.Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock at Amaninder Singh (director)

Hi Neil, I have been trying to improve this article. There is a "new" editor of just a few days who made his third edit at wikipedia by putting a PROD on Amaninder Singh (director). I thought that was a bit curious so I searched the article subjects name. I came up with a SPI page here. [18] Please scroll to 21 July 2015 and look at the bolded section. Do you think this new 10 edit editor could be a sock? His contribs are here. [19] I saw your name in the report I found, so I thought I might ask you about this. I hope you might have time to look this over and let me know how to sort it. Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zpeopleheart. The articles was created by a sockpuppet of the editor you linked to. Given that there were no substantial improvements to the article by other editors, I have deleted it as a WP:G5. If you think you can substantially improve it, I will restore a copy to your user space for you to work on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I wold appreciate that if you would do that. I have been doing some research about the article subject, and I hope to improve it to where I can show notability so I could add it back to the main space at sometime. Thanks so much for your time and help! Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Zpeopleheart, now at User:Zpeopleheart/Amaninder Singh (director). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, thanks so! You are quite nice! Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Irreligion by country

After your block of 217.22.190.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 141.8.61.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues his disruptive editing and edit warring [20]. It looks like block evasion to me. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

JimRenge, up to 1 month now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

217.22.190.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to evade his block. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reeves.ca

CounterTime and Reeves.ca are both new accounts, both are now actively and simultaneously editing the Jizya article, and CounterTime is signing off on Reeves.ca talk page with no content, as if it is CounterTime's talk page, after first wiki edit by Reeves.ca. There is an IP account in the middle of their Jizya edits. Is this unusual? RLoutfy (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

G8s

Was tagging redirected talk pages and one actual talk page. One has to follow the redirect and then go back. Sorry. Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cosby

The Judy Huth case is extremely well-sourced in the sub-article as is all the other content that is summarized in the opening paragraph. I don't understand the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdude04 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Mdude04, did you read my post here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Please explain to me why it is correct that there are no other citations in that entire opening paragraph. It looks weird to only source the child sexual abuse claim.. Mdude04 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Mdude04, we're making simultaneous posts. [21] :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this IP

User talk:216.207.69.66, this IP is doing the same thing [22] that got them blocked a month ago. I gave an 4IM warning. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, blocked 2 months. Thanks for keeping a lookout. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, looking at it now I just saw all the edits made (More than just the one). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/2015 November 17

That page is a frequently edited page. It's not a good idea to enact full protection on it for an extended period of time - rather, one should be keeping watch and lifting the protection as soon as the situation is resolved. I hope you understand now. Samsara 19:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Samsara, I understand why you put the indef on the page but don't agree with that technique. I thinks it's better to protect heavily edited pages for a short period of time and then block the edit warriors if they resume, even if the SPI isn't handled yet. I handled the SPI because I was around and familiar with the matter. Other admins would have probably looked at the mess and moved on, leaving the SPI open for an extended period of time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I was aware that you had agreed to look at the SPI and did not expect you to take long in doing so. Was I wrong? Samsara 19:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

And just to be absolutely clear about that - I was aware of all those facts well BEFORE the user messaged me about them. Samsara 19:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Samsara, probably a misunderstanding. I was advising the IP on how to write a SPI report so it wouldn't get rejected for lack of evidence. I didn't intend to look at it (at least not immediately) until I saw you fully protected the page and decided to get off my butt. As it is, the diffs the IP provided are not that convincing and the report could still have been rejected. I had to do a more in-depth investigation to see socking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright, well thanks for looking at it in such short order then, so that the page could be unprotected in a timely manner. Regards, Samsara 19:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Insults

So how long are we supposed to wait for someone to finally get around to mentioning that all of the insults are not okay? Abel (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: If you're referring to things like "fanboy words" and "fanboy type lists" - these are hardly terms that deserve admonishment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Now I see why there are so many words written about why women and other people who identity with other underrepresented groups feel unsafe joining this community. Abel (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: This statement does nothing to help your cause. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I do not have a cause. I just learned that editors insulting other editors is acceptable behavior as long as the people doing the insulting avoid key words. That was useful to learn, sad, but life can be like that at times. Abel (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

TAKE ISIS OFF WIKIPEDIA.ORG

TAKE IF OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Removeisisfromthegrid (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Removeisisfromthegrid

@Removeisisfromthegrid: While I sympathize, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and will have articles on all notable organizations like the KKK or the Taliban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That, and WP:Wikipedia is not censored.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

References

DIAFYT

Hi Mr. Neil,,

I would like you to reconsider the deletion procedure since it is a commercially usable name.

This is not a generic name. hence may be considered.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suxus ventures (talk • contribs) 05:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Suxus ventures, I'm not the one who put the article up for deletion. I, however, have unfortunately blocked you as you haven't put in for a user name change as requested. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Filing here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Swarop9_reported_by_User:Vin09_.28Result:_.29 is appropriate or it should be in WP:ANI?--Vin09 (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Vin09, it needs to go to ANI as you're not reporting edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I reported Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Chandrala at this place.--Vin09 (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Could you address Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Chandrala?--Vin09 (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Found a sock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Syed_Ali_The_Muslim is almost certainly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Humanidk per WP:DUCK 65.209.62.115 (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you're right. Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

hmmmmmm

that hart you n you know why cuz your the failure person who can not do anything and can not do a good thing for people n become a hero so you use your bullshit time to disturb people and you find the batter way to do this kind of thing is wikipedia your fail person and that why you wanna show off is your right but remainder your not a right and can not be a good that way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.25.252 (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yay, me? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing like a well-written stream of consciousness to boost your self-esteem. LjL (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Blank AfC CSD sanity check

Hi NeilN, could you just sanity check something for me? I've been going through a couple of the AfC categories trying to clean up old, rejected as blank and rejected as test articles for creation, and don't really know what CSD to use for a blank AfC. I'm going with G6 (non-controversial maintenance) at the moment - does that work? See Draft:AyandaThandanani for an example samtar ^{t} 20:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

samtar, yes, I would go with a G6 for anything that's more than a couple months old. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks for that :) apologies for filling up the G13 backlog as well! samtar ^{t} 21:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

samtar, 117 pages up for speedy deletes. I've seen longer backlogs :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Full move protection of templates

Was the full move protection of {{Db-meta}} and {{Infobox racehorse}} intentional? Alakzi (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, I only adjusted the edit protection (as requested) and did not touch the move protection. Do you want me to drop it to template editors and admins? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, right. Well, I can't think of any reason to forbid TEs from moving either page (though I'd not think to move Db-meta without prior discussion, especially), so I suppose that'd be good. Alakzi (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Curious where the request was made? I keep an eye on infobox racehorse and didn't hear word that moving it was a potential problem (?) (We moved it quite a while ago to the current title... just wondering if there is a drama that I didn't know about; not that I really am in the mood for drama right now, more like avoiding it...). Montanabw^(talk) 23:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Ugh, that template was moved around a lot. Tracking this down, moves were limited to admins in September 2010 and that protection stuck through all subsequent moves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

We folks at the equine projects moved it with consensus to its current name a while back and I do recall some drama of someone moving it around or something a few months later, I was just wondering if there was some new drama recently. (Often, wikipedia project space drama is totally off the radar of article space editors...) Montanabw^(talk) 01:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for stopping that guy who was posting disgusting videos on User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad! Eteethan (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I second that. Thanks again. GAB^Hello! 01:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I third, fourth and fifth it!! One way and another it has been a busy day for you N. Thanks for all that you do. MarnetteD|Talk 02:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It was a quiet day up until now! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Better make that "sixth." GAB^Hello! 02:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you do. I have a feeling this guy will strike again...Eteethan(talk) 02:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry Tsarisco (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your help with that IPv6 range earlier. You are awesome! Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, hope you had a relaxing yoga class. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It was! I am off work this week and will be going to yoga again in the morning. So glad you were around to help with the range block. Best, -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

direct democracy ireland

user(neiln) i have used reliable sourced material to update the Direct Democracy ireland page and it have been reverted back to the original there is clearly a conflict of interest with user snappy and murry1975. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railsparks (talk • contribs) 17:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC) and now goaRailsparks (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Article : Morocco

Hi I don't know if you read the recent modifications of this article, but just the last time, a user removed the citations related to the " ethnic groups" and put some totally absurd and false informations without even putting citations to approve his/her claim, and then went to "native language" and removed term "Hassaniya" the native language of the Moroccans living in the South of Morocco and in Western Sahara and changed the term "Moroccan darija" with "Arabic" ignoring the fact that "Arabic" isn't a moroccan native language. I do totally respect other Wikipedien views on this subject but I think they need to put informations with citations not removing informations and citations without replacement. I don't really know what this is called but for me it's pure vandalism and this is why I think that this article need a full protection at least for one month, thanks. Tsarisco (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Tsarisco, this does not look like vandalism but rather a content dispute. You will have to engage the other editor on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again did you read the section related to "ethnic groups" he removed all the citations without replacing them and put some informations not verifiable because they weren't sourced , long before the series of vandalism a user put this just after the tittle "ethnic groups" don't you think that when putting an information it should be sourced ? Tsarisco (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ethnic_groups = Tsarisco (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Tsarisco, again, bring this up on the article's talk page and/or warn the editor for adding unsourced content to the article. We're not fully protecting an article (let alone for a month) because of one editor. And you seriously need to use the "Show preview" button before posting. You are now affecting other editors' posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced edits from Fodbold-fan

Could I get you to make good on a warning you left on this user's talk page about a month ago? In the intervening month Fodbold-fan has received a week-long block and two further warnings for adding unsourced material to articles, and yet the behaviour persists (most recently at Rheda Djellal where the claim that he has played for RFC Seraing is unverified.) I have already reported the matter to WP:AIV where it was promptly ignored, probably because the edits in question aren't actually vandalism, which is why I'm coming to you with this directly. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik, isn't that fact present in here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If it is, I'm not seeing it on my end. This is what I'm seeing (copy/paste /w line breaks added after the fact):

2015/2016 Racing Mechelen THD ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
2013/2014 Grimbergen THD 180 5 3 2 3 0 0 1 0 0
2011/2012 Excelsior ERE 95 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0
A word search for "Seraing" returns "Phrase not found". Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik, sorry, I gave you the wrong link. It's the other one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not sure how I managed to miss that. We all make mistakes I guess. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Chicago Fire Soccer Club

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Cemile Sultan (again)

Why you are changend the children and descendants of her? If you cangend her children and descendants than you should removed from all ottoman sultans, princes etc the descendants ? Isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 03:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nalanidil, again, you are not using a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If the own Family is not a reliable source, so the whole biography of her is witout any reliable source sorry...you should deletet all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nalanidil, that article has independent sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Remind

Could you check User_talk:NeilN#Suggestion. Reminding you if you might have not seen.--Vin09 (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Short blocks

Hi, could I ask you to revisit some of your blocks. As you know, a very persistent troll is systematically vandalising 50 or so articles and user pages, and harassing dozens of users. Other admins have given either indef blocks or at the very least one week. Your blocks of 36 hours let the troll resume from previous IPs, as is happening right now with 81.95.151.207. Jeppiz (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Links:

• Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mary (mother of Jesus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) talk page trolling
• 81.95.151.207 (talk · contribs)

Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The IP was blocked while I was posting the above. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, one IP of the user was blocked but several other IPs of the same user have received very short blocks and are already unblocked, for example 91.233.116.79 (talk · contribs), 189.196.129.102 (talk · contribs), 192.71.213.26 (talk · contribs), all of whom belong to the same troll and were given much shorter blocks than the other 20-30 IPs the troll uses. Jeppiz (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz, if someone rapidly hops IPs like this person does, I assume they're using throwaway IPs that are assigned randomly. If they return to the same IP, the next block is much longer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, if I've understood DeCausa right (as he's been harassed much longer) this person seem to reuse some IPs even though hopping rapidly. Jeppiz (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No I haven't noticed that. I don't know whether that happens or not. DeCausa (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Even if someone can re-use an IP it does not help to block it a long time if they have more IPs to use. Blocking it a long time can result in innocent users being denied access, while not preventing the troll who has more IPs. If the IPs are in a range and contribution history over that range shows it to be the same person then it may be the one person in control of a range of IPs then a range block may be useful. HighInBC 15:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC, the IPs are scattered in this case. It's similar to Vote (X) for Change. If he reuses an IP, admins usually block for three months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

On that, this is the first time this person posted on my talk page. It was a proxy - and I noticed that the admin blocked the range for a year apparently on the basis that the range was acting as a proxy. Is there an exception to the collateral damage problem where it's a proxy range being used i.e. by definition if it's a proxy range they most likely are up to no good and will block for longer. Are ranges identifiable as purely being used for proxy purposes? DeCausa (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa, see WP:NOP. Kuru will need to answer your question about the other ranges as I'm not familiar with open proxies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The person's IPs are randomly from any location in the world - except a batch of dynamic IPs from Emirates Telecom in Dubhai which I've assumed are his actuial "home" IPs. Doesn't WP:NOP mean that all his non-Emerirates Telecom IPs should have long block's per Kuru's block whilst the "normal" short ones reserved for the Dubhai IPs? DeCausa (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa, they might not be all open proxies. There needs to be a determination for each IP used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ban evading sock at AN/I on my talk

Hi NeilN, could you put this sock back in the draw? They made this edit restoring what the previous sock did to my talk samtar ^{t} 15:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

samtar, done. Mentioning him in the above thread probably conjured up some bad mojo. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Saying his name three times whilst spinning clockwise should do it... samtar ^{t} 15:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) samtar I know that works for the Scottish play but using it in other contexts must be done with care so that you don't conjure up this fellow :-) MarnetteD|Talk 16:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Darn, another appeared on my talk page. Looks like you were right MarnetteD! @NeilN: samtar ^{t} 16:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

samtar, already blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers :) no more Wikipedia rituals for me! 2spooky4me samtar ^{t} 16:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

My actions at Metrojet Flight 9268

Hi NeilN. I would be interested in your take on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Metrojet Flight 9268. --John (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to remove the pending?

Ah yes, I have seen that Cleopatra article semi-protected indefinately once again. However, I would like to remind you to always remove the pending change protection if the semi-protection is indefinate. It seems that you have forgotten this. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyxp2000: Done, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please help redirect a duplicate film page

Hello. I can't seem to figure this out myself. There is a duplicate page on Wikipedia for one film, a Western.

This is the new page that was created:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django,_A_Bullet_for_You

Could you redirect it to this page, it is the same film, same actors, same director, it just is listed under a different title, thanks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Few_Dollars_for_Django

Or could you please DELETE the article in the first link. Which is ever easiest, I just want to avoid confusion. Thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident, you got the redirect link right. You just have to delete everything else. [23] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Image Vandalism

The extreme levels of vandalism using the same image had me wondering: Is there any way the offending image in question could be removed for good? I'm afraid I'm not a technical expert on Wikipedia's file policies, but it was just an idea. GAB^Hello! 01:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey GAB. Ask an admin to do what was done today and a couple days ago. Add the file name to the WP:BADIMAGE list. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for my ignorance. As I said, I'm not a genius on the technical aspects of Wikipedia. GAB^Hello! 14:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

GAB, no need to be sorry. Lots of admins aren't geniuses on the technical aspects of Wikipedia either :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring behavior, please take a look

Sir, currently, on both the following pages: Criticism of Hadith and Hadith, user freeatlastchitchat has started an Edit War. He is not talking on the TP ( Talk:Hadith#Recent_cleanup_of_huge_chunks ) , even though he created the entry, and is now just reverting. I've opened content dispute case as well. This will escalate into a continual edit war if no intervention is made. Please take a look, thanks. cӨde1 6 ^LogicBomb! 05:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Muzaffargarh heating up again

This looks to me like LanguageXpert warring against himself [24], or perhaps there are many like him. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Drunken Email?

I seem to have sent you an email while inebriated within the last week. Did I? if so, did you treat it with the correct response? I need to know, sorry. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the dog™, yes you did and I did nothing, which seemed to be the response you desired. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A good outcome. thank you. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Need a bit of advice

Hi Neil, You were giving me advice on the Saffron terror page a year ago. (I miss that side of you these days!) Anyway, I need some advice now. I have been working on Jammu and Kashmir and Article 370, both of which have been in quite deplorable state given the importance of these topics. Both of them have to deal with the autonomy granted to Kashmir and how it has been diluted over the years. So, there is a lot of politics involved here. The question is how much of it can go in the Article 370 page, which is ostensibly on a little article in a big constitution? Viewing it that way masks the importance of the issue. Most other Indian Constitution pages have practically no content. But this one will need a lot. So how much of the politics can be put in here? If not here, where else can it go? Also pinging Abecedare and Vanamonde93, if they are around. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

My gut feeling is to say that Jammu and Kashmir should be modeled after other high-quality articles about regions, with not much weight given to the conflict, while the article should cover the political disputes around that article (such as various promises to repeal it/strengthen autonomy), and rest of the dispute needs to be confined to Kashmir conflict. However, I've been a dilettante editor for a couple months now, thanks to RL busy-ness. I'll try and get back to normal editing soon. There are an unfortunate number of articles on the topic to wade through, too; Kashmir, Kashmir conflict, Azad Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, Article 370. That's probably unavoidable, though, given the complexity of the issue. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, most articles on States are written by enthusiasts of those States. In contrast, Kashmiris are conspicuous by their absence here. Rather, it is the Indians and Pakistanis who write about them. It is a pity. By the way, you have left out Gilgit-Baltistan, and the history articles on each of the regions. So there are even more articles than you imagined. But, the point is that none of them covers the issue of the autonomy of J&K. If I go by the rule book, Article 370 has to cover what the reliable sources say about the subject, and I have in front of me a 500-page book on it. So this material has to go there, right? - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3. I'm guessing Article 370 is a particularly contentious or notorious article? Can the content be modeled after Second Amendment to the United States Constitution? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Good analogy. I will do that. Thanks! - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cho La incident

Hi NeilN, I see that you protected Cho La incident because of content dispute. Please be aware that the "content dispute" is really about two confirmed sockmasters (who could well be the same person) removing content supported by academic sources and restoring an old version with unreliable, partisan sources. See discussion here. -Zanhe (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zanhe. Who are the confirmed sockmasters? Is there a SPI report? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

See block logs of the two users reverting to old versions: [25] [26]. They had both been blocked for sockpuppetry and other disruptive behaviour (D4iNa4, the user who made the page protection request, was recently unblocked after more than a year). They often back each other up in disputes, and I may file an SPI if I have the time to gather more evidence. -Zanhe (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Assistance requested!

Hi Neil, congratulations! I'm here to trouble you once again! I'm having constant trouble with the persistent promotion and other POV crap at Indian cinema articles. Like, I'm almost certain that I'm dealing with editing rings (not that that surprises me). Currently I've got one editor, Aslishiva who, despite many notes from me about POV content, subjective wording, promotional tone, editorializing, still adds editorial crap like "Prem Ratan Dhan Payo took an excellent opening at the box office all over." I already blocked them once for blatant promotion (in retrospect I should have taken your advice and gotten uninvolved help...which is what I'm doing now. I'm still learning.) and parroting as fact some opinions presented by sources. This editor doesn't seem to get it, and everything's a record in need of immediate reporting! The film made an all time record in Saurashtra curcuit by collecting ₹5.25 crore (US$630,000) in its extended first week by beating the previous record of Happy New Year. There's no discrimination happening here. They think everything reported is worth including. And although I've had to teach them to capitalize days, they still have trouble" with "saturday" and "sunday".

I also have RAGHUallen who has attracted my attention for plagiarism, unsourced summary of critical response, promotional language, editorials, etc. This user still has a little more rope with me, but I'm getting close to the end. No request for help here, but maybe eyes?

It's frustrating because it seems like as soon as I get one problem editor off the chart, another one pops up and I have to start the education process all over. Are Indian cinema articles covered by the Arbcom discretionary sanctions? I'm guessing no because they're likely not controversial, but maaaan, this world is giving me a shitload of headaches. Your input/help is requested please, sir! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, no discretionary sanctions I'm afraid. One out of the box suggestion: Get the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force to get together and come up with a content guide for Indian films. Cover how our policies and guidelines apply specifically to Indian movies, cover good sources, cover sources to stay away from, cover style issues (like WP:MOSFILMS) and cover anything else that's a chronic problem. Try to provide Indian specific-film examples but make sure the document is rooted in general policies and guidelines. Try to keep hands off as much as possible when this document is written and get as wide a consensus as possible so you can enforce this consensus as an admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As always, grateful for your feedback. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

And as if by magic, Raghu was indeffed by Diannaa. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My Arbcom candidate preferences

• Support: Drmies, Calisber, Opabinia regalis, Keilana, Callanecc, Kelapstick, Timtrent, GorillaWarfare (somewhat)
• Oppose: Kevin Gorman, Gamaliel, Krill Lokshin, MarkBernstein

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mihir Shah

Dear Neil, I think we have discussed that case of the proposed deletion of Mihir Shah already and this has again come up. There is another user WikiMadhyaPradesh who is trying to delete the article. I requested for semi protection but I understand when you mentioned that I need to settle it using dispute resolution. I am trying but the other person is not relenting and I do not understand what he has against Mihir Shah. He has again brought up the issue that I have conflicting interest, which I do not. Is there a way, you could please prevent the deletion of the article? It is currently minimal as it is.

Vidhya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidhyahere (talk • contribs) 03:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vidhyahere, I declined the proposed deletion earlier. The only way the article can be deleted is after a full full deletion discussion (i.e., no quick deletes). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ararat arev again

Thanks for semiprotecting several of his target articles in the past few days. He's now at Akhenaten and Rosetta Stone. A. Parrot (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected three more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Now Osorkon II and Esoteric Christianity. A. Parrot (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal Any chance an edit filter can stop him instead of protecting a wide range of articles? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Khruner suggested the same thing to Doug Weller, who said to ask Favonian, so I'm just pinging all of them to put the discussion in the same place. A. Parrot (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes this seems straightforward. Working on it — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Psusennes II and Amarna. A. Parrot (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, beside of a IP-range block, his adds are always the same: maybe one who is able to do that, could introduce a rule in ClueBot which can recognize and revert the line. He behaves like a bot, then let a bot fight him. Khruner (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

By all means, let the bot do as much of the grunt work as possible – otherwise I'm quite willing to semi-protect every Egyptian god, pharaoh, pyramid etc. Favonian (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

He's tweaked his style slightly now: Atum, Benben, Hatshepsut, and Thutmose III. A. Parrot (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest IP blocked, articles protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Bennu and Nu (mythology). A. Parrot (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget these two, 166.176.56.41 (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), and 166.170.50.213 (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) too.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected. Mr Fink, blocked one. It's no use blocking older ones as the bozo has already moved on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ennead. A. Parrot (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer block

In view of comments posted at User talk:Drmies#Cowboy unblocks, revisited about pings being missed, I am letting you know that I have posted at User talk:Davefelmer again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have just noticed that when I removed my previous post on this, you had already replied here, and I removed your post with mine. I thought I was removing a section with nothing in it except my own message. After all the times I've posted template messages about not removing another editor's talk page post, that is really a bit embarrassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, no worries, your edit summary clued me in as to why you deleted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

IP-hopping blocked user

Hi. I'm not sure what you can do about it given the IP hopping, but just notifying that since you blocked the user before and then blocked them again due to block evasion, this diff shows they have jumped onto yet another address. LjL (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

LjL, blocked yet again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Now sockpuppeting on the talk page of the article originally under contention. LjL (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Tracking cookies are helpful to identify IP-changing users. LjL (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to un-protect if you want to collect a broader range. Acroterion (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

IP for you

79.178.97.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - reported at AIV but is now giving me the ol' one-two personal attack crap. samtar ^whisper 21:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. samtar ^whisper 21:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutral position?

I just made an edit to Barbra Streisand's wiki page -- and nothing that was written was subjective. It is a fact: 1) she has 10 #1 albums on pop charts -- with Broadway Albums, High Ground, Love is the Answer, People, A Star is Born, Guilty (all different genres) 2) she is the only female artist in RIAA top selling artists 3) She and Frank Sinatra were voted: "greatest voice of 20th century"

It appears to me that you are NOT being neutral, in fact, you are being anything BUT neutral. I have listed facts and apparently you don't like them?

Please explain or ask for sources to substantiate things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco34la (talk • contribs) 00:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marco34la. Much of what you added is already in the article and "What makes Streisand's accomplishment more impressive..." reads like it should be on a fan page, not an encyclopedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

if that is the line that bothers you, then just take that out. the other info that I added, that you say is already there, would be better in the place where I put it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco34la (talk • contribs) 00:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Marco34la, if you want to rearrange content that's up to you. But you shouldn't add (unsourced) content when there's the same thing three paragraphs down with references. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

JDL and Pamela Geller

Ah, it's extremely common knowledge and I was too distracted to look up a source (that's focused and doesn't wander off into all sort of other topics which most on JDL do). But I did find a few and added one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.42.114 (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

History of India

Hi Neil, I think History of India needs attention. It is being attacked by edit-warring IPs. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Myanmar vandal

Hi NeilN - thanks for blocking 111.84.193.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). There have been a range of IPs from Myanmar undertaking sophisticated vandalism for the past month or so. Creating fake infoboxes, adding inaccuracies to Singapore and Hong Kong MRT/MTR system articles and railway templates, etc. I have collected some of the IPs below:

• 111.84.193.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 111.84.193.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 111.84.193.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 111.84.193.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 111.84.193.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 111.84.193.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I am not sure how this works - is it possible to block a range of IPs to preempt more vandalism? It is really a nuisance and he has been warned many times. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Citobun. I did check if I could block an IP range but I think the rangeblock needed (111.84.193.0/24) would block too many other editors. Have a look. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand, thank you. Citobun (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

S. P. Jain Institute of Management and Research

Why are you trying to redo my edits. I have noted your concern. And the list has wiki articles, I am including them in your "noted format", in order to do that I have to bring the original changes back, and then edit it...Why don't you understand that!!! Hope you reply to this as fast as you replied to my edit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by VismayH (talk • contribs) 08:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

VismayH, I randomly chose seven names. One had a (puffed up) Wikipedia article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

See, the companies' name are valid, the alumnis have LinkedIn pages, so can I incorporate that? If so, how? These are the list of alumni the college has, it has been carefully selected. THe data is easily available on public forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VismayH (talk • contribs) 08:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Lulu Raghavan: Landor : Here is the link 'http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=142098759&privcapId=698805&previousCapId=698805&previousTitle=Landor Associates LLC'

Here is what is written......Ms. Lulu Raghavan serves as Managing Director of Mumbai Office at Landor Associates LLC and served as its Country Director of Mumbai Office. Ms. Raghavan leads the Mumbai office of Landor Associates and is responsible for overall client and employee satisfaction. Her key clients are Hindustan Construction Company, Mahindra, Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces, and Tata Global Beverages. As client leader, she plays a vital role in helping her clients create profitable growth by building, leveraging, protecting, and managing their brand assets. she works closely with the consulting and creative teams to ensure a synergy of rigor and creativity in all of Landor’s deliverables. In her more than 10 years at Landor, she worked in the San Francisco, New York, London, and Mumbai offices. She led corporate and consumer branding programs for a wide range of clients, including Alcatel-Lucent, American Express, Dow Corning, Fidelity Investments, Hewlett-Packard, Jet Airways, One&Only Resorts, Panasonic, Samsung, and Sony. she serves as a Member of Landor’s global naming network. Before joining Landor, she served as a Brand Consultant at Ogilvy Consulting in Mumbai. She has a BA in Economics from Davidson College in the United States and an MBA in International Business and Marketing from S.P. Jain Institute of Management and Research in India

So are others if you allow me to make the change. How can you decide which alumni should be included on the college page? ~VismayH — Preceding unsigned comment added by VismayH (talk • contribs) 09:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

How do I incorporate your suggestion, without undoing your edit and then working on it? There are notable entities on that table, but you won't even let me do them...You are engaging in edit war, not me!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VismayH (talk • contribs) 08:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

VismayH, the last time you put back the list you bluelinked a company. Notability is not inherited - the person has to have an article. And LinkedIn and corporate profiles are useless. Please read WP:BIO and WP:BLPSELFPUB. Suggest you work on the list in your sandbox. Honestly, you should not be touching the article at all because of your conflict of interest. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#General_Prohibition

This user - Trinacrialucente - is repeatedly violating the restriction. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Trinacrialucente&project=en.wikipedia.org&toplimit=10 , for example. Where are you seeing more than 500 edits? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

When Other Legends Are Forgotten, weird. When I looked at the contrib list and specified 500 edits it showed two pages. It doesn't any more. I'll handle it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Neil, please be aware that the user who made this complaint is perma-blocked editor NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki). 2601:14C:0:F6E9:4DAA:D779:8046:F1B3 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Anon. We'll see what the SPI says. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Neil, please be aware that the above Mr. Anon also posted this. LjL (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: Obviously not a new editor. Blocked for evading scrutiny. @LjL: Messed up ping --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to be pung, I see everything. LjL (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I need to keep a list of who doesn't want to be pinged. So far it's you and Flyer22. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I was just being silly, you can ping me. LjL (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Neil, it's a shame that, like most registered Wikipedians, you don't have a clue about how it works when one edits as an IP. "Evading scrutiny"? Not at all. Every time I turn on the computer, every location I edit from, I get a different number. It has never been my intention to evade scrutiny, and what I do isn't even described by WP:SCRUTINY. (You might want to re-read it before you misuse it again, because it deals with the registration of multiple accounts.) Cheers, 66.87.80.83 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Please have a look at the ANI report about Trinacrialucente, as there is a DUCK case of someone with an IP like the blocked editor above making just about the same claim. LjL (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

LjL, I saw it, just figuring out what to do. For now, I've removed the post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, "they" change IPs a lot... I'm not sure it's a single individual who's developed an affection for me, I think it might be two. They think they are important enough for me to be able to keep track of which is which, but they either aren't, or my brain is too slow to do that (which I'm sure is what they think). LjL (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: I can tell you first hand (not that you were respectful or courteous enough to ask) that I have much better things to do than WP:HOUND you or use another IP. In fact the only reason that I caught you slandering me here is because I found it odd that YOU started editing pages that I had edited. It would be great if more editors would act like adults to try and settle disputes rather than go behind others' backs and make baseless accusations. How many disputes do you have open now? I think we've all lost count. Maybe one day the admins will get tired of them? Just speculation.Trinacrialucente (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente, pretty sure LjL was not referring to you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_oversight_required_-_WP:PA.2C_WP:VAN_and_WP:SOCK_suspected_in_Talk:Racial_segregation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

What you are "pretty sure" of is irrelevant since it calls for your opinion-- and judging from the exchange between you and LJL he will no doubt jump to support it. Were I to employ the same tactics as he, I would point out how he just today edited here, shortly after I did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel And you won't see him editing previous to my edits (under his current name anyway). Of course you will say this isn't WP:HOUNDING behavior, just like talking about me on other boards or suggesting that I have been using different IP addresses is not bad behavior. It's all becoming a little too transparent, FYI.Trinacrialucente (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente, all right, let me make this clear - anyone with some common sense would, after looking at the link I posted, see they weren't talking about you. Drop the persecution complex please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Implying someone does not have common sense is not at all civil. How can I make a report against you as an admin for not behaving in a civil manner? Is it the same Arbitration link you designated above or are there separate ones for admins? Trinacrialucente (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente, WP:ANI. You should read WP:BOOMERANG before your report. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure this individual's pinging me here is not at all a roundabout way to annoy me after I asked them not to post on my talk page... LjL (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Stanley Holloway

Maybe you can tell me what the problem is? 84.92.221.70 (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to log in and stop harassing Cassianto? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This space reserved for a barnstar

In the meantime, have a Happy Thanksgiving. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For all your great assistance. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE Help.

Hello, NeilN. Please delete FAJAR LAZUARDI .. I have tagged it many times for speedy deletion but the tags have been removed many times. I've also opened up a SPI. It has existed for WAY too long. When you reply, please ping me. Thanks, Ethan. Eteethan (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Eteethan (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eteethan: Took care of the SPI as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Got to go to thanksgiving dinner :) --Eteethan (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Renew PC for... (26 November 2015)

...Johan Andersson (game programmer), Dylan Sprayberry? --George Ho (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleting pages

Ravna Gora is just a peak and does not separate mountain. When Kamena Gora mountain page exist, why that needed duplicate exist. Debelo Brdo is not a village already mountain and Debelo Brdo village does not exist on this world. Please check it and delete those two pages. Jovan741jov (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Jovan741jov, regardless, you did not create these articles so "a page where the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith" is plainly incorrect. Please read WP:AFD on how to nominate articles for deletion discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Asking to Block IP address, 111.84.193.190

Hi, we have all your edits on 111.84.193.160 which were very disruptive and vandalism, we had been decided to do blocking the IP address user which was not correct to be edited onto Wikipedia Pages.

Today, we will blocked the user 111.84.193.190 immediately.

Unsigned comment by 119.74.47.12 on 27 November 2015 at 14:25

Hi. That IP address is already blocked for a week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not change existing posts. 111.84.193.190 hasn't edited since Nov 21. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Asking to block from account making user Rebelwhiteapes, Whitewikiforwhiteviews, and Endwhiteaperule

I suspect they're all the same person, since they have all made the same edit to different articles that imply as their username states white racism. If it's possible to block the IP from wikipedia or to block that IP from creating accounts, it would help Wikipedia. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Rebelwhiteapes doesn't exist; did you spell it right, Dat GuyWiki? The other two have been blocked. They're obviously the same person, yes, but they don't seem to be here to promote white racism — actually the opposite. And, no, the way Wikipedia works and the way accounts are created, we're pretty much at the mercy of vandals until they get tired. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC).

Thanks Bish. Dat GuyWiki, these accounts have been hardblocked which means the underlying IP has also been blocked for a period of time. Unfortunately this person is changing IPs to create new accounts. Please see this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing conflict... anyways @Bishonen:, the username is User talk:Repelwhiteapes. @NeilN: Okay, thanks for telling me. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, found another one User talk:Westernhipocracy. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Dat GuyWiki, blocked. Will you add it to the Quick SPI report or should I? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Already done, from now on I'll report them there for an admin or you to come by and check on. Also won't add TB here.

Dat GuyWiki, for quick blocks please report to WP:AIV as well. Also, pings/replytos won't work if you don't sign the post and there's no need to ping/replyto an editor on their own talk page (they get a new message notification no matter what). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Noted, kind of forgot the part that this is your talk page. Forgot to sign it. Regards, Dat GuyWiki (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Warning Deletion Template?

Since I know you're online, I want to know if there is a template for editors that have vandalized and then blanked their talk page. Do I just undo it, or do I leave it since it's their talk page? Dat GuyWiki (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Dat GuyWiki, editors are allowed to remove most things from their talk page per WP:BLANKING. If you have questions after reading that, please ask. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

OPEN THE OLD PAGE AGAIN

My name is Irene Tandry. I don't care about you, your job and your warning to me, but I hate you blocking my account in Wikipedia so that you didn't give second chance to fix the page I made. I ask you, can you open See Me (novel) into the new page so that I describe that page in my own words?

IreneTandry (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Two Topics - Bayern and your Blatant Disregard for Accurate Information

FC Bayern official Roster: http://www.fcbayern.de/en/teams/first-team/

So, I'm sick and funking tired of being corrected for ONLY trying to present accurate information. There's the proof. It was included in my edits. And you, for whatever insane reason, have opted to block edits.

What's wrong with the collective Wiki editors that they have no regard for other people's time, especially when things are done legitimately.

This is outrageous. It's like you are all collectively power-hungry sick little children. What gives??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.72.94 (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, you need to work out this dispute on the talk page without edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Makoura College

Can you look to edit, i suggest that will be quliafly for RD2 because it seems grossly offensive to me and also it probaly written an attack like creating attack pages which is G10. Can you revision delete a page that User:CockShitter97 wrote it think looking that so long makes me want to vomit. This is breathtaking. --Angry Bald English Villian Man Chat 01:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Angry Bald English Villian Man, it's run of the mill vandalism which does not really qualify for revdel. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay Neil, but Iif i find a revision that is grossly offensive (makes me want to vomit so hard) next time will talk to you immedately and Revdel straght away. It will be a long time unitl find the one that will qulafily for Revdel. Also Neil will give you a beer on Monday from wikilove. --Angry Bald English Villian Man Chat 01:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The increasingly tiresome Wakefield talk page

Good evening. Quick question, since I know you're familiar with the above-referenced talk page and its recent nonsense -- would I be within guidelines to simply revert this diff, since it's just non-contributory trolling and personal attacks? Not sure what the rules are in these situations. BTW, both this troll and the other one (RealSkeptic) are really begging for a longer block, or even a topic ban, IMHO. Neither is here to improve the encyclopedia, both are POV-pushing to increasingly annoying levels. Thanks, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

DoctorJoeE, removing that is going to cause drama. The editor in question sometimes lends support to other editors wishing to remove fringe-criticizing sources but is careful not to make these edits themselves. See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_13#Why_is_a_discussion_about_QuackWatch_here.3F for example. I've been watching the discussion and I doubt the article is going to be affected by it as the reverted changes were too radical. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that's why I asked before doing anything. I'll just answer, civilly. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

OPEN THE OLD PAGE AGAIN

Can you open See Me (novel) again into the new page so that I describe that page in my own words? Because there's the other user closing that page again.

IreneTandry (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

IreneTandry, please look at the history of the article to see why your changes were removed. You will need to show the book meets WP:NBOOK. And to edit the article, just follow this link. Perhaps next time don't be so hasty in deleting useful information from your talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Coruptia on Google Earth

Hello again. Around a week ago you blocked them for edit warring on Google Earth (the page used to get repeatedly semi-protected because of Coruptia and some IPs, but now, Coruptia is no longer a "new account" I believe). Fresh out of their block, they did their usual revert again.

I see they now also expanded from their single-article activities to making a bit of a mess on this related article too, although they subsequently self-reverted (but they had also done this silly thing which was immediately reverted by another editor). LjL (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

LjL, as you were adding this, I was posting to Coruptia's talk page. I'll see how they respond. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I should know you're usually on top of things, but keystrokes are cheap. LjL (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

LjL, yes, please don't assume I've seen something involving my past actions that might suggest they need to be looked at again. Such posts are welcome. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

A warning that includes a spammer how-to

Hi Neil, this discussion (and the related ANI case) tangentially involves you. In this block notice you included a link to a Forbes article editor The Avengers feels teaches spammers how to spam Wikipedia better. He doesn't think that's a great idea. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

And The Avengers turned out to be a sock of CosmicEmperor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Progress of Cho La incident

Edit warring has taken place again,[27] there is consensus on talk page that it was an Indian victory and only unreliable source was Gyan Publishing that has not been used on the previous version. However, this user[28] continues to game system and this time he removed reliable sourced content by misrepresenting them to be published by Gyan Publishing. What to do? Seems like this user's only purpose is to disrupt this article. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

D4iNa4, I see no consensus on the talk page. Far from it. What I do see, however, is a good suggestion from Sitush to take the matter to WP:RSN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That was not my point. Instead I was saying that how an SPA can come and disrupt the whole environment? We have to make rounds of all noticeboards just because of an SPA who's motive is not to contribute to encyclopedia, but make ethnic/nationalist lines. Just like you have seen on Caste-related articles before.[29] What you think about that? D4iNa4 (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@D4iNa4: However Zanhe, who is definitely not a SPA, also supports that edit. They are also concerned about irregularities in your editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes he happened to support them, although he is watching the article for four years. He had just thought that me and other user are same person, although we are not.[30] D4iNa4 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Renew PC for... (30 November 2015)

... Leigh-Allyn Baker, American Horror Story: Hotel? --George Ho (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

I'm moving this discussion here, since you apparently have issues with my conduct and not the discussion on the other board. 1) has the issue been discussed extensively? Yes. That is a subjective term that has no time limit (i.e. 24 hours). There is a such thing as "beating a dead horse". I can see when we are at an impasse and neither side is willing to concede and there is no new information to be had. 2) The instructions on DNN say "Check that a notice was delivered to each person you add to the filing." I assumed I should wait until the automated process occurs before I check as I see the parties are mentioned. If you recommend I put their names manually I can certainly do that. You might want to think about actually being constructive rather than being so passive-aggressive in your administration. You will find people are much more receptive to helpful advice rather than the style you seem to prefer.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Trinacrialucente. There were some issues with the filing of the DRN case, but I've fixed them up manually now. Everything's all sorted, and we are waiting for statements from other parties. Myself or another volunteer may take the case in a few days. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again, much appreciated. As you can see, the above administrator could have simply pointed out the issues and helped/informed me through them as this was my first time filing...but chose not to. My apologies for any extra work created. Should be an interesting discussion though.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente, you did not add any parties. Also, JQTriple7 is new to DRN (and it seems editing in general) and may have been hasty in accepting the case. Indeed, I see one named participant has already said the case is premature. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes...I said I didn't add anyone but was waiting for the process outlined in the description to take place. As I mentioned, I was unaware I was supposed to add anyone manually. Since you opted not to tell me this until I asked how how this was filed incorrectly, once I was informed I said I would add them if that was the process. But just as I started too, I saw that JQTripple had beat me to it. That should be very clear for you now, after the second time of explaining.Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente to be clear, filing a dispute gives you the instruction: "Who else is involved in the dispute? Enter them into the below box, without the User:, separated by commas: e.g. Example, Example2. (Please remember to notify them of this discussion)" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never actually accepted the case. I'm already involved in another case, and I don't take more than one at a time. I merely clerked it, meaning I fixed up the filing issues and notified parties. Accepting/denying the case would be up to a free moderator, not me. JQTriple7 (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

JQTriple7, you're right, but I still raise an eyebrow at this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I may have been a little hasty with my scan over the talk page. Thank you for pointing that out, anyhow. JQTriple7 (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess I would like to point out that as a "first timer" I would like to have had some guidelines specifying what was an adequate duration or length of a discussion as a guideline of when to post. If the matter could have been resolved on the talk page, I would have MUCH rather taken that route, as my own history will attest (I have resolved several discussions on edits that way). However, as mentioned, this was very evidently an impasse as it deals with religion (as is often the case). In other words, there is no more evidence to be presented and neither side willing to concede. Ergo, this is the next logical step. But once again, if there is some unspoken time or character quota to be met, this should definitely be put into the guidelines so as not to appear subjective.Trinacrialucente (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

DRN Case

Thanks for letting me know. I have removed you from the list of involved editors. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

iNetClean

Thanks Neil,

I see that COI is also about possible bias. My attempt to write will remain under criticism, so I will not try again.

Wikipedia environment has changed since I started writing. Threshold of suspicion is lowered. Earlier it felt "keep improving", now it feels "discourage altogether". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshkrshukla (talk • contribs)

Hi Sureshkrshukla. You're absolutely right Wikipedia is more strict in discouraging COI editing. However if you want to write about things other than your company or your company's products you would find that is highly encouraged. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35