User:Lectonar/Archive 14

Dein Typ ist gefragt...
Hallo Lectonar, ich würde gerne auf Dein Angebot zurückkommen, dass Du eines meiner Texte mal durchsiehst. Ich habe auf dieser Seite ein Kapitel für den Artikel Psychoanalysis geschrieben. Es wäre toll, wenn Du den englischen Text mal korrigieren könntest. Darunter habe ich auf Deutsch geschrieben, was ich eigentlich wirklich meine. :o) Thx Hier gehts lang ==> User:Widescreen/sandbox -- WSC ® 19:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I started copyediting/correcting it, but will be busy in RL until monday; I hope this is alright with you. Lectonar (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Have been" of course. There's no hurry. I'm glad you make time for this anyway. -- WSC ® 07:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * May I remind you on my little paragraph? Thx for your help! -- WSC ® 18:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy new year! From Germany. -- WSC ® 15:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

January 4
Perhaps I should just tag the article for globalization? Deb (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead; I watch almost all of the "day-articles", and we are getting there...I mean, people adding older and non-english people. The problem is the inherent (and understandable, in a way) bias of en-wiki. Lectonar (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Noticeboard
Thanks. Since you can read and write French, you may take note of the fact that he has been insulting me (or, at least, accusing me of being basically a fascist : the reason of which, if I understand well, is that I do not share his personal communist/marxist/whatever ideas). This user insulted me on a regular basis on the french wikipedia for over one year before being finally banned, and it would be a real bummer if he started doing that again on the english wikipedia. best, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sengar
hello, i really don't understand on what basis you have locked the "SENGAR" page when you don't know anything about it...just for your information the page talks about RAJPUT CLAN of INDIA so i would request you to first go through the article and then only take action against it...JUST BECAUSE SOME USER: SITUSH who doesn't have any idea about the article deleted the whole content so even you deleted it....I am from the SENGAR clan and i know the information which was given was true and more over the efforts of so many other people who have contributed in writing the page is wasted...i would request you to put back the information so that it can help other people ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.244.200 (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

the information which was given on that page is from the book "A Handbook on Rajputs by A H Bingley" page 122-132...thats why i am saying please confirm with the content of the page and then only take action.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashpal.sengar (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Amar
In response to you response to my feedback: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:FeedbackDashboard/67623 I deleted first few lines of an article approximately 2 months ago. I didn't have an account then. I created my account just a week ago. (11/01/2013). - Amar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amarjiith

I don't know how to sign or how to create hyperlinks as I'm new to Wikipedia. So I've given the required links above.

Rfc please
Dear Lectonar, Would you please have look on these  discussion and provide your own opinion?--Freemesm (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been solved. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it have been solved. I'm sorry for not noticing you earlier. :( --Freemesm (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mickeymolina
(15-01-2013) User: Mickeymolina Good afternoon, nice to meet you LECTONAR, I would like to help me about a edition of my first article : Dilaba (band). I am music periosdist and I have make a article about this band. I would like you read it and tell me something. Thank you very much for all. Waiting for your reply,

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeymolina (talk • contribs) 14:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Alex Sporea - Florin Mocanescu
(16-01-2013) User: Alexsporea Good morning Lectonar, I am writing to you with regards to a page I created(Florin Mocanescu)Florin Mocanescu. Unfortunately, I wrote it in Romanian and posted it in the English section. Is there way to recover it and translate it or just to recover the text from it? I do not have a back-up. Can you please help me? I would be very grateful. Thank you very much and hope to hear from you, Alexandru Sporea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsporea (talk • contribs) 06:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have moved the article to User:Alexsporea/Florin Mocanescu. Is there a reason you created this here and not in the ro.wikipedia? Lectonar (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the quick reply. I didn`t intentionally put it there. It was my first time creating a wikipage.Can you please tell me, besides the wrong location of the page, if there is something that would not allow the page to be published? Alexsporea 08:22, 17 January 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.102.139.99 (talk)
 * I can read romanian at a pinch, and it would very much depend upon the Wikipedia the article is to be published in, but for the English Wikipedia I can say that the subject of the article does not pass the notability threshold, and there are not enough reliable independent sources included. Lectonar (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Shah puri dialect
Shah puri dialect article containing nine references is being continuously reverted and redirected by user Kwamikagwami without any reasonable argument. Protection of article and blocking of Kwamikagami requested for persistent childish behavior and wasting others time Fantasyworld99 (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * User blocked.

Impressive response...
That's impressive. I just assumed that the feedback solicitation would go into a blackhole to be read by a natural language processing bot at best. But you actually read and responded in like 20 minutes?! I don't mind that wikipedia bars certain content but it would be nice if I could know AHEAD of time what the rules mean. The wikipedia rules seem so open to interpretation that the newbie has no chance. It makes me want to never edit on anything remotely controversial, which is unfortunately the most interesting content.Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter
Hey all; another newsletter.


 * If you're not already aware, a Request for Comment on the future of the Article Feedback Tool on the English-language Wikipedia is open; any and all comments, regardless of opinion and perspective, are welcome.
 * Our final round of hand-coding is complete, and the results can be found here; thanks to everyone who took part!
 * We've made test deployments to the German and French-language projects; if you are aware of any other projects that might like to test out or use the tool, please let me know :).
 * Developers continue to work on the upgraded version of the feedback page that was discussed during our last office hours session, with a prototype ready for you to play around with in a few weeks.

That's all for now! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Louie Giglio
Can you look at the edits Jonesbrad10 has made/is making to Louie Giglio ? Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Have taken a look....seems to me like a rather slow edit war; it is the same user coming back with the same arguments or actions every few days/weeks. I have put the article under temporary pending charges protection, to get him/them to use the talk-page. Cheers, and, just out of curiosity: why did you ping me? Lectonar (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for removing that vandalism off my page !! MadGuy7023 (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; user is blocked now. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

AppLift
Hi, May I enquire as to why you deleted the post on AppLift? It's written in an objective way and not much different than that of Trademob, which is a similar company. Please let me know what I need to change to make it appropriate.

Thanks! Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomaso67 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - he's been advised on WP:REFUND already (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I told him so at his talk-page. Thanks. Lectonar (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Clevedon School Page
Hey, thanks for protecting this page; it was getting ravaged by vandals pretty good. Cheers! Danielbullis (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, isn't that what admins are here for...and, btw, there was a request to protect it at WP:RFPP. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sabrina Seara
After all that work I did adding that damned translation tag. Harumph. BTW, Seara is on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Just out of curiosity and because I'm too lazy to check, was it speedily deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for knowing that there is a translation tag in the first place, and even more so for using it...so I can get my deletions up. Yes, it was speedily deleted there at least 4 times, A7 and G11 correspondingly. And the article put up here was so general, you could have substituted any name of a young and upcoming actress for hers, so essentially it was nn here too. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I'm not fluent in Spanish, so all I had was a Google translation when I declined the tag, and it wasn't general in my view. It included her birthdate, the things she's been in, etc. The English translation was promotional, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was not precise enough....it was general more in the sense that it seemed exchangeable with other young actresses from Venezuela etc, and nothing really ascerting notability..You are an admin yourself, just undelete it and I put it back on PNT, but I think the deletion should stand. Lectonar (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that strongly about it. I just wanted to discuss it with you, and I appreciate your willingness to do that. We'll leave it as is.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thx, you are more than welcome. Lectonar (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jorge Nuno Pinto da Costa
Hello,

I know I'm involved in a edit warring and for that effect I've already contacted Carioca asking him to resolve the issue since he speaks Portuguese and can easily check sources. The other user involved, BenficaNNossaPaixao had been already warned that his editing was potentially libelous material in the 5th November of 2012 and after a few months break he decided to resume his vandalizing editing.

I'm trying to improve the article but if nothing is done about this vandal I'll eventually stop. If you can help I appreciate it.

Thanks,

Jvstvs (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not really mind who is right or wrong here, that is not for me to judge. I have left another warning at Benfica's talk-page. Just stand back a bit, and let's hope you find consensus. Lectonar (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well done Jvstvs you just convinced an admin that you are actually telling the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.75.87 (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said: I do not mind at all who is right or wrong; you were both edit warring...,and so it does not matter who is telling the truth and who doesn't. Lectonar (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lectonar, I've left a warning for the IP for continued trolling. After semi-protecting the article I placed a note on BLPN and a link on the talk page of FOOTY. Thanks for the dual triple block, Drmies (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * :) Thanks for notifying, and.....duly noted. Lectonar (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In related new: I revoked the IP's talk page access (I'm a bit hard of hearing and don't always hear quacking, which is why I hadn't blocked them yet) and extended the account's block to match the IP's. I've removed some yelling from the article talk page. Now it's time for a nap. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll have a coffee and will face the night. Enjoy your rest, and thanks again. Lectonar (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

DJ Earworm vandalism
Hello Lectonar,

You responded for my request for page protection on DJ Earworm because of IP vandalism on January 30, 2013. I was just wondering if you would consider adding the protection, or help block the IPs responsible. If you look at the page history, you will see that the edits in question started on December 31, 2012, and has spanned across 12 IP address (which I feel are all the same person as the edits are identical, and they are all from the same location/area of the world). The page has been protected twice before, on January 9, 2013 and January 18, 2013, only for this person to come back on a different IP and create the same edit. I feel that the page should receive some page protection again, and these IPs should all be blocked.

Thank you for you time and help. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have also just added warning on all of the IP's talk pages. Since I only just did this (as I just looked into the process for requesting blocks and the need for having warned the users) if you would like to wait on blocking (if that is what you decided) that is fine. Thanks again. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply; I have semiprotected for a week. Lectonar (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you. If this continues still when the protection expires, should I pursue blocking the IPs? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends, and I do not worry about things until they have come to pass. I will continue to watch it, though. Lectonar (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Edward Gregson RPP
Many thanks for your prompt help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for rollback rights!

Cmckain14 (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 
 * I will. Also, I love Huggle and makes monitoring edits easy. But most reverting I do are not good faith, just

vandalism. Cmckain14 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I need this. Cmckain14 05:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, you do not need it. It is nice, but that is all. Lectonar (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

New Article Feedback version available for testing
Hey all.

As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).

A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Unblock of EYC MB 2013
Hi Lectonar - it's nice to be back on your talkpage again! Just dropping you a note to let you know that after a fairly extensive email exhange with this user, I've unblocked his account - I'm convinced now that it isn't shared, and he appears to have been acting in good faith, just with a limited grasp of English and Wikipedia's guidelines. There's a note on his talkpage detailing the expected conditions; since I imagine you'll have him on your watchlist, do feel free to go ahead and reblock without consultation if he strays from the path again. Cheers, Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  07:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Always a plesaure to have you on my talkpage. And of course, I have no problem with the unblocking. But I think I've met one of the guys here in Brussels last week; that is why there is no article yet. Lectonar (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Irish people
Hi Lectonar, can I ask why you've locked the article Irish people at the non-stable, non-consensus preferred version of User:The Banner rather than the way it has stood for quite some time? He has yet to gain any consensus for his changes, and yet now the article is full-protected at his preferred version. Could you please roll it back before locking again? Thanks, — Jon C.  ॐ  11:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not judge the edits, as this would compromise my neutral position in this case, and make me involved (and, frankly, I am not able to judge the edits anyway). I just saw the edit-warring, and fully protected the article. Using rollback here would mark the edits I rolled back as vandalism. Please also see WP:WRONG. Use the time to find consensus, and perhaps get a third opinion. Lectonar (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the talk-page of the article again; make this a strong advice to get a third opinion. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, not to worry. I guess WP:BRD isn't the be-all and end-all here – I thought I was well within my rights to revert his edits, and that it was he who was edit-warring by trying to force through a new version without the consensus to do so. Ho-hum. Thanks anyway, — Jon C.  ॐ  12:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to be too smartassy here: you were both edit-warring (and again, I do not judge the quality of your edits). This BRD thing should end at the WP:3RR barrier, as the edits of the warring parties are clearly not vandalism. Lectonar (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory
I wonder if you can have it move-protected indefinitely. Also, the February reverts is too often, so perhaps extend semi-protection time? --George Ho (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I did not look, but were there attempts to move it? If not, protection times for edit and move match. Regarding the protection time, the last protection was 1 week, and even before it was protected at most 2 months. And not all IP-edits were vandalism. Anyway, I have extended to 1 month semi. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for extending protection time. Well, the bold move attempt was November 2011. As for requests, there is one from a year ago. Is that enough for indefinite move-protection? --George Ho (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you still have this article move-protected, as in "sysop"? If so, temporary or indefinite? --George Ho (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I still do not really see the need, but done nonetheless. Lectonar (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Munchies!
Oooh, thank you kindly :-D Yngvadottir (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are more then welcome. Lectonar (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Mislabeled Vandalism
Hi- I was hoping to discuss the actions taken against some of our students' edits on the History of cricket to 1725 page. Their contributions were inexplicably labeled "vandalism" and I think that was unnecessarily combative and done in bad faith. According to the definition of Vandalism, " Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page," their contributions have been unfairly maligned. To quote the page further, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling [sic] good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." I respectfully undid the change because it was mislabeled and therefore harmful to Wikipedia. Our students are trying to help improve the quality of articles and add vibrant discussion on our project page. Guidance and advice about formatting, protocols and processes are welcome. Please use discretion when reverting obvious good-faith edits.Oline73 (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the only thing I did was to implement a lvl. 1 pending changes protection on the article, which simply does prevent the edits of IP-and new users from going live until accepted.....for the rest, wikipedia can be a harsh place, and not everybody follows or is aware of all existing policies (this includes me). But what I hold in high regard is assume good faith which works in both ways, not every revert of a perceived vandalism is malevolent. The way to go is to use the articles talk-page to hash things out, as one of your students obviously already has done with success. Lectonar (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And if you go through the edits of your students, not every edit was really helpful and could be seen as an 'obvious' good faith edit. The best thing is to confront the user who you feel has wronged you or your students and discuss it civilly. Keep in mind, though, that not everybody is a natural born teacher, so for getting guidance, I will link you to our trusted startpage, and there are various help-desks available for every conceivable question. Lectonar (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification and for the tips. My issue was with the term "Persistent vandalism" in the history, but I appreciate your explanation. My understanding of Wikipedia's definition of vandalism is inconsistent with the edits the students have been making, so I just wanted to touch base and make sure we are all on the same page. The students know to sign their contributions, so none of them should be editing anonymously via IP. Thanks for engaging me on this and I look forward to watching this project develop and grow. Oline73 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks, much appreciated, I'll go and have a Leffe now, with some fries. Lectonar (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoa, no home-brewed beer for you? I had fun writing up Einbecker Brewery, to celebrate the first time I drank a bock. I saw a TV program on a restaurant on the West Coast where they fried their fries in duck fat (and served it with some sort of raspberry mustard--I prefer mayonnaise, of course). All the best, Lectonar--hope you don't get snowed in and if you do, that you're enjoying it. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh, I did not know I had a connoisseur before me; although being German, I am not a real beer-lover, but prefer my wine, or, even better, champagne. But living in Brussels at the moment, I wanted to keep at least a form of virtual fidelity to my actual hometown/homeland. And fries only double fried at 170 degrees celsius, with sauce andalouse. Brussels, btw, is already almost snowed in, with the ususal catastrophic results. Lectonar (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Help with Prophecy of the Popes
Hi, I noticed that you semi-protected the Prophecy of the Popes page. I saw some obvious vandalism on this page, which I removed, but there's some other changes that I'm not sure about (specifically, in the 'Popes 1590 to present (post-publication)' section, where someone has listed Pope Francis as the "Peter of Rome" pope). I think some of the latest changes there are against the nature of WP:OR, but I'm not sure. If you are able and willing could you take a look at the page/history/talk page of this page, to see if there's anything fishy? I don't want to start changing things myself without a second opinion. Blelbach (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look; but I am not an expert either. What struck me at first sight was this funny thing about "THE END", so I am rather sure there is something fishy now.....give me some hours ok? If I do not come up with anything, I'll post on the talkpage. Lectonar (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, while I was reading, sort of an edit-war has escalated, so I have fully protected the page for some days. Hopefully, things will clear up in this time. Thanks for the heads-up. Lectonar (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into thisBlelbach (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What is wikipedia policy on removing a dispute tag and locking in a single point of view against consensus?
For three months, there has been a disagreement on the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I have tried repeatedly to either include the history of the Amendment prior to 2000 in the lead (show both sides of the controversy) or to remove all history from the lead. I (and editors who agree with me) cite sources for my proposition (the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the New York Times, the Washington Post, three judicial decisions and even a professor whose chair was endowed by the National Rifle Association). The other side has not found a single reliable source to contradict our proposition: that judicial decisions between Miller (1939) and Emerson (2001) exclusively provided a right to keep and bear arms in a miltia. I've even offered $100 for anyone that can come up with any contrary source. But they refuse to provide a source -- or to allow me to present the material in my clearly-accurate sources.

Does a reader of wikipedia have a right to know that there is no consensus? The reason I ask is that not only has the article been locked with one non-neutral and inaccurate point of view (that I contend violates WP:recentism, WP:verifiability, and WP:OR), but the dispute tag has been removed has well.

The dispute tag says it should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. I'd like to know when it is appropriate in wikipedia to remove a dispute tag when a point of view is actively being debated on a talk page among a dozen editors. What purpose is served by making readers believe there is no controversy?

It is my view that locking one point of view in -- and refusing to let readers know there is even an issue -- is a strong incentive for editors who got their POV on the page NOT to negotiate.

I am willing to submit the entire dispute to mediation. I am confident that (1) presenting both sides of a controversy rather than just one side, and (2) providing sourced statements and ignoring unsourced opinions that can be objectively shown to be false are proper to wikipedia policy. What's your view?GreekParadise (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I knew this would come up; pages are always locked at the wrong version, but as the protecting admin I am expected to not take sides, so I do not have to care about who is right or wrong, I am expected not to care about that, because it would make me involved. The article is locked at the moment I protected it, full stop. Full protection is used to get people to talk, and to come to a consensus on the talkpage; if this is found, you have to make an edit request. And for you to know: I declined the request to fully protect the article 2 days ago, counting on everybody involved to talk this out calmly. Most of the people on the page are editwarring now, which would be blockworthy by itself. So, discussions ahead. Lectonar (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you all agree to mediation, of course I will lift the block. Perhaps a third opinion would help too. Lectonar (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the block. I just want to keep the disputed tag up for the block's duration. And yes I agree to mediation and/or a third opinion. My opponents do not agree to mediation or a third opinion or a request for comment. They also refuse to address my arguments on the talk page. I've also tried going to their individual talk pages to no avail. So what do I do next?GreekParadise (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, I'd like to know:

1) Is it proper to remove a dispute tag when there is an on-going, detailed three-month long dispute on a talk page without consensus?

2) The third opinion says it should only involve two editors. There are a dozen or so editors involved here. Is it still appropriate?

3) Assuming 3O is not appropriate, where should I go next? Request for comment? Or Dispute resolution noticeboard? Or mediation?GreekParadise (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * See, talking about opponents instead of other editors is a sign that you are probably too much into the topic, and if they do not agree, then I am afraid you are obviously not convincing enough, and should try a different approach. I would try dispute resolution. But the main thing is to get more people to have a look at the article. And I would like you to think about archiving your talkpage instead of just blanking it; I know you are allowed to blank it, but archiving makes reading talkpages that much more enjoyable. Lectonar (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll give them one last chance to actually address my arguments, rather than dismissing my reliable sources and refusing to respond or give me any source of their own. And if that doesn't work in a few days, I'll go to dispute resolution.  Thanks. (Most of my talk page is from 2008-09. In 2009, I left wikipedia in frustration. Why I'm trying again I'm not sure, but I guess I want to see whether it's actually possible to get a fair resolution in wikipedia based on its stated policies.)GreekParadise (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a view on whether it's proper to remove a dispute tag during an on-going dispute just prior to requesting a page's lock-down?GreekParadise (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because that would make me involved, see above. Lectonar (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of French page
Hi: I note that you deleted Savant algerien for having no claim of significance, but the article actually contains a reference to an encyclopedia. I'm going to suggest to the editor that he/she create it on fr.wikipedia at a more precise title. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I suppose you did see my little addendum? I saw the reference, but thought it borderline all the same, as I looked for the same book being used as reference for other Coran savants in fr-wiki, and did find no use of it after some searching. Would be no problem to undelete, btw. Lectonar (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not my field and I don't have access to the references - the local college library is even weaker in French than German. So I dropped a note on the editor's talkpage including a link to create it at fr. under the guy's name. I don't know whether they require confirmed status to create a page over there; I hope not, because this person did try but hasn't registered under that name except on en., so I suspect newbie cluelessness. Feel free to correct my French, by the way! Yngvadottir (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that was perfect; I just reiterated a little bit. Is bad you only put your reading fluency on your user-page....Cheers, and thanks for your work. I must admit I am always a little lazy....Lectonar (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tweaks there and for the big compliment :-) You will note I was assisted by a template, and I try to restrict myself to gnomish edits on foreign-language wikis after what they said about the article I created on de. '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, only the first part was a template (could even be I wrote some of it, years ago), and de-wiki is...different anyway. Most of the users there tend to the dogmatic, and have a lack of humour...I do not like to edit on de-wiki, and they do not like me, so we are both fine :). Lectonar (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh phooey. Now twice deleted on fr. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * At least you tried, but I feel not so bad now having deleted it here...Lectonar (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your wish is my command (well, just this once)


Here you are. There are quite a few more pictures at Cheesecake, should you wish to peruse them. I know, I'm probably taking all of this much too seriously, but I love food, and I'm also pleased to see some humor here in place of all the ill will and drama. I don't recall seing an AN thread of this nature in a while. It is almost like April Fools Day came a bit early this year. Besides, it is fun to look at pictures of food, so enjoy!  Automatic  Strikeout   ( T  •  C ) 22:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a million; I just came in from a lovely japanese dinner (so green tea cheesecake is quite ok, I had plum-wine sorbet for dessert), and was so delighted by the AN thread, that I just had to write something, although it was just little a bit childish (but the IAR reference was dead serious, perhaps you get the allusion). I normally shun away from commenting at AN/ANI, if I can help it. And Germans just love their Käsekuchen. And funny enough, I had to think of WP:LIGHTBULB a bit. As I have been around for so long now, I have seen many changes, and Wikipedia is a changed place today (I saw you ran for admin, unsuccessfully; rest assured, I would not pass today, if I ran again). Anyway, the last days have made that blindingly clear to me, about Wikipedia changing, and not all for the good. And: just having one wish fulfilled is quite enough. Cheers, and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it. I don't your comment was childish in any way at all and thanks for reminding me of the lightbulb essay. I think I'll link to that one on my userpage. It is wonderful comic relief. Enjoy the cheesecake! I'm still bewildered by that green tea stuff.  Automatic  Strikeout   ( T  •  C ) 22:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Word windowism
Please un-delete it because otherwise will have to start from scratch. --Liberalufp (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Voilà, but it would seem wise to put a template like "work in progress" up....Lectonar (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And perhaps have a look at the links on your talk-page about creating new articles. Lectonar (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Indubitably
Yes, upon further review, I may have spoken too hastily in regards to unblocking the Prophecy of the Popes article. It is a sad state of affairs when the actual article for Pope Francis is sailing by relatively unscathed, while the Prophecy page is currently the hotbed of sectarian violence in the Wikipedian world. It will get better.

Cheers, Steel Mariner  Talk  02:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Prophecy of the Popes
As you can see from the edit history, the edit warring over getting "theories" into the article has started again. Any thought on extending the protection? DeCausa (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was keeping watch...I have given it another week. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

John Logie Baird

 * (Pending changes log); 13:05 . . Lectonar (talk | contribs) configured pending changes settings for John Logie Baird [Accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] (expires 18:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)) ‎(Violations of the biographies of living persons policy)
 * John Logie Baird died in 1946. BLP doesn't apply. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw, after saving....I will not reconfigure just for that, it was edit warring concerning his nationality... So, my excuses. Lectonar (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Curious why you changed it to a version for which there is not a consensus? MechVisionOn (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see no discussion on the articles talk-page, so pray tell me what the consensus is.... Lectonar (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Lectonar, could you please explain how reverting the edits to one side in the edit war you refer to above, and then locking the page for a bogus reason, does not make you involved. Flagators (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, from your choice of words ("bogus reason") ,I can see that you yourself are a paragon of neutrality regarding the topic. So if you want to see an involvement, feel free. Lectonar (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

BioShock Infinite
Hello Lectonar, just letting you know that you haven't yet semi-protected the article for two weeks. I hope you will do this soon. Anyway, thanks for clearing the backlog on WP:RPP, keep up the great work. T4B (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I did too much too fast; it is protected now, thanks for the heads-up...Lectonar (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
I changed the template to pp-dispute instead of pp-vandalism. Your basis for protection indicated a content dispute, so I assumed you wouldn't mind if I changed the template. If I'm wrong, feel free to change it back.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, of course you were correct in doing so.....I really need a break, wiki-wise, but Easter is coming, so....patience. Thx again. Lectonar (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted a header on the talk page about full protection on the page. I think full protection is an overraction. I'd appreciate it if you revisited your decision, or in the least, commented there. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw ...I will comment shortly. Lectonar (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we almost edit conflicted on the talk page... and I think you are more detached and thus more objective to talk to about this here. Like I said, I stumbled upon it, and I didn't see anything too egregious in the history recently so I still think the full protect is overwrought. However, you're absolutely right, I know a few of the regulars on that talk page (although ironically, not on that talk page) and they do have a tendency to filibuster.


 * Perhaps some editors, other than the ones involved (I actually first noticed this through the dispute resolutions' board), should draft some basic slow down rules. I have my opinions on this subject, but as far as procedural stuff like this goes, I'm decent at putting them aside because the process is the only way the wiki works. Shadowjams (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Sebastian Vettel
Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. Lectonar (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

3RR violation and renewed edit warring on Second Amendment Page
I dropped by and looked at the Second Amendment Page today and there appear to be an awful lot of reverts going on. It looks like the talk page conflict has spilled onto the article page.

SMP0328. (talk) has gone and broken 3RR, probably gotten himself in trouble. I leave it in your good hands. A bit worried that if the war isn't stopped that the article might degrade. We all need to get to talk and keep hashing it out vs destroying the actual article. Thx much for shepherding.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As one of the "war" participants, I would say that by and large things have gone very well today (or at least as well as could be expected). We had a lot of pent up edits, and the major participant of the prior conflict (GreekP) has not been involved at all. Rather than locking the page, (or even blocking this user for 3rr) I would hope for maybe just a more firm warning than what JA or myself was able to provide, and see if he will self-revert and move forward in good faith. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on his talk-page, and on the article's talk-page too. Lectonar (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
thanks for the headsup.

Uncletomwood (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Help needed
The same IP sockpuppet that has been disrupting Joseph van Wissem article is now doing the same on the Mara Galassi one. He/she is working from multiple IPs or proxies. I think semi-protection is due there as well.--Galassi (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks for that. Wonder who he was a sock of? Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome...and in the end, they all quack the same :). Lectonar (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for further details on copyrighted information
Hello there,

firstly, thanks for reviewing the article I created on the Natural Resource Charter. I was told that information included in the article was copyrighted and thus deleted. Could you tell me which information was copyrighted? I can only think of it being the Precepts - but these were referenced to the natural resource charter website. You help is appreciated.

Regards,

MaxMGW NRC (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did not review the article, I just deleted it for the 2nd time...and regarding your query, see WP:Copyrights. Lectonar (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Why did you remove the eSurv.org page
Hi there,

Today you removed our eSurv.org page. Please can you explain exactly why you did this? Did you not read the note we added regarding the speedy deletion, if so then please can you explain why our article was exceptional as we do not understand?

We are looking for a justification as we feel that you are picking on us unfairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afriggins (talk • contribs) 12:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You read the links that I provided? They include all the information you require.... and if you read them, why are you asking these questions? Lectonar (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no links, where are they?

In the logs I discovered the reason you gave for deleting it was "Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)"

So were there broken links?


 * Have you looked at your talkpage? And the reason above was only the reason for deleting the articles talkpage...I would urge you to acquaint yourself with what Wikipedia is or especially is not. Lectonar (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

How can I access that? The page is deleted.

I am trying to find out why other websites (as mentioned) are allowed an article and we are not. Was it something we wrote or are other sites just getting lucky or corrupt admins?


 * Your talkpage is not deleted, see User talk: Afriggins; follow the bluelinks I provided there...and read, if you would be so kind. Lectonar (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, I will check it out.

I have been looking at other articles in a similar field to ours, for example CreateSurvey, I cant see much difference between that and our own.
 * You have rather obviously not read the information I provided. All the information you need is there. If you want to contest the deletion ,you may do so at deletion review. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to threaten to ban my account, that is quite aggressive of you. As many others have, I simply wanted to create a page stating the facts about our business. I thin find that you have deleted the page that I created and was trying to find out why. As I am new to Wikipedia I do not know all of the ins and outs and guidelines, I am sure that you do not expect millions of users to spend hours reading all of them either.

On this occassion I will not take your threat to block me personally and will not take this any further.


 * Actually, I do expect users who want to contribute here to spend some time getting used to it and learn their ropes before they start to throw accusations and conspiracy theories around. And rest assured: I am so grateful that you will not take this any further, I was literally shaking in my boots....Lectonar (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for review
Hi Lectonar, I have created another page on the Natural Resource Charter and made changes according to your feedback. Would it be possible for you to take look at the sandbox version before I submit it as an article? link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MGW_NRC/sandbox Thanks, Max MGW NRC (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I had a short look, good work, but what seems to be lacking is: what makes this noteworthy, notable, in the first place? How it reads now is, well, ok, it does exist, but what makes it stick out, so to speak. I will have a look at the sources tomorrow, if this is alright with you. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. So the notability of the organization would be demonstrated by significant coverage in independent sources - I hope this criteria is fulfilled by the references. I could also, at the end of the page, create a 'websites' sub-heading listing instances where the organization has been mentioned. Looking forward to your comments. MGW NRC (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I have moved it to mainspace now (Natural Resource Charter); mind that it still can happen that the article is challenged, because the sources, well, apart from the one (The Guardian), are only so-so, and only in part independent. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Point taken, some of the sources are from institutions loosely linked to the organization. Did not think of that. I'll take a look and try and to find more independent references. Appreciate the help! MGW NRC (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection of Mousetrap
Wow! That was quick. Thanks! Diego (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome. Lectonar (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your protection
Thank you, perhaps it won't matter— but I believe that its the right thing for the moment.--Gmaxwell (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, your're welcome. I can almost hear the cries of censorship.....but perhaps we can lift the full protection if the names of the person(s) become officially known...Lectonar (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Or officially denounced, wild.--Gmaxwell (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I added my comment at RPP but I'll second it here too. This is a completely out ofband full protection made with almost no discussion, and very little disruption. There's zero policy that would support full protection (not to mention the absurd 72 hour protect) even for a short time. Shadowjams (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have commented there again. Lectonar (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

FRESHM3N III
Hey man,

I appreciate your effort to prevent will.i.am's "#willpower" page from being vandalized, but please stop changing the name "FRESHM3N III" to "Freshmen III". My name is Howard Eversley and I'm 1/3 of FRESHM3N III. Consider it a conflict of interest if you want, but I'm pretty sure I know how our name is spelled. :D

Thanks,

Heversle (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Howie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heversle (talk • contribs) 07:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I just responded to a request for page protection, but apart from that did not edit the article at all. Lectonar (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thomas M. Melsheimer deletion
Hi: Hoping to get some clarity on why the Thomas M. Melsheimer page was deleted. The link cited below is a press release on the Susman Godfrey website. The reference link included in the Thomas M. Melsheimer article is for a news story about the same case. Your help in setting me straight is much appreciated. Elvis1957

11:35, 16 April 2013 Lectonar (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas M. Melsheimer (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.susmangodfrey.com/News/News-Archive/Jury-Awards-1787-Million-Against-NL-Industries-Inc/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvis1957 (talk • contribs)
 * If you wirte an atircle in Wikipedia, you submit this, in essence, in the knowledge that the article may be copied to any other website or publishing medium (see here: NFC. As the website of susmangodfrey is indeed non-free, so are the press releases which precludes its use in a Wikipedia article. See also WP:Plagiarism. Lectonar (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The reference link included in the original Melsheimer article was a link to Texas Lawyer newspaper, which is non-free, and I now understand why I can't use that link. Can I simply resubmit the article with a new link to a free site? If so, can you please let me know if that link was the only problem with the article? Thanks for your reply. Elvis1957 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, actually I do not think you understand what I was trying to say; to be clear: the whole article was made out of different parts of text taken out of the links you provided, sometimes verbatim, sometimes with close paraphrasing...all of which is against Wikipedias policies; it is not prohibited to have the links, it is prohibited to use the text from the links to build the article if the resulting text is so close to the sources as to be virtually be indistinguishable from the sources (even if they are multiple sources). I would advise you to create a whole new article, using the procedure at Articles for creation again. And, just as a sidethought, mind our policy about conflict of interest. The whole article read a little (or a little bit more even) like a professional praise-page, imho. Lectonar (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

RFPP
I posted those 3 links for any admins other than you who would come across the request. Also, can you revdel the latest version of my talk page, if it has not been done already? She had no way to give her email id, and I have no way other than privately to help her understand most of the things about enWiki, so we dont have to keep shielding her perpetually.

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was away for some time....as I can see, it has been taken care of. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Soviet Union
This edit of Ryulong and related edit comment is really misguided. The discussion on the talk page had resolved the issue. The fact that Ryulong reverted my edit without even leaving a note on the talk page but instead requested protection is most improper. Nor has it has nothing to do with Leo Komarov as you contend in your edit comment when you protected the page.

User:Incnis Mrsi reported the problem of IP disruption at this thread. I subsequently report the issue here and the page was semi-protected. I then reverted this disruptive IP. The book State Succession to International Responsibility by Patrick Dumberry published in 2007 summarises the current mainstream view on page 151:
 * "The question whether the break-up of the U.S.S.R. should be regarded as a case of State dissolution or rather a series of secessions is also controversial. The only non-controversial point is that the three Baltic States are regarded not as new States (and not as successor States of the U.S.S.R.) but as identical to the three Baltic States that existed before their 1940 illegal annexation by the U.S.S.R."

I think with that definitive summary we can conclude that the mainstream view is that the Baltic states were not successor states, since the author clearly states there is no controversy in that view, i.e. it is not contested in scholarly literature. Therefore, the Baltic states, which left the Soviet Union three months before it was dissolved, is improperly included as successor states in the inbox. Note that only four republics are listed as predecessors and 12 should be listed as successors, as any RS will show. --Nug (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I just commented on the impression it left me with, and I will not engage in a discussion on the topic (which would make me involved), because that is what the articles talk-page is for. After reading through the talk-page, I deemed full protection necessary. Get concensus on the talk-page (for me there is no obvious consensus visible), and me or another admin wil lift the full protection. Lectonar (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been dormant for nearly two weeks, the disruptive IP was not contributing to the discussion, User:Incnis Mrsi who initially opposed the edit in discussions finally implicitly agreed when he also reverted the IP, thereby showing that consensus has been achieved. My concern is that the original partial protection will also be lifted thereby allowing more IP disruption. --Nug (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I watchlisted it :). Lectonar (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

PP for Incheon International Airport
Hi. I saw that you declined the semi-protection request for Incheon International Airport, which is OK. But at AIV, they say the IP vandal(s) is/are stale, but they continue to actively edit. I'm not an admin, but should I at least leave a level 4-im vandalism warning on the unblocked IPs talk pages? Thanks. WorldTraveller101Did I mess up? 11:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, it is stale because the IP did not edit since April 27...so the next time they edit (and it is disruptive, of course), leave a final warning, and that should be that. Thanks for you work, btw. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm. OK. I will look into it, for they may have been blocked between now and when I checked. Good luck and continue the good work. WorldTraveller101Did I mess up? 22:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hobsons
Hello,

I see you are the deleting administrator for an article I plan on writing - Hobsons. You deleted this for WP:G11 and WP:A7. I will not write the article like a promotion, so I am not concerned about G11. Regarding notability, Hobsons owns Naviance and College Confidential, both of which are very widely used (see, for example, ). Do you have concerns about me writing the article?

ModelUN (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have almost never concerns about an article being wirtten, if it is written within policy. So let me point you to our fabulous WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE, or perhaps just use the process described at articles for creation. It would perhaps not be a good idea to put this into article space at first. Cheers, and let me know if I can help. Lectonar (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou

 * Lectonar, thank you for the welcome. I'll be sure to ask you for some pointers. (Solution55 (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC))
 * You're most welcome. Lectonar (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Jackie Mason
Thank you for protecting this article via pending changes. May I enlist some additional help? One IP is very persistently forcing the same change back into the article again and again (without a word) and keeping three editors busy all day rejecting the change and calling for discussion, sourcing, etc. We do not want to be accused of edit warring in doing so. Would you consider outright semi-protection? Hertz1888 (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As it is the same IP at the moment (and has been for this day), tag him with increasing vandalism-warnings concerning his edits (his talk-page is a disturbing red), and report to AIV afterwards. Semi-protection for one IP is a somewhat heavy-handed approch, like a cannon shooting at sparrows. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Advice understood and heeded. A good analogy. Thank you! Hertz1888 (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Literal translation from German. Lectonar (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)