User talk:NeilN/Archive 30

Technical query
Is it possible to blacklist this name Komail Shayan from being added to Wikipedia articles. Till now i have reverted 35 edits. -- The   Aven gers  09:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , see WP:RAF -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail  10:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspected and I am right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komail_Shayan  Actually if we count reverts by Cluebot NG and other users, the number might be higher. He only replaces the name of the lead actor and adds his name. It's becoming long term abuse. Materialscientist blocked many IPs, but now even he has stopped blocking IPs as this user uses wide range of Ips. When it stops for five days, i believe it has stopped, but no, he returns again. He is not some school kid, he is an actor.  The   Aven gers  04:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , have you taken this to WP:RAF? --Neil N  talk to me 04:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How i will put my arguments, many requests are pending. If they ask me give link of all reverts? The   Aven gers  04:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , four or five different IPs should be enough. --Neil N  talk to me 04:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

does an indefititely blocked editor have the right to post on user pages

 * does an indefititely blocked editor have the right to post on other user's talk pages or are such edits by bad users fair game for anyone to remove - even on other's talk pages?--68.231.26.111 (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re: WP:BLOCK EVASION https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive --68.231.26.111 (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RaqiwasSushi&diff=693096024&oldid=693095784 --68.231.26.111 (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RaqiwasSushi&diff=693096125&oldid=693096024 --68.231.26.111 (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see this also has to do with . If you are sure it's a sock, their edits can be reverted on articles and article talk pages. Their edits can also be removed user talk pages. If the user protests, explain to them that it's a sock of a blocked user (be prepared to give evidence). If they still protest, you can either drop the matter or raise it with an admin. RaqiwasSushi, I see you've been asked to edit on someone's behalf. Please be aware of WP:PROXYING. --Neil N  talk to me 14:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * RaqiwasSushi here. Neil N , have a few questions. (1) Is 178.135.80.151 "indefinitely blocked/banned" as alleged? Unaware if I could have found answer by myself. (2) When can someone post the "WP:Block Evasion" tag on my talk page? (3)Can a user remove information, not posted by said user, from my talk page? ... FYI- Have recommended to 68.231.26.111 we get 3rd party resolution on the content dispute. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

-- <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b>: RaqiwasSushi again. Disagreement with 68.231.26.111 over an item in 11/27 current events and one in 12/1 CE. 68 recommends we discuss it here. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RaqiwasSushi&diff=693108829&oldid=693108657)


 * Ergo.


 * Summary
 * The references for my post on glacier retreat were news items about US Glacier National Park which included information from Dan Fagre, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, and about the Himalayas with info from Ann Rowan, who led the field study team from the universities of Sheffield and Leeds.  68.231.26.111 deletes this saying it's propaganda and requires a published peer-reviewed source. [A third reference from New Zealand was added later.]


 * The item concerned two Belgian astrophysicists' assessment on the RU-24 take-down, concluding both Russia's and Turkey's explanations "be taken with a grain of salt." 68.231.26.111 deletes this one, with revised statement about propaganda and lack of source that's been "pier-reviewed" from a respected organization. FYI-The text for each item is below.


 * QUESTIONS
 * Deletion of the 11/27 item is cited as propaganda. I'm guessing political views are involved because it supports international climate change assessments. Scientific findings, not propaganda.
 * When, if ever, is a peer-review source required for a news item on a current events page?
 * Same issues with 12/1 item on scientists conclusions about RU-24 shoot-down.
 * Can a user remove information, not posted by said user, from owner's talk page?
 * I don't know what resulted in indefinite blocking of users 178.135.80.151 and 94.187.75.183. I, for one, support removing these blocks. More than "their actions attempted to help me." Based on this recent experience, think both handled themselves responsibly and calmly. I didn't see evidence linking either to Xk9 in this reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive
 * I don't think 68 intends to do harm.
 * I don't think 68 intends to do harm.


 * Appreciate your assistance. If need any information or have questions, please let me know. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your assistance. If need any information or have questions, please let me know. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

-
 * Text
 * (1) Glaciers


 * Science and technology
 * Retreat of glaciers since 1850
 * Scientific studies confirm more than 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are retreating, and many of the smaller ones — like the alpine ice sheets of Glacier National Park in the U.S. — are rapidly disappearing. On the other side of world, at Khumbu Glacier near Mount Everest in the Himalayas, expanding ponds are merging and forming larger bodies of water. This could threaten settlements downstream if they overflow. Thawing glaciers account for about 20 percent of the sea-level rise recorded in the past century, adding to the meltwater coming from polar ice caps and ice sheets. (Washington Post) (BBC) (Radio New Zealand)


 * Deletion comment
 * endless polical propaganda crap mascrading as science not suitable for an "encyclopedia" - i read both secondary citations and NO WHERE AND I MEAN NO WHERE is there a statement of any published pier-reviewed source!


 * (2) Astrophysists - RU 24


 * 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown


 * Two Belgian astrophysicists place in doubt both official accounts of how a Russian military plane was shot down by Turkey. The University of Leuven scientists question if Turkey could have issued 10 warnings in the time the jet was in their airspace, or that an SU-24 jet could have made a 90 degree turn after it was hit. "According to our calculations, it is clear that both Turkey's and Russia's stories should be taken with a grain of salt," they write. (The Independent)


 * Deletion comment
 * more propaganda = please explain in no uncertain terms where this item has been published in a "pier-reviewed" and respected organization

RaqiwasSushi, I will not address content issues here but I will address sockpuppetry issues. There is enough behavioral evidence to link the IPs and Xk9 to Spliff Joint Blunt. Please note what I said in the SPI: "I've carefully gone through the editing histories of the master and puppets and there are enough similarities to convince me Xk9 is a sock." That is, I did not just rely on the evidence given but conducted my own investigation. Spliff Joint Blunt is indefinitely blocked so they are not permitted to post anywhere using other accounts or IPs, no matter how "helpful" they are. Article edits can be automatically reverted (except fixes for vandalism and BLP violations) and talk page posts can be removed. You may restore their article edits and talk page posts on your own talk page but be aware that you are now taking responsibility for these edits (for example, if you restore talk page post that is attacking another editor then it will now be seen as your attack) and that many editors take a very dim view of someone constantly restoring the edits of a sockmaster. If you have further questions about this issue, please ask. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> Thanks for the quick response. Where/how/with whom go content disagreements? That's what I've been trying to resolve. Sockpuppetry is very tangential. Not germane to my issues. Except, how can I know a block applies to user I converse with?

I did see your statement, "I've carefully gone through the editing histories of the master and puppets ..." I did not question the Xk9 decision. But did not understand it's connection to 178 and 94. Maybe if I researched more effectively and efficiently I would have, but I did not. BTW, have no idea what BLP is or how one violates it.

Here, attack is a term used in situations where I don't think it applies. Stating the facts about who and what happened is not close to an attack in my world. How it's presented and language used could be. Is it an attack when another user removes my work for what I judge are invalid reasons? Is it an attack when I write what and with whom stuff happened? Only got to this talk page when you kindly linked to me.

I've spent all of today, hours last night, and lot of time since Friday on this but my problem isn't any closer to resolution. I haven't been able to do much of what I've intended. Please send me in the correct direction to resolve these content disagreements. so I can attempt to get an answer to, "Should my items on CE pages have been removed?" Little sleep in the last 2 calendar days, can't say last night since closed PC somewhere @5amET today. Eyes closing again. .... HELP RaqiwasSushi (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * RaqiwasSushi, BLP refers to WP:BLP. When I wrote "for example, if you restore talk page post that is attacking another editor..." it was a hypothetical example and not meant to imply this had happened. To get the content dispute resolution process started, I'm going to assume you want to take responsibility for the potential sock's edits and invite 68.231.26.111 to respond here. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

3 December 2015
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> Wow, did I get off-topic by writing here. I have NO wish "to take responsibility for the potential sock's edits," or get involved in anything dealing with sockpuppets. How users are classified (sock, etc.) is of zero interest to me. Like anyone else, that changes if a "sock" is destructive. I expect whatever Wikipedia has set up takes care of things, known or not even thought of, that could do harm. ... What I need is help from someone/thing elsewhere that resolves my problem. To cap:
 * Should these two items from current event pages be restored? Secondary questions involve comments about propaganda and peer-review. Need a third party to help. (Presently, my options seems to be limited to restoring items that will probably be reverted, or to drop the issues. I will not do something that has edit war potential. Dropping these two items puts off today's problem, with hope it never happens again, i.e., "kick the can down the road." That doesn't work either. I need to know.)
 * Appreciate any advice on where/how/what/with whom to get decisions/resolution on the above. Thanks for your time. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP has provided reasons for reverts. Have you answered them? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b>. A link at the top of this page got me to WP:DRR RaqiwasSushi (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't understand your question. What IP? Where? RaqiwasSushi (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * RaqiwasSushi, in a post above you listed the deletion comments the IP provided when deleting the material. Have you addressed those comments? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do third party referral tonight. IP posted on my talk page after reading my 18:50 post here. Replied and advised will refer at 11 pm ET. Contest applicability of explanations included at revert time, i.e., first 3 questions in my list (second post though unsigned, above your 20:52, 2 December 2015 comment). Thanks.
 * BTW, a good friend is publishing a series of children's books entitled "The Sock Kids." http://www.amazon.com/The-SOCKKIDS-Help-Ben-Franklin/dp/0991154193/ref=pd_rhf_ee_s_cp_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=51Epwq52FuL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_SL500_SR108%2C135_&refRID=0ZTPKM7XXVVJXJ7ZTWBD :) RaqiwasSushi (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL! "Where Do Our Missing Socks Go?" They all come to Wikipedia!! --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> FYI: Request made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements,
 * Text:
 * "Disagreement about two current event postings, one on 11/27, the other 12/1, uploaded by me and reverted by another user contending each is "propaganda' and that each isn't properly sourced without one that is "published in a 'pier-reviewed' and respected organization"  13:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Update: Discussion: (1) Summary of dispute--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RaqiwasSushi#Summary_of_current_events_dispute (2) Current event comments, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_November_27&action=history,  (3) Current event comments, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_December_1&action=history; (4) one reply, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RaqiwasSushi#as_per_your_request; and, (5) Talk page,  User talk:NeilN 14:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)"
 * One more question. Is there a page listing all active disputes? BTW, SockKids is really well done, great for elementary school. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * RaqiwasSushi, the page where you posted will list all the current open disputes. Right now, there's only yours as third opinion requests are handled fairly quickly. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> Wow, what a non- bureaucracy RaqiwasSushi (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for protecting Botai culture, Urheimat and other articles after Tirgil34's IP socking. I noticed the tools displayed on your userpage for calculating IP ranges and checking IP range contributions. Does the IP range contribution checker work with IPv6 ranges? If not, are you aware of any tool that does? Krakkos (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This one does. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked Sock Users
Hello Neil, ı was going to ask about what is your point of view and what are you planning to do about those socks creating edit wars every night and what do you think especially about their ip number ressemblance.

User:2607:F358:21:68:6C63:E2CF:9657:84A6. User:2607:F358:21:BE:44E2:1CAD:84BA:6AB5, User:2607:F358:21:10F:68C2:44B4:692D:E3A9, User:2607:F358:21:BD:695B:A324:9C0B:B29B.

thanks.--130.88.99.230 (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering why you're complaining about the removal of LTA Tirgil34's edits. Pinging as you left the identical message on their page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, i am wondering why you are insisting on keeping my question unanswered. If you may answer my question first, maybe than i can answer yours. --130.88.99.230 (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As the IPv6 edits are not socking or tied to any sockmaster, I won't be doing anything. However since you've been continuing to revert back in the edits of blocked socks, I've blocked you. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Richard Murray
Hi, setting up a page for a politician who is standing in the Irish general election.

He is referenced from within Wikipedia already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_South%E2%80%93Central_(D%C3%A1il_%C3%89ireann_constituency)

I have added a reference from a national newspaper: http://www.irishtimes.com/election-2016/dublin-south-central and about to add one from a local: http://ballyfermotnews.com/independent-community-candidate-richard-murray-advice-clinic/

his personal website is www.richardmurray.ie

I don't understand what am I doing wrong, thanks for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprechaunxwwwx (talk • contribs)
 * Yes I've fixed the error but the subject does not meet our notability criteria. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

History of India - lead
Is it possible to get an administrator to conclude the lead paragraph. It is being monopolized by an editor and his friends. They neither want to compromise or bring in a neutral editor. Please help. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC))


 * Have you undertaken any of the steps at WP:Dispute resolution? LjL (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi 68. Admins don't dictate content. If there is no response to your posts within a day or so, you can try making the changes. I expect any revert would be accompanied by a talk page reply. You can then either continue the conversation or look at WP:DRN as an option. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have put in a complaint . It is very sad an editor and his friends have such totalitarian control over an article. (24.157.56.12 (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

Edit conflicting
I just saw, didn't knew what happened, there is strange kind of edit conflict. Capitals00 (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Freudian disruption
Hi Neil. Just FYI, I have tagged the two users, recently blocked by you for their peculiar behavior on the Freud article, as socks of. The MO is pretty convincing. Favonian (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Favonian. I'll keep that in mind if disruption happens again. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Anni Dewani
Thanks for protecting Murder of Anni Dewani. I was just considering it, but it comes better from you. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC).
 * Bishonen, FYI --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit war
Hi - you are correct. I did react quickly to the negative actions of some others. But please note my edits, that were all appropriately described in edit summarises, removed sometimes unreferenced content that was badly written, excessive in length and often barely relevant. Others chose to blindly revert these edits without edit summaries, and then posted fake warnings about vandalism. Also the edits I reverted were all clearly originally added by POV-warrior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.211.107.27 (talk)
 * Replied here. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could I ask you keep an eye on these pages? It seems some people wish to force what looks to be political driven content. But I note my edits were simply because of the bad English, excessive detail & links and that it was sometimes barely relevant.
 * I'll keep an eye on them but please bear in mind I am limited to what actions I can take per WP:INVOLVED. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Neil, since user does not want "comments from aggressive and unconstructive people on the talk page", I'll post this here anyways. Okay, a content dispute this is then. Though that being the case, shouldn't deleted content then be at least copy/pasted to the TalkPage of these Articles, for others to change / comment on (be disputed), and not just completely deleted? The "Open letters" article content that was deleted was indeed poorish of English and could be made shorter, so why does IP not actually do this instead of removing the entire entry; qua content that part (some open letter by Iran) seems in itself to be appropriate in the Article, which is named "Open letters". Cheers. Poepkop (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Poepkop, deleted content is rarely copied to the talk page as it's always readily available by going to the article history screen or via a diff. The IP could feel the entire section is WP:UNDUE or POVish. If you think otherwise, then fixing the issues yourself is probably the easiest way to go. Contentious content is added by editors who really want it in articles. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * NeilN, yes, thanks for your comment, I'll see what fits and what would be proper (objective) formulations, but today my battery is running low ;-)Poepkop (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Dewani talk page edits
I removed some claims made by what I consider to be a quite blatant sock on that talk page. Kindly revert if you feel those edits were not made by a blatant sock. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect, I noticed them earlier and was half-tempted to block them then and there., any idea who's the master? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't, no. I did ask a CU about, but they couldn't tell. I sort of assumed that was Lane99, though not with enough certainty to block. But after the edits to the user talk, and to another legal case, I'm not so sure. All three could be meatpuppets, I guess. Anyway, IMO you did right to remove that stuff, User:Collect. And I'll give a DS alert (sigh). If there are any more new accounts of the same nature, though, I'm about ready to block on sight. It would be unfortunate to be obliged to semi the article talkpage. Neil, do you think it might be time to introduce the new hotness, a so-called 30/500 page ban? Compare this general prohibition. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC).
 * I found a little checkuser in Bishzilla's pocket; Factsnotlies1 is a sock of Lane99. I'll give him another month for aggravated and BLP-violating sock puppetry. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC).
 * Bishonen, you probably saw it, but I added a note to the talk page which should make stopping socks/meats easier. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC).
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> More shenanigans on this talk page. Sock/meat puppetry. Not of much consequence on talk page but will become a problem when article temp protection expires in five weeks. Suggest extending temp protection indefinitely since its working well and isn't retarding article progress in any way. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Cho La incident again
Hi NeilN, edit warring (and copyvio) resumed as soon as the last block expired. Probably needs longer protection. Thanks, -Zanhe (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Two weeks of full. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was fast! -Zanhe (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"German Inventions" guy is back
User:Baritosalla - Was wondering on how I should report these accounts in the future as well. --allthefoxes (Talk) 01:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi allthefoxes, thanks for catching this. The account has been blocked and all edits reverted. You can report future cases at WP:AIV, using the description "sock of ". --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, I forgot WP:AIV was for that sort of thing as well. Thanks again. --allthefoxes (Talk) 01:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Topic
Hello Neil N,

I am new to Wikipedia, but I believe you are responsible for taking down my revisions to Craig Chaquico's Wikipedia page due to your considering my input as a possible Conflict of Interest? What I have done is gone in, as Craig's artist manager and upon his request, and corrected factual errors and added updated content. None of the items I added were anything other than facts. They are neutral (NPOV) and not opinions or spins of any kind. If you look at the side-by-side of what was up there before, and my edits/changes/additions, you will see this.

I am asking that you please all my edits to remain on Craig's page so that he (a living person and professional musician) has the facts straight on his page. This is important as media and others refer to, and sometimes copy, the info from his Wiki page and there is misinformation on it. Wrong facts!

I look forward to hearing from you about this,

PilotRock61 04:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Dara Crockett
 * Hi . First off, can you please fix your signature? It has to have a link to at least one of your user page or your talk page. Second, you can see who is editing the article by looking at the history. Your edits are being removed because they lack sources. Furthermore, as you have a conflict of interest, you should be using the article's talk page to suggest changes. You should only edit the article to correct factual errors. Adding things like "As lead guitarist and songwriter," and removing sourced content is not correcting factual errors. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil,

"lead guitarist and songwriter" is a fact? It's not an opinion. I guess I'm confused as to why you think that by adding that detail, it is not correcting what was stated on the page. As for citing sources, please help me with this. Craig Chaquico IS my source! These things can be found on his Website, too. Is that a source? I do want to do this right; however, as I stated above, I am new to doing this with all of the technical requirements. Craig simply wants his page to be accurate.

Please note that I have also gone to his Wikipedia page's Talk page and have begun a dialogue there if that would be an easier way to go at this thing. Thank you.

PilotRock61 05:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
 The StormCatcher   (talk)   (contribs)  04:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
 The StormCatcher   (talk)   (contribs)  05:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Some people...
... I will never understand. Ah well. Thx. - DVdm (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

NinjaCheetos
Why was this user blocked for 1 week? I think he should be indeffed, since his actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. <font color="000FF">Electric <font color="00FFFF">Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 18:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There were a couple good edits like this one. As it stands, there are now two admins who will be watching their edits closely. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Rhema Media
To NeilN

I have been updating our Wikipedia page - to reorder the text and to update the sources as many of the sources are out of date.

For example: Under Services - '''"The network targets families, with a strong focus on relationships, marriage and parenting, with a doctrine of special salvation for believers and eternal damnation for sinners.[24] [24 Hoar, Peter. "Jesus’ Blood Never Failed Me Yet". The joy or radio. Peter Hoar. Retrieved 8 July 2015]" - this source does not correctly reflect what we are about and, I believe, is highly subjective viewpoint from an external source. We consider this not neutral.

AND "Star is a contemporary Christian music network playing gospel music, hymns and classic Christian contemporary tracks, alongside Biblical teachings. It was set up through a lease on spare programming time when Radio New Zealand's AM Network is not broadcasting sittings of the New Zealand Parliament, and also broadcasts on FM frequencies in smaller centres. Rhema Media described the playlist as "a smooth and easy blend of music from people you know and trust".[26][ 26 ^ "Southern Star". sstar.co.nz. Rhema Broadcasting Group. Archived from the original on 16 February 2008. Retrieved 8 July 2015]" - this also is an old source.

These are two examples of information we feel is highly subjective and would not want on our page. MikeMedia is not our CEO as assumed. And Leenz999 is not a employee called Lee as assumed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.11.42 (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi 101. First, and most importantly, it is not your page. It is an encyclopedia article, not an extension of your marketing/branding efforts. Second, as you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing the article directly but instead suggesting changes on the article's talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your message Neil. Appreciate your help. Apologies for the syntax errors. Will try and get these right in future. kind regards MikeMediaNZ (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary Page Protection
On List of mines in New Brunswick you protected the page, even though only two users have vandalized it. I suspected these two were the same person, so I opened a sockpuppet investigation on them. Personally, I feel like the page protection is a bit of an overkill. Regards, Dat GuyWiki (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dat GuyWiki, three IPs in the last hour. And your SPI won't result in any action - SPIs are designed to investigate at least one registered editor. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete Vandalism Articles
Could you delete these two (1,2) articles by this user which are both pure vandalism? Dat GuyWiki (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks! Dat GuyWiki (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Well, there's a couple things motivating me. First, I know what's it like to be ganged up on by editors who have nothing in common except their complaints about you {example). Second, if "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" and "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." are watered down in any way we may as well put out a welcome mat for POV-pushers, COI editors, and other problematic users if an editor can't examine the history of someone they run into who may be editing problematically. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

User has developed a definite anti-Muslim pattern in article edits
NeilN, I am contacting you because you have recently sanctioned user 96.40.114.242. This user made this edit today, and looking through the user's contribution history, it looks like they have made several similar discriminatory edits on other articles. I just wanted to bring this to your attention, Falconus p t   c 22:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I've blocked them for three months. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Indef semi-protection of Sabra and Shatila massacre
I notice that had listed Sabra and Shatila massacre on WP:RFPP and it was indefinitely protected per WP:ARBPIA3. I am a bit biased because I argued against the remedy in the case, but that is water under the bridge. But the remedy just says that "This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters." It does not say that page protection needs to be the method used. Moreover, I am not sure if there is even a wide-ranging effort to semi-protect pages in this area - it looks rather scattershot to me. I have seen several decent IP edits in this area (along with the usual sockpuppets), and I would much rather prefer reverts (perhaps augmented with usual temporary semi-protection in response to reported disruption) as the method, rather than indefinite semi-protection. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 01:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The remedy reads, "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Full stop. What you are describing is essentially ignoring it and going back to the usual way where one side wants to keep the "decent edits", the other side doesn't, and an edit war ensues. There was a discussion amongst a few admins and it was decided to keep the talk pages open (though they technically fall under the prohibition) so IPs could still contribute that way. Alternatively, if you can get agreement for the article to switch to pending changes, I will change over to that. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the remedy, I am simply asking about the implementation. From what I've seen, few pages have been semi-protected, largely on an ad-hoc basis. Correct me if I'm wrong. Semi-protection will not implement the remedy either; properly, you need an edit filter, and a list of pages to apply it on. From what I've seen, nobody has any idea on how to implement this consistently, and nobody is trying. All I am asking is to default to reverts as the mechanism for enforcement (augmented by temporary semi-protection if there is disruption), or whatever else. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 01:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ARBPIA3 contains strong wording. Essentially, IP editors are banned from editing pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It may be worth starting out with long-term semiprotection of the usual hot-spot articles, and going from there. If anyone believes this sanction is too strong, they could use WP:ARCA to ask for a change. WP:ARBAB also called for semiprotection of a number of articles, and this was done. See the list of protections at the bottom of the case. "The articles and corresponding talk pages relating to Abortion shall be semi-protected for a period of three years from the conclusion of this case, such that no non-autoconfirmed editor (including IP address editors) shall edit them". This was done in fall of 2011 and some of these protections were allowed to expire in 2014.  EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingsindian, I am protecting after receiving a request at WP:RFPP and determining that the article falls under ARBPIA3 (even though there might be a talk page specifying so, this is not automatic). EdJohnston has good information and I will switch over to using a three year semi. You should also be aware there's talk about implementing a new "superconfirmed" editor level and a new protection level to enforce 500/30. Personally, I'd like to see a new noticeboard where an editor proposes an article for 500/30, a short discussion ensues, and then an admin closes with a decision. But as that doesn't exist, RFPP is what we're using. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said already, I am aware of the remedy (I spent too long railing against it to not be aware). However, the remedy prescribes no single enforcement strategy. Why does the statement include "reverts" in the statement if IPs are simply banned? That means that reverts are an allowable implementation strategy. I won't lie: I very strongly pushed for this to become a remedy, instead of the remedy which passed, and it failed for reasons not important right now. I have already described above that nobody has a clue about how this remedy is supposed to be enforced, and nobody is trying. Semi-protection will not address the editors with 30/500 restriction, for example. All I am asking is to use a common sense, low-overhead and explicitly allowed remedy as the default. To NeilN, you were completely right to indef semi-protect when asked: I am talking about something else. Perhaps WP:ARCA is the best place to raise this. I will try there. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 02:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingsindian, confirmed editors who are sub-500/30 can only be controlled with reverts, warnings or blocks, since they will not be deterred by semiprotection. Hard to see why this fact argues against using semiprotection as a first step, though. It is logical we ought to semiprotect things like 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict and Golan Heights. The latter is already indef semied per a 2012 discussion at AE. Anything which is semied per ARBPIA3 ought to be marked in the protection log as an arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, adding WP:ARBPIA3 as the protection reason is almost a given as you're not protecting because of anything else. The requests I've been processing have been triggered by reverted IP edits but not enough for non-AE protection. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

VPP
You recently reverted trolling at Village pump (policy). The trolling is continuing. Can you, as an administrator, semi-protect for a week or so? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon, it's . Semi-protected for 2 days. We typically use short term protection to get temporary relief from the idiocy. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That explains why it is being called sockpuppetry (which it is) for a banned user rather than trolling (which it also is).  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

German Brazilian
Hi, can you please block the user opusdei, who has been constantly vandalizing article German Brazilian ? Xuxo (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Xuxo, I've warned the editor about edit warring. My knowledge of German is extremely rudimentary but is your issue with the source in no way backing up the number? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, the source claimed the figure of 5 million. The user is a vandal who is changing the figure for fun. He was doing the same in the article in Portuguese, but he got blocked forever there (you can check his block there). Xuxo (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Xuxo, I was referring to this. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This source does not say anything about figures. Its about the Brazilian consulate in Frankfurt Xuxo (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Xuxo, thanks for confirming. Blocked indefinitely. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good job! Thank you Xuxo (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A problem
You recently blocked IP 130.88.99.230 that had posted certain opinions regarding the Seljuks and their Turko-Persian culture. Now, a "new" IP 130.88.99.221 has changed the lead of the Seljuk Empire which mirrors the opinion(s) of the blocked IP. Since both IPs geolocate back to Manchester, should I simply revert the new IP under duck or start a discussion to address the change to the lead? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kansas Bear, blocked per WP:DUCK. Feel free to revert. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Knanaya
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knanaya&diff=693628605&oldid=693628604

Reverted to a poor edit where Swiderski's theory on Southist-Northist division among syrian christians is sandwiched in the Knanaya article. When the page was protected by you it seemed Southist-Northist theory was excised and given a separate head under continuous pressure of Cúchullain through reversion. But it seems s/he did it again which I find misuse of administrative privileges, but I am not sure about the policies. It would be kind of you to review the matter and revert the material with copyvio check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.210.249 (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you've posted to the article's talk page. Let's see how that works out. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Topic Ban
Is there any way can be topic banned from all India related articles? -- The   Aven gers  10:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , all India-related articles or all articles related to the India-Pakistan conflict? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Only for India related articles, as he wants Indian articles should be written according to Pakistani point of view. I have checked his recent edits, bogus SPI reports and his details of his every encounter in ANI. I don't have much interest in India-Pakistan conflicts, and thinking neutrally, there are some Indian POV pushers as well. That's why it would be better to topic ban him indefinitely from India related articles as Indian movies, Indian biographies, Indian cities, Indian cuisine, Indian politics, Indian history (Kingdoms as Maratha empire, Gupta Empire and History of places as South India, East India, related to current of India), Indian Geography.


 * Let him edit all India-Pakistan war, Kashmir, Siachen Conflict, India-Pakistan border, Indian History (places as Sindh, West Punjab, Mohemjo Daro etc currently not part of India) skirmishes but not all those terror incidents in India where ISI and Lashkar, or any Pakistani terror outfit is involved.


 * His only block is related to AE. He still is a very problematic editor. The   Aven gers  14:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , you will have to go to WP:ANI, present strong and compelling evidence that Xtremedood has a history of long-term disruption in this area, and ask for a topic ban. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now he has created two DRNs in one day. I won't comment there, My choice! The   Aven gers  15:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, NeilN, the user The Avengers is simply trying to censore views that are not in accordance with his ideology. For example, if you look here, he deleted several battles from a list of battles article in which the Hindu-Maratha's lost. He also replaced information with non-impartial and historically incorrect statements that were previously there. I have made significant changes to the article from here, in which the article was heavily biased towards victories of the Marathas. Rather than try and effectively discuss this matter, he is simply looking for an easy way out. For another article, I have initiated discussions with him over here, however, he sarcastically dismisses them and I have therefore set up a dispute on the DRN regarding this issue. Xtremedood (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Circus show halt
Thanks for the block. It was much needed. And yes, many of them aren't new. You should check out the Azerbaijani Wiki; almost everything there is claimed as Azerbaijani (from the Safavids to the Sasanids). Most of them I believe actively edit there, and sometimes decide to hope by on eng.wiki. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , he just created a new sock. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked because of subsequent edits. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete Test/vandalism article
Draft:Zivotot_na_bobiiiii. I also submitted a sockpuppet report here Dat GuyWiki (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dat GuyWiki, couple things. 1) That page, while definitely not a Wikipedia article, is not vandalism. It's just the editor's bio. I'll let an admin who focuses on non-English pages figure out what to do with it. 2) The first sentence of WP:SOCK is important: "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks or otherwise violate community standards and policies." There's no intent to deceive or disrupt, no evasion of blocks. Just someone editing while logged out or forgetting to log in. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And I see has blocked the IPs. Harsher action than I would have taken, but can be justified I suppose. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it still a WP:SOCK because the user has avoided blocks by getting a level 4 warning and then switching to another account? Dat GuyWiki (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dat GuyWiki, what level 4 warning? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I don't know.... I should get my head in the right place... Dat GuyWiki (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

filimbeat
Mbsibin (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Hi User talk:NeilN I removed the link to the filimbeat and also the link to sajmedia

Mr User talk:NeilN are you working to promote this websites.

Why i Removed

reason 1 : the link to filim beat was just added as reference but the film Su.._Su..._Sudhi_Vathmeekam already in the wikipedia collection and why we want to send out users to other websites like filimbeat.

Reason 2 : Removed link to sajmedia from the

<b style="color:navy">Mb sibin </b> <i style="color:red">talk to me</i> 16:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbsibin, you were blocked for spamming your own site and as retaliation, started removing references added by other editors. That's it. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN Wow what an wonderful findings..... I was unknown about creating page in wikipedia. Now i understand the terms. But I found that you aree adding links of filimbeat from another ip without signing and stands to protect that page and promoting filimbeat only <b style="color:navy">Mb sibin </b> <i style="color:red">talk to me</i> 23:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbsibin, please provide diffs for where I supposedly added these links. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

RfA nomination Qed237
Hi.

I write this message to you as you are one of the administrators that I come in contact with on a regular basis.

The reason is this nomination at my talkpage from a editor that I dont have talk with very much, but I see him/her editing the same articles. I have been nominated by others before (never nominated myself), but in those cases I withdrew immediately, before voting started, because I did not feel ready.

Now I wonder if you, as an administrator, have any comments regarding this nomination or perhaps even questions? Do you think I have any chance of becoming an administrator and that I should move on with the nomination or should I withdraw? What is my next step?

Any comments would be appreciated. Thank you. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 02:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Successful RFA's are strongly bolstered by nominations or co-nominations by respected admins or editors. With ~3,500 edits and a rather low profile, the editor nominating you does not have enough of a reputation for good judgement in this matter to predispose voters to vote for you. Briefly looking at your history, nothing stands out that will obviously derail your RFA. You will probably need to answer pointed questions about this and this. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for your answer. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 11:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If I may chime in with a couple of additional points to add to Neil's good advice: first, you might well consider RfA, but first you should read Advice for RfA candidates to learn what you must to to prepare. Second, I suggest you try to get this RfA nomination page deleted. You don't want to have an old, invalid nomination page hanging around to complicate matters when/as/if you do decide to go for it. The other user meant well but they had no business creating a nomination page without talking to you first. Neil, can you think of any speedy category that could apply? Maybe Qed could ask the nominator to tag it G7? The nominator is not the only editor to have contributed to the page, but the second edit got removed by the third edit; does that mean that G7 could apply? I have even seen malformed RfA nomination pages speedied per a kind of IAR. I'm about to go out; maybe you could advise on this second point? --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, if declines it can be speedied as a G6. Had that happen a couple times with my RFA page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have now decided to withdraw the nomination, and perhaps make a new nomination in the future when I feel more ready and have time to answer more questions. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 20:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good decision. RFA week is always unpredictable. You might get off easy like me or you might have to face a gauntlet like poor Liz so being prepared is a must. Read up on the last couple years of RFAs to get a sense of what you'll encounter. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Neil. I tend to forget about G6 but it is a great catchall. Qed, I see this has happened to you once before! that someone created a nom page for you that had to be deleted. Tough to be so popular! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. So this happened to you too - as well as to Qed twice? I was going to suggest we should modify the instructions at Requests for adminship/Nominate to say that you should talk to the person before nominating them, but I see it already says that quite clearly in several places. If only people would RTFM! --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, once with the proper RFA page and once with a page in articlespace I have no idea how they managed to create. You have to just sigh because usually, they're just looking to show their appreciation for helping them out or watching over some of their favorite topics. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Any idea where I could list such a proposal?
Hello once again Neil :-),

I have a question. That mass disruption last day on the Safavid-related articles made me rethink some stuff. In 90% of the cases when there's clear structural disruption on the Iran pages, it's because of issues related to Azerbaijan. Therefore, I believe it would be very beneficial to propose the appliance of the discretionary sanctions regarding Azerbaijan (which includes Armenia as well) to count for Iran as well. I patrol many of the pages of these three nations, and when there's structural disruption, it's almost always regarding these three nations. I mentioned my proposal to Kansas Bear earlier today, who also almost solely edits history-related pages like me (including a lot of pages regarding these three nations) and he mentioned it would be a good idea. Do you perhaps know where I thus could leave such a proposal? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * LouisAragon, you can request an amendment to WP:ARBAA2 at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Because it's a significant amendment, you'll probably need a lot of evidence and support. I would create a draft in userspace and ask other interested editors to contribute before formally posting it. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Will do that. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

More cleanup at Talk:Michael Copon
Hi NeilN – looks like we need more revdel, and an IP block, over at Talk:Michael Copon. (If this keeps up, semi-protection of the Talk page may even be necessary... I'll put it on my Watchlist for now.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

user Neekan
Hi Neil. Sockmaster is back with new account:
 * Blocked and edits and page moves undone. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandals
Gonna make a list of vandals for you to block Usernames List of Speedy Deletion eligible and tagged pages Dat GuyWiki (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Trollandfuckingproudofit ✅
 * User:Frenchiestouch (promotional) ✅
 * User:75.162.203.147 personal attacks on User:Shirik. Lvl 4im warning deleted on their talk page.
 * User:Mr & Mrs Steven Russell Comment - Implies share use. I warned them, so if they don't request a change in the next ~15 minutes you can block them.
 * Tony dirks ✅
 * Dat GuyWiki, I don't mind you reporting vandals here, especially if AIV is backlogged and the vandalism is occurring at a high rate of speed, but keep in mind you'll get a faster response at AIV if I'm away from my computer or dealing with another issue. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course! I do it also here to try and make it faster. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't turn this page into a combined UAA/AIV/CSD noticeboard. My talk page watchers won't be too happy. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Will stop doing this, just it's really annoying when it takes a year for someone to get blocked when I report them to WP:AIV. Signing off, Dat GuyWiki (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dat GuyWiki, I hear you and that's why I said if the vandalism is occurring at a high rate of speed, you're welcome to add a note here. For the other stuff - well, patience is supposedly a virtue :-) --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Just gonna add a person, don't worry not gonna make a list again Mdhashim24. User Mdhashim24 has created the page about himself. Not sure if this should be moved to his user space or deleted for test page. He also removed a speedy deletion template. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dat GuyWiki, he already has a user page so deleted. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for increase in protection level
You are invited to join the discussion at Requests for page protection. Please see TVXQ albums discography's request for semiprotection. Thanks.  The StormCatcher   (talk)   (contribs)  07:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Please also protect TVXQ, it is being vandalized by the same person. Thank you.  The StormCatcher   (talk)   (contribs)  08:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

My AfC Submission
Hello again. Even though you mainly interact with anti-vandalism, I wondered if you could give me tips or maybe even review my AfC submission. Thanks in advance, Dat GuyWiki (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Black Annie
I got a message from you saying that you did not like the Black Annie redirect for the Black Annie movie. I dont really understand why you dont like Black Annie but Im happy to answer any questions you have.

Haitian STEVE (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Haitian STEVE, there's no film called "Black Annie". --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

ya and theres no film called "starwars" either, but u still redirect from it because thats what ppl call it. Theres a redirect for "assfucking" that goes to a page on anal sex. I dont now why u think "assfucking" is more important than black annie but Im a proud black man and I think ppl should be allowed to search for black annie.

Haitian STEVE (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Haitian STEVE, I'm becoming more and more convinced you're trolling here. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

i dont like being made fun of Haitian STEVE (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * NeilN should this be added to the RFD. Or does it needs a separate one? MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * MarnetteD, I saw that and decided it was a (barely) plausible redirect. But Black Annie (2014 film) with its unneeded disambiguation term is not. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Barely is the word for it :-) Further confusion and complications will ensue with a live broadcast of this version on US TV this week. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , you should provide some sort of reliable source showing that "Black Annie" is a common alternate name for the 2014 Annie movie. clpo13(talk) 18:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We probably edit conflicted. I haven't nominated Black Annie. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well then there isn't even an issue. I agree that the disambiguation (Black Annie (2014 film)) isn't necessary. I'm not sure why Steve is all up in arms about it. clpo13(talk) 18:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

so what happens when u search google for black annie: https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=Black+Annie#

NBC calls it Black Annie http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/new-annie/2830155

if u search youtube for Black Annie, it redirects to the movie for sale. Everyone calls this black annie, in Haiti the movie is called Annie Noir and i dont now why everyone is so suspicious of this.
 * Haitian STEVE, I suggest you read Saturday Night Live and satire. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hamid Mir
Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

List of countries by oil production
What about this one? --George Ho (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Deuce (singer)
Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

List of Swedes by net worth
What about this one? --George Ho (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Possibility of numerous socks
Hi NeilN, a week or so ago you protected Grey DeLisle, and I suspect several related accounts are continuing to make similar persistent uncourced changes to animation articles. Please see some of my most recent edits to connect the dots. As always, thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Several articles may require protection, among them Stampy's Lovely World, a non notable topic which a new COI account is edit warring to move from a redirect. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I've handed out the necessary blocks. If edit warring resumes then the editors should be blocked. If socks show up, then I'll look at protection. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Lola LC87
And after a week, the MFD will be closed one way or the other. Thank you. It is very unusual to request semi-protection of a draft, since one of the purposes of drafts is to permit AFC submission by unregistered editors, but it was necessary here because of misconduct by the IP. It's easier than range-blocking. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Kenny Loggins vandal
Hi, Neil. I attempted to do a rangeblock of 2602:306:bd7e:caa0::/64, that you had blocked for three months in August. Clearly controlled by the same person still, so I made it six months this time. Can you see if I did it right? I'm really doubtful of everything to do with IPv6. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC).
 * Bishonen, looks good. Proper range, proper block. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So by merely inputting the single IP (2602:306:bd7e:caa0:850b:b5f3:4e5b:f67b) on Special:BlockList, you found both my block and Materialscientist's? Wonderful. (Makes notes.) This will make my life simpler. :-) Bishonen &#124; talk 23:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC).

Rational admin check
Hi Neil, got any thoughts about this discussion? Am I being irrational? I've noticed Human3015 creating user pages for other users without their request or permission and it seems funky to me. I can always use an "am-I-being-rational check". Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. It's clearly non-standard behavior that I rarely see which is why it raised my hackles. I'm sure he's just being helpful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Racial segregation page protection
Hey NeilN, just saw your protection of Racial segregation. I think you made a mistake - you only semiprotected it, but the user making the problematic edits is, I believe, an autoconfirmed user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, the dynamic IP is edit warring against three registered editors (two of them fairly experienced) who say the material is properly sourced and not a copyright violation. Do you think it's a copyright violation? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's copyvio (and additionally is something that Zezen, its "author", has tried and failed to gain consensus for - I'm not sure why you're positioning the IP as the odd one out here). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, the IP made four reverts in less than 36 hours. Three different editors reverted them. I just searched through the books provided via Google links for various phrases and came up empty. What's the copyvio, please? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reversions of unambiguous copyright violations are exempt from 3RR for obvious reasons. Zezen is plagiarizing at least two books. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, thank you, I was searching on different phrases. I have unprotected the article. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Roscelese. Neil, if you read my edit summaries, or my messages at Talk:Racial segregation and User talk:Zezen, you would have seen that Zezen said he was inserting text verbatim from the sources and I reverted his COPYVIO. Instead, you took the word of an unregistered editor whose first (and only) edit was at WP:RPP. Shame on you. 66.87.114.123 (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're chiding me for listening to an IP editor but want me to listen to you, another IP editor? Again, another experienced editor couldn't find the copyvio and I couldn't find the copyvio. I appreciate your efforts but if you could take that little extra step and link to the copyrighted text, that would be appreciated even more. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Experience isn't all it's cracked up to be. Two allegedly "experienced editors" wrote that my edit was vandalism, which it was not. Since my edit summaries referred to the Talk page discussion, it should have been clear to you -- if you had looked -- that the editor who asked for page protection was lying when he said there hadn't been any such discussion. Thanks for making the right decision, eventually. 66.87.115.105 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

why cant i post at the edit war page?

 * a bad user has posted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring against me - why cant i post my replay there?--68.231.26.111 (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the page only shows to me as "view source"--68.231.26.111 (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the page is now protected. (cur | prev) 17:29, 6 December 2015‎ Ymblanter (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (126,652 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Changed protection level of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Persistent sock puppetry ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 05:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) (undo | thank)  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 03:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 68, see this. You really do need to stop going full throttle when you get reverted. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Semitransgenic
Who you recently blocked, has started a new edit war at the Ariana Grande page. I asked him to use the Talk page, but he has now reverted twice. Is there anything we can do to get him to take it to the Talk page instead? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk page conversation has started. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Neil, for the record: . I appreciate admin have a job to do, and that it's a BLP, but this rush to make edit warring accusations lacks tact. Semitransgenic  talk. 23:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Neil, for the record: . I appreciate admin have a job to do, and that it's a BLP, but this rush to make edit warring accusations lacks tact. Semitransgenic  talk. 23:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I never made such edits as you and told me to
once again this weird guy added his name. If you do it people will trust you as an administrator. For me they will ask for the differences. I am a bit occupied with other things. Going back with my edit history and Galaxy Kid's edit history and movie page revision history is tiring. You request that edit filter, please.-- The   Aven gers  07:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * His IPs are of very large range and why doesn't he stop?


 * Is there any tool to find out how many times that name was edited in Wikipedia articles? It must have crossed hundred. I have done it dozens of times. Then add other editors and Cluebot NG. 07:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop Him
After this page Komail Shayan was deleted two times, now he exists as a template Template:Komail Shayan.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Komail_Shayan_(KK)_in_Jam_with_Kako_Band.jpg

The  Aven gers  07:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Moved Template:Komail Shayan to Komail Shayan, CSD A7'd -- samtar whisper 11:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * First, you need to calm down a bit and realize that yes, there are people out there who have nothing better to do than disrupt Wikipedia, sometimes for years. We do what we can but WP:RBI is key. Edit filters are expensive to run so we try to use them only for the worst cases. will have a better perspective on this. MusikAnimal, there's a person out there who's using registered accounts and a wide IP range to add the name Komail Shayan to various Indian film articles. All his claimed credits seem to be hoaxes as far as I can determine. I am personally not sure how prevalent this is but I've seen The Avengers report this to various boards. samtar, I've deleted the article - it was also a G3 and G5. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's expensive then i would suggest title blacklist and the most difficult part for you: Semi protect all big budget Bollywood movies which are going to be released from December 2015 to Dec 2016. There will be a huge collateral damage but it will save the costs. The   Aven gers  14:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , no, absolutely no admin is going to do that for something that is a nuisance but not a huge problem. Please wait to see what MusikAnimal says. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How long has this been going on? There's some existing filters we can add to that will prevent this &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  16:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , can you continue this on MusikAnimal's talk page? I'm about to close up shop here for the next 10-11 days. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Further disruptive edits to blocked IP's talk
IP: Would it be possible to remove talk page editing privileges for the time being? -- samtar whisper 15:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * samtar, handled it. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
You are invited to join the discussion at Administrator intervention against vandalism. HELP US STOP THE WP:VANDALS Thanks. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Addition of Centennial edits to the Generation Z page
Hi Neil, I wanted to circle back on my edits to the Generation Z page from this summer when I suggested adding some information on Centennials to the page.. AdAge is currently running a poll on what the world should call this Generation and Centennials is winning by a landslide (over iGen, Post-Millennials and Generation Z)-perhaps you can reconsider my additions? Emsparenti (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Emsparenti 12/8/15
 * Emsparenti, you can suggest that on the article's talk page. I would be opposed as the source itself says 'When MTV asked a thousand 13- and 14-year-olds what they would call their own generation, none of the names marketers and others have been trying out seemed to appeal. Instead of the Homeland Generation, iGen, Digital Natives or Post-Millenials, to cite a few of the names in circulation, respondents selected "The Founder Generation."' and AdAge's online anonymous uncontrolled poll means little. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding edits at bhakt page
The term bhakt has religious meaning ahead of political or social media troll terms. So opening of an article can't have a different introduction as per wikipedia policy. Whatever is being mentioned by you and others seems motivated by political vendetta. Please help wikipedia remain free from trolls. As this is even used in facebook by trolls. That bhakta is different from the meaning of this Bhakt. I requested for protecting page as it was being edited by being politically motivated. This can't be opening of an article which has a different meaning altogether. Disappointing that you acted on his complain,even i could have nominated him for edit war. Maverick.Mohit (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maverick.Mohit, I would strongly suggest you stop referring to experienced Wikipedia editors as "trolls" and start actually listening to what they're saying. I refrained from blocking you despite five reverts, most adding a blatantly misleading source. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No i am not calling registered users as trolls. I meant this is being used by troll on facebook. All i am saying is you look in to actual meaning of Bhakt then decide. My source is more apt for the meaning. It has a religious meaning which originated much before political meaning. You edited it just for it's political meaning.Although political usage and meaning is clearly mentioned in another section on page.Maverick.Mohit (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maverick.Mohit "Whatever is being mentioned by you and others seems motivated by political vendetta. Please help wikipedia remain free from trolls." And your source, despite your attempt to rename it, does not mention the term bhakt. I suggest you come up with stronger arguments on the article's talk page, not here. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I pasted some lines from my talk with other editor so that 'you' is not you. Please don't misunderstood. Maverick.Mohit (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

DanDud88
Hi Neil, so if you recall, I dragged DanDud88 to ANI because of serious competence concerns. He thumbed his nose at our "silly little rules". One issue that was raised was plagiarism/copyvio, which he had an ample history of. As soon as he returned, he added this, which contains episode summaries that he clearly did not write. (His writing skills are very poor, which is one tip-off...) Please note this verbatim copy and this close paraphrase. I've offered him the opportunity to explain on his talk page and I'll leave the adminny stuff to you. Thanks, sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cyphoidbomb, yikes, that's not good. I'll keep an eye out for his reply. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's mind-boggling and I'd be surprised if he replied. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cyphoidbomb, see this. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that's that. Even here in his most recent edits, he misspelled "Al Sheppard" and hasn't considered that there might be a proper way to format dates. Oy. Thanks for the help, though I wish it didn't need to be addressed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Range Block
I recommend doing a range block on User:182.239.64.0/18. The reason is here http://nativeforeigner.com/calc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLCStudent (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, done. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You should also note that a few days ago that same range was blocked for 72 hours. Just to keep in mind. CLCStudent (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, extended to 2 weeks. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

2600:1017:B409:4AD9:F1CF:DAC2:B20C:B52F
2600:1017:B409:4AD9:F1CF:DAC2:B20C:B52F keeps making unblock reasons which attack you.  The StormCatcher   (talk)   (contribs)  18:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Noticed your reverts - talk page access already revoked for BLP violations. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Wikipediocracy
Not to justify nuthin, Neil, but if this and other like edits isn't WP:TAGTEAMing, what is? Coretheapple (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Coretheapple, basically this is what happens every single day on a myriad of pages. The minority viewpoint gets reverted out until 1) it's shown the majority viewpoint is against policies/guidelines or 2) the minority viewpoint attracts enough attention and support that it becomes the majority viewpoint. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that WP:POINT is policy. See Coretheapple (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's a guideline, actually. Well anyway, there you have it. Transparent, that I will say. Coretheapple (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Coretheapple, serious or facetious replies? Don't get me wrong, I think there should be a serious conversation about whether or not the community thinks editors deeply involved in running that site should be listed as having COI and if any of them were about to break 3RR, they would've gotten the same warning. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There has been such a discussion, and the outcome of it is called "WP:COI." That is why there is no discussion, only reverting by the conflicted editors. As far as I can ascertain, there is no serious effort to contend that WP:DISCLOSE does not apply, and indeed only token and contemptuous participation in the COIN discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Hello. I'm here to inform you that the article you had requested to be deleted was created again by the user who had made it for the first time under the name Şehime. There are also other articles created by this user: Marguerite Irma Fournier, Ayşe Sıdıkka Hanımsultan, Princess Rukiye Fazl and Mirza Muhammad Khan I. I think almost all of them aren't notable. These articles are either unsourced or poorly sourced. As an administrator, I think you know what to do with them. Keivan.f Talk 16:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And I just wanted to mention that Ayse Sidikka Hanimsultan was also deleted but again was created by the same user as Ayşe Sıdıkka Hanımsultan. Keivan.f  Talk 16:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have deleted Şehime. Ayse Sidikka Hanimsultan was deleted at the user's request so it can be recreated. I have nominated the article at the new title for a speedy deletion. I will look at the others later or ask an appropriate Wikiproject for their opinion. As you know, the editor is claiming to be descended from royalty so that probably plays a large part in the creation of these articles. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly. He claims to be a descendant of Mahmud II. He creates articles, deletes information, etc, based on his own knowledge without providing a single source. First of all we can't be sure about his ancestry and whether he is really from Ottoman blood-line or not he must provide reliable sources for the articles that he creates or the information that he adds. Of course he's not the first to claim to be a descendant of an Ottoman figure. Some parts of this article (Mahidevran Sultan) were also sourced by the personal blog of an individual who claimed to be her descendant. Fortunately we removed those parts. Keivan.f  Talk 16:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Lolcancer's talk page
Hello NeilN. When I saw the contents had been removed, I thought they should be restored because they got a not here block. I didn't see the page about user pages saying they could remove block templates once they knew they were blocked. Sorry about that. Thank you. Qpalzmmzlapq (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Qpalzmmzlapq, no need to apologize. I think almost everyone who warns vandals does that until they're made aware of WP:BLANKING. Thank you for helping out with fixing vandalism. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Can it really be "using Wikiepdia as a forum" to point out on a talk page that an article reads like a paid advertisement, rather than a neutral encylopedia article? No.
You are wrong. It is not using Wikipedia as a forum to point out that an article reads like a paid advertisement, and the talk page consists of open cheerleading for the candidate which is inappropriate for an encylopedia. Why am I not allowed to critique the article for its campaign-ad like tone, which violates nearly all Wikipedia policies by ignoring heavily covered controversies? Everyone with eyes has been able to see that Trump was a neo-Nazi the day he slurred Mexicans as "rapists" and "drug dealers." We didn't need to hear him mock the disabled or plan to bar Muslims or require ID cards to know this, and you are suppressing my speech by not allowing me to point out that the article is not encylopedic, but closely resembles Trump' campaign press releases in style and tone and content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.117.25 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But that's not what you did. The bulk of your post, starting with "Disclosure", was about your election matchup forecasts. Leave that kind of stuff for non-Wikipedia sites and you'll be fine. Also, see WP:NOFREESPEECH --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That was only meant to be a disclosure of my non-involvement, since that page seems overwhelmingly likely to be turfed out by Trump campaign staffers. Having read the Trump pages, I would say it is 90 percent likely that there are multiple paid staffers monitoring and removing negative information. It is amazing how quickly anything negative is deleted. They are like ninjas at making sure no one can even cite very right-wing analysts and politicians like George Will, Ross Douthat, jeb Bush, Jim Gilmore, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, etc all pointing out that Trump is more or less proposing " ethnic cleansing" (says Will), and is proposing neo-fascist policies no different from those Hitler initially proposed against the Jews, Roma, Slavs, and the disabled (requirements for carrying Id cards, forced deportation, including deportation based on ancestry , banning entry of religious groups into the countr, closing of places of worship.) to be non-partisan, I've not even cited a single democrat. This goes back to his campaign announcement in May. The fact that this is under-emphasized and the suspiciously advertisement like tone of the article is pretty clear evidence that the article is primarily being written by Trump's campaign, and monitored by them. The evidence is overwhelming. Why can I not simply say "this article reads like a paid advertisement. Why so non-neutral?" I tried that without the disclosure note that Trump is a democrat's dream matchup, but it was also instantly deleted. How can it not be allowed to write "this article reads suspiciously like a press release from the Trump campaign, and sounds advertisement-like rather than encylopedic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.117.25 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored that section (it was deleted by someone else) but you have to realize that it's pretty much unhelpful. State specific text you what to change and why and it's much more likely you'll be treated seriously. Also, I recognize the major editors on the talk page - they've been around for some time and quite likely don't really care about Trump. They care about WP:BLP and retaining a neutral tone to the article when a large amount of the population has outright contempt for the subject. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if this is not an appropriate question for your talk page, but how do you do that indenting thing you're doing here?? Thanks.50.29.117.25 (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * He's typing a colon before the message. LjL (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, there's two at the start of this one. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. Got it. Last question: can I edit that page directly if I sign up for an account, or can only admins edit Political pages?50.29.117.25 (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See your talk page where I answered your question. And admins have no special say over content - rather the opposite if they've performed admin actions involving the article. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

How familiar are you with Charles Edwin Shipp? I suspect there is at least a 90 percent chance he is affiliated with the Trump campaign, due to his outrageous suggestion that the Trump campaign website replace what he called "tabloid" sources, and his breathless endorsement of the excellent sources available at the official Trump archive. It is inconceivable someone would seriously make such a suggestion if they were not being paid to do so, or a campaign volunteer of some kind. He repeatedly accused "bias" for even mentioning that Trump has publicly announced plans of a religious test for entry into the country, and creation of a national registry, identification cards, and has centered his campaign on a promise of mass deportation to be accomplished within 2 years. He is almost without doubt the mole here. I would be shocked if it is not him. Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Shipp's edits
Astonishingly, Shipp posted the following with the headline: "Sources for valid editing can be found at the at the Trump campaign page": "The Trump Campaign has archive of main media articles, and on October 8th, had a nice picture of his wife Melania and his daughter Ivanka Trump. Here are some captions: "Previous News: A key argument against taking Donald Trump’s candidacy seriously is evaporating" and "Next News: Donald Trump plots his second act". Archived clips go back to June 30 2015: "Real estate mogul and possible Republican presidential candiate Donald Trump says the U.S. is making poor choices under Democratic leadership" in Reuters; and go currently up to September 30th in USA Today: "POLL: DONALD TRUMP STILL ON TOP AS OUTSIDERS FIORINA, CARSON RISE USA Today Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has strengthened his lead at the top of the USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll while two other outsider candidates, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, have gained ground over rivals with electoral experience." URL: http://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/trumps-campaign-manager-opens-up-about-strategy This is the ticket to find non-tabloid sourcing. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)"

Yes, Shipp indeed actually suggested that "Sources for valid editing are to be found at the Trump campaign page", as if this was Wiki policy rather than its exact opposite. A campaign page is absolutely the opposite of a source for "valid editing" and no one who does not work for the campaign would suggest a campaign page is a neutral source for information and denigrate newspapers as mere "tabloids", sneeringly.

This looks like incontrovertible proof of Shipp's Conflict of Interest to me. he is the mole.Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * here is Shipp, breathlessly effusing about Trump's gritty determination to stay in the race:

"== BIG news to those expecting Trump to drop out ==

For everyone who expects him to not being in the race, this should be BIG news. Headline-1: '''I. Will. Never. Leave. This. Race.''' QUOTE: "I. Will. Never. Leave. This. Race." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing."
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-will-never-leave-this-race/2015/12/08/af1b1d46-9ad2-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html

It is beyond obvious he has a conflict of interest, and is almost certainly a mole or plant from the Trump campaign. More to come.Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk)


 * Here is Shipp protesting that Trump "did not say what he said" and that it is "bias" to report that Trump said what he did say:

Keep in mind that Trump didn't say what everyone (in their bias) is assuming he said. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk • contribs)
 * Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies, okay you have to ease up here. First, remember WP:TALKNEW. Second, accusations like being a mole for someone can land you in hot water. Shipp has been editing here since 2009. Looking at his recent edits, it seems to me he's pushing a point of view but that's a far cry from being a mole. I suggest for now that you focus on content rather than the editor. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, well I still think that page is heavily Astro-turfed. If you have 2 billion dollars you can pay Charles Shwipp to manage your Wikipedia page. Here's the final two nails in the coffin. First, we have Shipp beaming like a campaign press release about Fiorina and Jindal "owing" their coverage to Trump;

"Also, feeling 'hit', Bobby Jinal hits Trump back. Fiorina and Jindal have greater coverage because of Trump. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Second, even more damningly, we have Shipp protesting that Trump's popularity has risen In the polls in reply to a citation that it has dropped, and telling us, like a good campaign manager, that "let's wait and see after the next debate." I smell something suspicious here. There are also egregiously long discussions on there of which Teump photo is most flattering, which is quite strange since Trump has the same yellow-tinged grimace in nearly every photo, and almost always wears the same exact clothing every time I have ever seen him: "Actually, his popularity has risen. Let's see what the next debate delivers. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2015 (UT"


 * how does Wikipedia ensure that well-funded political campaigns do not directly insert their propaganda into articles? We must prevent fascism from coming here at all costs. Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies, there are many editors who keep an eye on articles about high profile subjects and there are ways to get the attention of the community. Inappropriate material gets spotted and scrubbed. Wikipedia has been around since 2001 and is well used to handling astroturf campaigns from around the world. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wissam Ben Yedder
Hey, I noticed that you fully protected Wissam Ben Yedder. It looks like the "access-date" on the 4th source is missing. Upon visiting the URL, I found that the link was dead. I cannot fix this since the article is fully protected. Can you do this for me? It seems like a non-controversial edit to simply add to that source referenced in the article. Thanks :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm checking in while on vacation so I'll be refraining from doing admin actions. The article should be unprotected tomorrow. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just got back from vacation myself. Enjoy yours; I surely enjoyed mine :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

DanDud88
Neil: Thank you! It's a shame, really. He could be a serviceable editor, but he just won't play by the rules. --Drmargi (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yakbul's IP editing
It appears Yakbul has returned to his POV editing and issuing personal attacks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * and this new account .--188.158.101.229 (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

direct democracy ireland
hi,although i was told to air my grievances on the talk of DDI i still am not getting any replies to the reliability of the material used on the page if i change something on the page there is an instant response to revert it back to the original still when i ask a question the editors pages i get no response in relation to where certain information is got from.Railsparks (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Railsparks, I see you got some answers on the talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> hi thanks for the reply but i am still trying but i seam to be getting nowhere some users are not showing a NPOV and dont want to page to change i have highlighted that alot of the the material used is just heresay and offers no conclusive evidence as to the groups identity, is it possible that maybe you could review this page,i know that you are busy but would be great to to have an neutral view on this.Railsparks (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Advice
Turning to you because during this incident you advised Trinacrialucente and me to stay away from each other.

I've recently realized there are a number of Islam-related articles with plenty of unencyclopedic material, and in the latest one I found, I removed a ridiculously long collection of verbatim-quoted hadiths. Trinacrialucente went and reverted me, even though you can see from the article's history that he had never touched it before. I'm pretty damn sure that his revert is without merit, because it is not possibly justifiable to have half an article made out of long religious quotations; but at this point I'm too annoyed with Trinacrialucente to calmly take it to the article's talk page (where I suspect, among other things, there would be people who are more into Islamic methods than into writing encyclopedias, as I've experienced before), and I see no ground to file a third ANI report right now, especially after there was no action on the last two, even though it all sure adds up!

LjL (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * LjL, I'll look into this in detail after I get back. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hadn't noticed you were on holiday. It's not so urgent any longer since another editor has reverted Trinacrialucente and they haven't insisted any further on that article so far (I don't find that surprising since I'm convinced they're just trying to annoy me). LjL (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Sorry to continue this soap opera but I'm being annoyed in turn... Trinacrialucente randomly jumped onto my talk page where discussion completely unrelated to him was taking place. How exactly do I need to tell him that he's not welcome there and that he's bothering me? Obviously more complaints at WP:ANI after which he'll just laugh at me because they aren't actioned won't help.
 * He has also just come and undone my revert on Yazidis (which was of an editor, Chickchick77, who everyone on that page knows is a POV-pusher) with a bogus reason (how can reinstating what the page said before, which was replaced with something else entirely, "WP:SYNTH"?!).
 * From my point of view, at this point, it has become obvious that he sometimes just looks at my contributions and thinks "I'm bored, let's see how I can make him mad today". I am sadly far from zen enough to not feel seriously annoyed by this. LjL (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And here we go with more: since one of our first interactions involved him mocking my English (since I had made the tragic mistake of indicating my first language on my user page with a userbox), now that he knows it annoys me, he takes advantage of every opportunity to have a jab on me about that. Needless to say, this is moot. I really can't edit Wikipedia anymore without getting angry with this obnoxious person following me around. LjL (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sophia Abrahão
I am not familiar with the details surrounding the ongoing SP issues at Sophia Abrahão, however it would appear to the untrained eye that User:ArthurRebelnatico has found a new account to due their bidding. At your convenience would you please review and confirm? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Following up on this, there is an open filing at Sockpuppet investigations/ArthurRebelnatico should you wish to comment. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sock already blocked. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock?
I'm bringing this to your attention since you began this SPI. What do you make of this? The account that edited the page was started two days after the account whose page was edited was blocked. I need to get offline and don't have time to follow up. Valfontis (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Valfontis, I opened a SPI and asked for a CU. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of it! Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Obstinate
Hi Neil, when you get a chance please take a look at this user, who calls him self Mr. Obstinate in Telugu. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor
Hi Neil, you blocked Monochrome Monitor a few weeks ago after she was editwarring on Criticism of the Israeli government with her edits here, here, here, here and here. However, despite her promise to edit productively here it appears as though she has started the editwar again over the same content on the same page as you can see with her edit here. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That will not be necessary. I shall speak to her, reminding her of her undertaking. I mentor MM but I can't keep track of all her activity. She will not do it again. Please hold off any further action Neil. I appreciate your GF so far. Irondome (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Pro forma close
Essentially moot since the guy apparently stopped editing, but would you do the honors of closing the request at Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure ? NE Ent 00:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Lycoperdon
Lycoperdon (possibly from Russia due to her edits relating to Russia) refused to read the message what you have left in her talks regarding her edits on the Yemeni Civil War (2015) article. FrankieL1985 (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting to join a debate for James Stunt
I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -Khocon (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you NeilN for removing User:Forresterjanice's Talk page access. Also, there is some issues going on YouTube that is going on about you.--2601:147:C200:6B47:6CA2:B8F1:2463:6DF0 (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

School IP
This is a school IP. I am a Wikipedia user that doesn't want to disclose my username for safety and privacy reasons. Could you tag it? 62.218.25.130 (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation

 * Hello, your input would be greatly appreciated here. Template:Bernie Sanders sidebar on Revision history... Without citing specifics, these guys just keep saying over and over that there is a Copyright Infringement where there is none, and removing the photo (first below) on those grounds. The current photo (second below) is of poor quality, is of an outdated format, and does not present the subject as well as the one I am suggesting, I think. Because of the nature of their repeated removal of the photo on what is false grounds (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bernie Sanders 2015 campaign portrait (cropped).tif), I was wondering if you could please step in as a fellow administrator to them, and remove the deletion request and maybe get them to choose a different reason to dislike the photo. The photo in question is here, I believe it is properly tagged as CC0 1.0, and is free in the Public Domain by presintation of the subjects website as part of a self-proclaimed "Media Kit".

In fact the second photo is possibly on more dubious grounds because it was taken from a flickr account with no mention of the intended purpose, according to its source, as opposed to an official media release (cited on the first one). Anyway, please help, these guys are going through my edits history now, particularly User:William S. Saturn, and its starting to seem like harassment - particularly in light of the political nature of the photo being discussed. I have not warred with either of them, but they are repeatedly (three times) removing the photo in question from all of its presentation area without clearly stating the nature of their grievances. Thank you for your time and hard work! --7partparadigm talk 18:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7partparadigm, I'm back from a holiday. Do you still need help? Note that I am not an admin on Commons. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Renaming of page
Hello Neil!

I was wondering could you change the name of Mario Pavelic's site? It is written Pavelić, since he is of Slavic heritage. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Please protect Cho La incident, Capitals00 is back vandalizing that page again
Hello admin please protect the page Cho La incident.

--162.74.52.147 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Generation Alpha
Hi, could you tell me if this article should be nominated for deletion? Or is this the type of term Wikipedia wants to include in the encyclopedia? Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:6DC0:2C17:90AE:A2FB (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you weigh in on the merge discussion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generation_Z#Proposed_merge_with_Generation_Alpha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Jai Gangaajal
Hi N, would you please watchlist Jai Gangaajal? Funky editing. I converted to redirect in September (here's my talk page comment) as there's no indication principal photography has begun (WP:NFF), and plot summary was plagiarized. User Randomsmoker, an SPA, silently reverted. I restored redirect and left an L3 on Random's talk page. Semi-new editor GeneralKutuzov silently reverted as well, which restored plagiarized content. Has the smell of ring editing, and I'll note again that I opened a discussion in September. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cyphoidbomb, redirect semied for 2 months. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Neil. The issue quieted down after I and some other editors found that GeneralKutuzov was issuing wack vandalism warnings to people like Flyer22 who hadn't committed any vandalism. Take it off your watchlist! Merry Christmas and such. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

He's Baaaack
Our little fan-identifier is back, under the ip, trying to claim that Pete is a wolf in List of fictional wolves.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also hopping to this ip,, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr Fink, 2601:989:0:3d7e::/64 blocked 2 months. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Mr Fink (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

MarnetteD&#124;Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.


 * Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size NeilN as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * MarnetteD, ho, ho, ho! Happy holidays to you too! --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No mention of criticism or of the underhanded actions of Anita Sarkeesian
Why has the mentioning of how Anita Sarkeesian's kick started is 3 years late and only 1/2 done with no sign of it ever being finished. Where footage was taken with no credit given to the creators with the claim it was their own gameplay. How it is said that her desire to "spark a debate and create change" involves blocking and silencing any opposing view that shows where she has been dishonest, spread misinformation, or just outright lied to support a preset view. Why is this written so one sided with little to integrity or honesty and just shows her to be a victim and not a troll what she really is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbeamsy (talk • contribs) 07:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rbeamsy, assuming you're not just here trolling for Gamergate, I suggest you read Talk:Anita Sarkeesian and its archives where these issues have been raised. You should also be aware of WP:BLP which applies everywhere. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello NeilN: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 19:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Further block evasion
Hi NeilN, please see for the most recent incarnation of a blocked user. Many thanks and best wishes for the holidays, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked by another admin. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Page 'University of Bologna'
Hi NeilN, I ask if it is possible that the page University of Bologna will become unprotected. I think they are more problems arising from the fact that the page is semi-protected. This measure prevents the small corrective updates of users who want only the best language or add a source. For example, what will it take to accept the request to correct it, the number of schools and the cities of the campus? Thanks so much --Strenza (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strenza, semi-protection is preventing disruptive edits which have caused the article to be protected four times since October. Unregistered users can use the talk page to suggest edits. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Lycoperdon
The message you left on the user from Russia]. She refused to read your message. She kept reverting rather than discussing on the talk page. Please block her as soon as possible. FrankieL1985 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * FrankieL1985, I suggest you actually add sources as requested rather than asking for a block. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Deez Nuts (band)
Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Shy-Boy
Not sure this needs doing anything about, but is surely a sock of. They're connected by having both edited Jamie McMurray and having both used the IP 142.161.21.21, see this and this. I suppose you could call it a clean start. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

 * Not sure which sock you're referring to as I've blocked a few in the past couple hours but you're welcome. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , a WP:DUCK sock of sockmaster . Steel1943  (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry stuff.
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:#fff; border-width:3px; text-align:left; padding:2px;"><div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:6px;" class="plainlinks">

Poepkop (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Poepkop (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello NeilN: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 21:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

How to resolve this situation?
Hello, FrankieL1985 has issued me a threat that I am vandalising the thread, while all I am doing is protecting it from vandalism. Someone keeps putting Russian and North Korean flags at the list of belligerents in Yemeni Civil War (2015), while there is no reliable proof that such a major change in the conflict of these countries participating in the conflict ever took place. The ediotr goes beyond that by providing absolutely no source, just adding russian and north korean flags for no apparent reason repeatedly. I believe I have right to revert unsourced changes which deliberately shames countries for no reason the editor probably dislikes, Wikipedia must remain neutral and free.

In short: I am accussed of vandalism while I am actually the one helping wikipedia cleanse itself from vandals randomly throwing countries in conflicts without any sources at all, their edits are as legitimate as putting United States as supporter of ISIS with no source or Germany as supporter of Al-Qaeda. In this case, however Russia and North Korea is unfairly targeted, if that mysterious editor has a proof he could atleast add source to it rather than just dumping flags.

Wikipedia should also be free of personal attacks, while what FrankieL1985 posted on my talk page was a clear threat to not fight for neutrality of wikipedia and accept Russia and North Korea as belligerents of Yemeni Civil War (2015) with absolutely no source.Here's what he said to me:http://i.imgur.com/KDrJSfL.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycoperdon (talk • contribs) 22:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied here. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

...And a happy New Year!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:#fff; border-width:3px; text-align:left; padding:2px;"><div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:6px;" class="plainlinks">

GABHello! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Good luck,

GABHello! 01:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit War regarding Joseph Desena
I don't feel that this editor, "Scr★pIronIV", has shown integrity. We have a verified police report and these are FACTS. This user deleted FACTS. Joseph Desena does fake police reports on other people and this is a FACT. They should have reworded or re-written the FACT if they didn't like its presentation, but instead they kept on deleting the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkxyz (talk • contribs) 03:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jkxyz, on the contrary, ScrapIronIV has properly upheld our BLP policy. You'll see that I've redacted the majority of your post as WP:BLP applies everywhere, including talk pages. Continue making these types of allegations without providing high quality secondary sources (not purported police reports anonymously uploaded somewhere) and you will be looking at a block. You need to treat Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You deleted FACTS. Please provide me with your sources and references that prove you know the truth and are representing the true history. You have failed to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkxyz (talk • contribs) 07:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I've provided evidence and references. I've seen nothing from you except deleting things. If you purport to know the true history, I welcome you to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkxyz (talk • contribs) 07:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please provide me with your references and the Court and Police documents because you're talking about public record and facts. It appears that you are claiming to know the truth, but I have seen no evidence from you, while you've been editing matters of public record. If you know the truth, prove it. Jkxyz (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

If you're an expert in Joseph Desena and Spartan Race... I'd like to know how you became that? How did you become the pre-eminent authority? Where is your evidence to support your conclusions and your edits of the history? I don't think you were there. I don't think you know anything about it? But, you apparently feel that you can write the history and delete facts. That's interesting. Jkxyz (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

If you can't support your version of history with Court Documents... I have no idea why you're editing the page? Jkxyz (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

If you feel confident to make changes, delete facts, and purport to be an expert on Spartan Race... I'm happy to defend my sources and references anywhere. I'm not sure anyone else can say that? Jkxyz (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not make legal threats -- samtar whisper 09:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never made a legal threat Samtar. Your assertion is a distortion.  I've simply made it clear that I am willing to defend the truth in a Court of Law, or anywhere else and have provided references, unlike the people deleting FACTS.  Jkxyz (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "I'm happy to see you in Court" tends to show a willingness to take off-wiki legal action -- samtar whisper 09:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

"Tends to" is not a threat. That's your opinion. Therefore you've admitted to distorting my words to fit your context. Thank You. Jkxyz (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The reality Samtar, is that NeilN has threatened to block me I believe several times, for speaking the truth. If you'd like to speak about threats, please start there.  Thank You.  Jkxyz (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't have the time to go through absolutely everything (though I have been editing Joe De Sena), but given all this I think NeilN would be well within policy to block you should you continue to make unconstructive edits at Joe De Sena -- samtar whisper 09:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please explain Samtar how speaking the truth is unconstructive? I'm waiting for the education on that. Thank You. Jkxyz (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's only the "truth" if you've got the reliable secondary sources to prove it. See WP:TRUTH, WP:BLP and WP:RS -- samtar whisper 09:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the Vermont State Police is not a reliable source? Is that what you're claiming?  Jkxyz (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved to your talk -- samtar whisper 09:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

All you're doing it appears to me Samtar is deleting things... so, I don't see that as productive, but that's my opinion. All I've said is that I've provided evidence, and I can provide more. The response has been to delete the references and provide nothing. Jkxyz (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You provided no supporting evidence to support your deletions and revision of the history. If you think that shows integrity, you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion. You need to support yourself with references, court documents, and proof that you know what you are talking about. Jkxyz (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe something along the lines of.... "During the lawsuit (between Andy, Joe, and Julian) Joseph Desena was shown to have fabricated claims about Julian Kopald to the VT State Police, for which he was unable and failed to provide any substantiating evidence". My source reference is a copy of the police report from the VT State Police, in which the officer writes that Joseph failed to provide any evidence to support his claims against Kopald. Thank you for being civilized and having a discussion. Wholesale deletion of things and threats to block people is really not very nice in my opinion. Thank You.Jkxyz (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I've provided the police report... You can call the barracks. If you don't want to post the true events, that's on you. Thanks. Jkxyz (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I frankly don't really care if it involves getting in disputes with people (such as yourself, or NeilN, etc)(because I have no interest in disputing with you, NeilN, etc), but I am Julian Kopald, and this guy Joseph Desena tried to jail me 15 times over the last year, because when I found out that he was defrauding the charity races, I proposed holding a real charity race, and Joe put an end to that by calling the police. He's subsequently sent the FBI to my home, claimed that I was plotting to kill people, and tried to get the power to imprison me 15 times. I've beaten him in Court, 11 times, acting pro se, against 9 lawyers and 5 different law firms in 3 states over the past year. It has been a nightmare, and I'd like the truth to be told and I'd like to clear my name against the charges this guy has been putting out about me. If Wikipedia isn't the place for this type of "history", then that's fine... I'm obviously not in charge here. I'd just like the truth to be told, because I really just want to get on with my life. And you know, I apologize for any surly or aggressive responses to you, NeilN, or anyone... I'm just obviously very close to the situation, so I apologize for any misbehavior or breaking of the rules... my intention is/was just to tell my side of the story. They(Joe+Raptor Group) came after myself and Andy, and I'd just like the truth to be told. Thanks.Jkxyz (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I cannot believe what I keep on seeing here. The links to the Tampa fraud are continuously removed! This is a matter of public record and their removal is disrespectful of veterans and disrespectful toward the public who don't deserve to be defraudedJkxyz (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Closer (Tegan and Sara song)
Can you protect the page to persistent poorly and unsourced content. 123.136.106.107 (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Protected 1 week. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Block Spammer/Vandal
Could you block User:172.56.9.215? He is going to the page Tyler Ward and replacing all of the content with tags (Diff). Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked by another admin. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Generation Alpha
If you have time, could you merge the article? Happy Holidays! 2606:6000:610A:9000:F957:C48B:1BF1:9EDD (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:#fff; border-width:3px; text-align:left; padding:2px;"><div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:6px;" class="plainlinks">

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed
''You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.''

The has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Revision made in error
A revision has been made in error on Ray Griggs profile. can you please delete the last 4 revisions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.181.73.222 (talk)
 * This is likely to fuel the media and cause issues on a large scale for the department and myself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.181.73.222 (talk)
 * So you don't have to go searching for it N here is the article. Since all of the edits in question were made by the same IP I surmise something wonky is going on. Merry Merry anyway. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The OP appears to be trolling. Making and then deleting his own vandalism edits. Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Pov pushing
Hi Neil, can you intervene the issue on Genetic history of the Turkish people? An user constantly and annoyingly tried to push his pov without no consensus. I have explained the reasons of my reverts and also an admin also reverted the user but he does not give up. 85.105.128.126 (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocking request
Hi. I really suggest you to block this IP again for his recent destructive edit on Diana, Princess of Wales's article. It isn't his first time to do such edits. All of his contributions have been a sort of vandalism. He was also blocked by you before. He should at least get a warning! Keivan.f Talk 17:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of content on Susana Martinez
Some contentious material on Susana Martinez was removed here twice by an anon. Would you recommend that I get a 3O or a RFC? Please ping. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Another editor also restored the material, so it appears to be settled for the moment. Jim1138 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Randall Adhemar account hacked, spewing
I did note see a category, so here: Please suppress, bind down Randall Adhemar account as soon as possible. I am, or was, Randall Adhemar. My account is just sending out cleverly unpleasant messages now. I presume it will continue to do so. The longer it is active, by the minute, the more damage it does. I suspect there is larger scale hacking done as well, as whoever is blasting messages, including stop sign graphics to confused acquaintances. I do not know hot to stop this or regain control, nor even when it started. Please block communications of account, any who can, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall Adhemar (talk • contribs) 10:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I added your request to the WP:AN/I thread about you. With a little luck, you should get what you're asking for soon. Paradoctor (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Dino Arslanagić
Hello,

I was wondering could you change the name of this page, since it is Slavic, and it ia Arslanagić, not Arslanagic?

Thanks! HankMoodyTZ (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I already told you on my talk page, you can do this yourself. See the instructions on moving a page. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 16:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I already tried, but it doesn't work for some reason, it says that it cannot be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HankMoodyTZ (talk • contribs) 00:08, 2015 December 29 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Deletion of the redirect that is in the way and subsequent renaming requested. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

500/30
Hey NeilN! Hope the holidays are treating you well. I seem to recall you being involved and/or somewhat knowledgeable on the subject of the 500/30 editing restriction. I was hoping to get some input from you, as I think it might be time to implement the template-based way of enforcing it, if you recall what I'm referring to. Cheers and happy new year :) &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  02:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year NeilN!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! NeilN, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages. .

Please help remove on of the Big It On film series categories
There are two Wikipedia categories for the Bring It On film series. Only one is needed. Could you please delete this first one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bring_It_On_films

This second one is linked to the article on Wikipedia about the Bring It On film series and the first just seems like overkill, I've tried moving the first category but Wikipedia won't allow me to do this, this is the category I think that should be kept on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bring_It_On_(film_series)

Thanks. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

German Brazilian
Hi, do you remember the User:Opusdei444 that was vandalizing the article German Brazilian? The user is back, with an IP number, vandalizing the same page. Could you please take a look? Xuxo (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Renew PC for...? (31 December 2015)
Kite, Martin O'Malley, WGXA, Cannibal (disambiguation), Religious views of Adolf Hitler, Charles & Keith, Adam Ruins Everything? --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)