User talk:NeilN: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:08, 29 August 2016 editAnythingyouwant (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors91,260 edits →Donald Trump request for close: add← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:50, 17 August 2024 edit undoSNUGGUMS (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers121,585 edits sadly this user lost the mop in 2019 for inactivity
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{not around\|\|\|4 October 2018}}
	{{administrator topicon\|tan\|cat=yes}}
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>}}
	{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit\|User talk:NeilN}}\|autoconfirmed\|{{editnotice		{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit\|User talk:NeilN}}\|autoconfirmed\|{{editnotice
	\| text =		\|text =
	{{Font\|size=13.5px\|Due to recent disruption here, newly registered and IP editors may not be able to post to my Talk page. If you can't post a message on this page, please post your message to your own talk page and ping me - write <nowiki>{{ping\|NeilN}}</nowiki> and don't forget to sign your post - instead. Thank you.}}		{{Font\|size=13.5px\|Due to recent disruption here, newly registered and IP editors may not be able to post to my Talk page. If you can't post a message on this page, please post your message to your own talk page and ping me - write <nowiki>{{ping\|NeilN}}</nowiki> and don't forget to sign your post - instead. Thank you.}}
	\| textstyle = background-color: yellow;		\| textstyle = background-color: yellow;
	}}}}		}}}}
	{{talkheader\|search=yes}}		{{talkheader\|search=yes}}
	{\| class="tmbox mbox-small"
	\|-
	\| class="mbox-image" \| ]
	\| class="mbox-text" \| '''Unless I specify otherwise, any ] admin may undo any of my admin actions without checking with me first if they feel my input isn't necessary. ]
	\|}
	{\| class="tmbox mbox-small"
	\|-
	\| class="mbox-image" \| ]
	\| class="mbox-text" \| '''If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error''', please let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; '''I am always open to civil discussion'''. Thank you. ]
	\|}
	{{Archive box\|]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>] <br/>]</br>]</br>]}}
	{{Signpost-subscription}}

			{{Archives\|collapsed=yes\|image=none\|search=no\|]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>] <br/>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br> ]}}
	== Enforcement request and COI ==

			== I still miss you, NeilN! ==
	I cannot supply evidence of paid editing without violating ] and a confidentiality agreement. However, even the press has noted this editor - by name - appears to have had advanced knowledge of the Clinton VP selection. Although I perhaps should not have specifically said "paid", the COI and circumstantial evidence should stand on their own I think. Thank you. ] (]) 15:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 02:37, 7 February 2031 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1928198238}}
	:This is absurdly flimsy. The same article notes, "This could mean nothing: Kaine has also seen extensive news coverage this week, and like the betting markets, Misplaced Pages could be a trailing indicator of media interest." Note that the first {{u\|Neutrality}} made during the current spate of editing happened ''after'' news orgs started reporting leaks about the VP selection. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
			I know that you haven't been on Misplaced Pages for some time now, but I just wanted to leave you a message nonetheless and let you know that I miss you a lot, and that I was thinking about you... ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 11:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
	::Well, I obviously disagree. Thank you for taking the time to review the request, I missed the autoconfirmed requirement for a filing and I apologize for wasting the time with a report that could not be acted on. However, I do think the report has complete merit. The editor, an admin, has dozens of times just this week reverted and otherwise restored material that was removed or contested by others. The Arb remedies listed on the talk page specifically forbid doing this. The article histories have multiple editors complaining. I am disappointed that such a long-time non-neutral editor will again not even be reminded that the rules apply to them. Again, thank you for your time. ] (]) 16:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
			:Me, too. It's hard not to know why you're not editing, you had such a big impact on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
			::Was thinking of you today. Hope you are well. ] ] ] 21:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
			:::Add me to the list of people who wish you were still around. It's a shame you haven't been active since 2018. ] (] / ]) 05:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
			:I too ] NeilN, —]] – 02:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
			*I miss you too Neil. We didnt interact much, but it was your talkpage where me, and PaleoNeonate interacted for the first time. You two were good to me in my early days here. If it wasnt for you and a couple of other editors, I might have left the project in my early days. I hope you are fine in real life. If possible, kindly drop at least one line message on your talkpage. Take care of yourself, and yours. —usernamekiran ] 20:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
			*Boy did you bash me real hard during my early days of editing but for some awkward reason I actually miss you. I really do hope and pray that all is well with you. ''']''' (]) 02:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
			*Just came to say the same thing. I'm not sure we ever interacted, but I remember your name and have a positive impression of you. Whatever you're up to these days, I hope God is blessing you. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 00:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
			* Same here, Sir, god bless you thank you kind sir - Mini Stephen Hawkins of India <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			==Happy First Edit Day!==
	:A "confidentiality agreement" with whom? Are you paid for editing on behalf of someone else? It sure sounds like it.] (]) 16:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
			<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->
	::No, I am not paid to edit and I do not work for anyone who is. I believe that reviewing ]'s editing history, even all the way back to 2004, makes it clear that there is a serious problem with NPOV and COI. My job does afford me the opportunity to do research and this person is someone that I am remotely familiar with. I was unaware of the link between the person and the editor until this week. Thank you. ] (]) 16:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
			<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center">]<span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:125%;">Happy First Edit Day!</span>]
	:::{{replyto\|173.161.39.97}} If you have private evidence you can email the arbs: ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
			Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
	::::Thank you. I am considering doing that. I had hoped that the matter could be dealt with entirely in-the-open as the editing history is a clear violation of the arbitration remedies (saying nothing about the COI). ] (]) 17:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Again, you need to provide diffs of other editors complaining on talk pages about Neutrality's edits. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::Please see ] and ]. ] (]) 01:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::Hi ]. I'm confused about what I'm supposed to be looking for and how this relates to {{u\|Neutrality}}. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::Hi ]. I've been quite frustrated by Neutrality's actions (in particular on the Baraka page). I noticed the article at the Atlantic looking through his talk page trying to figure out why he was acting so strangely on the Baraka page (you may have noticed, I saw you congratulated him just after I told him I'd seen it). On that page (Baraka) he seemed to be working in concert with a couple other editors. Since then, I've had what seem to me very reasonable edits rolled back by Victoria Grayson (who you gave rollback powers) without any discussion. Since I recognized your name trying to see what her talk page looked like (lots and lots of edit wars), I came to your page and noticed you had asked about other editors having complained about his potential bias. I am one of those editors, clearly. If you take a look at the talk pages you'll get a feel for the situation (same three editors on both pages voting against (reasonably) neutral edits). Please understand I am making no accusations other than that it is quite impossible to edit either of these pages for neutrality in any significant way because of the Victoria Grayson, Neutrality, Snooganssnoogans trio. Sorry to trouble you with this, but I saw you were looking for corroboration. Thank you for your time.] (]) 02:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::], what I see are content disputes between you and other editors. You think your edits are reasonable, other editors do not think they improve the encyclopedia so you're all discussing. I see you initiated a RFC - good, that should attract outside editors. A couple of other points. One, I'm not sure what you mean by "I saw you congratulated him just after I told him I'd seen it". Two, you and {{u\|VictoriaGrayson}} may be interested in a couple of sentences from: ]: "The above restrictions apply to '''standard''' rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting." That is, rollback may be used to revert non-vandal edits '''if''' an appropriate edit summary is used. Examples: rv unsourced, rv test, rv - too much detail, etc. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::I didn't use the rollback function. I have no idea why SashiRolls keeps mentioning it.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 02:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::Thanks for looking into it NeilN; I need to get away from this because I'm spending w.a.y too much time thinking about matters that aren't that critical though I'm very disappointed with the quality of some of the sources I'm seeing on these pages (but it's an election season after all). I was mistaken about the congratulations, I saw your name last night but I don't know where! I've mistaken you for Steve Quinn somehow... Yes, I started an RfC, but I'm not understanding the comments which are remarkably short for the moment. But, that's not your problem! Thanks for your time. :) ] (]) 02:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC) edit conflict...
	::::::::::VictoriaGrayson: I mentioned it because you deleted four hours of work (multiple edits) in one (quick?) (cut & paste?) edit. (granted some of my time was spent studying the sources carefully to be sure that my corrections were accurate). ] (]) 02:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I didn't use the rollback function. This is the third time I am saying it.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 03:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

			From the ], ]<sup>]</sup> 02:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
	:There seems to be a bizarre vendetta by SashiRolls and by this IP not only against me, but against the multiple editors ({{yo\|VictoriaGrayson}}, {{yo\|Snooganssnoogans}}. and others), that have disagreed with his/her attempts to mold the article in a way that convenes policy. This ability or unwillingness on his/her part to accept or acknowledge consensus, combined with the willingness to casting aspersions and engage in ]-style activity, is frustrating and not a productive use of Wiki-time. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
			</div>

	::No. Your trio wins. The dozens of personal attacks on me from {{u\|Snooganssnoogans}} having never been reprimanded, despite your role as an administrator is probably what first made me think you were working together to engage in ]-style activity, and led me to investigate you and {{u\|VictoriaGrayson}}. In any case, that user has won through his extreme rudeness, I will log off of Misplaced Pages and out of the discussion. Three are stronger than one. His (Snoogans) aggressive attacks, which litter the Jill Stein page (both against me and against others), combined with his (Neutr.) cool support, have been remarkably effective in scaring editors away. But this is a volunteer site, nobody has the time to look into such matters, so it works... My apologies {{u\|NeilN}} to have responded to the call for confirmation that {{u\|Neutrality}} had had complaints from other editors on talk pages. He does, and I stand by them without hiding anonymously. However, I am not accusing him of COI, just of letting others be abusive, i.e. {{u\|Snooganssnoogans}}, without reprimand, but with his tacit and explicit support. ] (]) 20:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

	::For information... after further reflection, and based on ]'s accusation above, I have documented the (litany of) evidence of the ]-style activity he mentions, but ascribe it to the appropriate actors ({{u\|VictoriaGrayson}}, and {{u\|Snooganssnoogans}}) on the talk page (. Until a groundswell of activity has been generated, I have decided not to waste my time editing the actual page, as the two editors mentioned have prevented editors who disagree with them from adding pretty much anything at all to the page itself. Still, it is difficult to prove this is a COI issue, it may just be a bias issue. I appreciate your tolerating me responding to his accusation here (if you will do so). ] (]) 11:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

	After receiving two concurring opinions and on the clear anti-Stein bias of the page I added the "systemic bias" tag to the page (which is not supposed to be removed) and began tagging all the disputed claims that have been raised on the talk page by other users and by myself, but ignored. {{u\|VictoriaGrayson}} has since vandalised the page: ] (]) 15:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Nonsense. See .<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 15:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Not one single issue has been addressed on that page. See ( for the complete list of complaints raised by users, and for the comments added on the Reliable Sources noticeboard.
	:::Your personal feelings on the RfC don't matter. That is sorta the entire point of the RfC.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 15:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::no, the point of an RfC is to try to reach compromise positions rather than to hide behind[REDACTED] acronyms that other users have stated are clearly inappropriate. I guess I'll just do something more pleasant than beating my head against a wall. ^^
	I'm sorry {{u\|NeilN}} but how can these two be permitted to own the page like this? Is there nobody who will check this abuse? I appeal to you because it seems it is you who given {{u\|VictoriaGrayson}} the authority she is currently abusing.] (]) 15:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::See .<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 15:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], this is not abuse or ownership. If you keep on bringing up points other editors can keep on discussing or refuting them. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	:OK. The screenshot of that RfC I took isn't flattering ... I hope others will move it along. I've more the impression that if I keep bringing up points other editors will keep refu<u>s</u>ing to discuss them; I think I'll just watch a while. Festina lente, incrementalism, all that jazz... (and I'll try not to think too hard about ; it's inevitable in any case. Thanks for your feedback, that's been kind of you ], I see taming trolls is a full-time job. O.o .] (]) 05:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	For information ], others are beginning to get interested on the Jill Stein page. ], as a result, has asked for full page protection. In response, I have pointed out his repeated edit wars in the last two months (4 editors) and asked that consideration be given to banning him from the topic . I also said there may be concerns about ]. I fear this last bit may need to be taken seriously. I would ask you to consider acknowledging you have been contacted about these concerns. Also, thanks for posting the <i>Signposts</i> articles to your page;[REDACTED] is quite a universe! ] (]) 03:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Returning to the page, I see ] is back to adding 1819 byte reverts, strangely similar to what ] has restored, despite the majority of recent argument on the talk page going in the direction of a biased page. That said, I am casting no aspersions on ]. She pushed him into arbitration and has restored content that he added. I will not continue the edit war obviously. That said, there is a certain history here that those who arbitrate, it seems to me, should be aware of (the selective calls for comment on the pages ] and ] also warrant attention). ] (]) 03:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

	== I believe talk page access may also need to be shut down ==

	Though WP:DFTT is probably also a solution, I think that the of this user needs a talk page block. {{u\|Zzuuzz}} made a good faith effort to engage, and it is clear that we have either a delusional individual or a troll (most likely the latter) but now Zzuuzz is probably too involved to close or invoke a further block. You were, I think, peripherally involved in blocking the IP that I think is the same user, so perhaps you could swing over there and assess? ]<sup>]</sup> 01:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
	:Revoked talk page access after further statements made by editor. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	::Bless you! ]<sup>]</sup> 07:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}}I think he's b-a-a-ack: . Can we discuss rangeblock? ]<sup>]</sup> 22:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Montanabw}} I can't find any obvious connection between the two accounts. What is your behavioral evidence? --] <sup>]</sup> 00:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Changing basic biographic information to add bizarre, unsourced claims to articles about well-known, currently racing American horse racing jockeys. We can probably give him another week or two, he'll do it again if it's the same user. Just to refresh your recollection, we have and . It's not a rush unless he gets on a roll. But if we block this user, I think that seeing if a rangeblock on the IP helps, it might be worthwhile. Open to advice if you think a formal SPI is needed or not. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|Montanabw}} Regular admins can't tell what IPs a registered account is using. If you want a rangeblock, you need to open a SPI, ask for a CU providing enough evidence to convince a checkuser that the accounts are linked, and ask if a rangeblock is possible. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::OK, for now I guess we can just wait to see if we have a return of Masai giraffe and if so, you can block on behavior and we will have the SPI evidence needed. I have seen admin blocks that declare someone a sock and block without anyone filing an SPI or doing CU, is that still copacetic? ]<sup>]</sup> 02:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::{{ping\|Montanabw}} Yes, that's fine. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::As I commented on the parallel discussion on my talk page, this new one is likely to be a sock of ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 07:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Vandalism ==

	Hello! There is a user (probably the sock-puppet of JovanAndreano) which keeps removing categories from pages , , , , . Can you take a look at it?] (]) 18:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	:Blocked. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	He is back again ]. ] (]) 18:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	:Hi! The IPhopper is back again (]). I already reverted his edits, but the reverted them back again.] (]) 16:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
	Castle of Paderne built by Almohads (a berber dynasty) (so it's not arabic architecture it's called berber architecture)<br>
	In Category:Moroccan people of Algerian descent (Moroccan people of African descent) is more specific<br>
	In Category:Moroccan people of Tunisian descent (Moroccan people of African descent) is more specific<br>
	In Category:German people of Moroccan descent (German people of African descent and People of Moroccan descent) are more specific<br>
	In Category:Moroccan people of Lebanese descent (Moroccan people of Arab descent) is a subcategory of (Category:Moroccan people of Asian descent) so we don't need (Category:Moroccan people of Asian descent)<br>
	In Abdelhamid Abaaoud page he is a terrorist so why talking about his ethnicity ?Is it so important ?<br>
	If we thinking like this we must also edit Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Usama bin Laden pages and adding their ethnicity !<br>
	And seriously stop adding the IPsock template for every ip/account you don't like ! ] (]) 16:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

	{{ping\|Alhaqiha\|Sro23}} I've seen "If we thinking like this we must also edit Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Usama bin Laden pages and adding their ethnicity" before but cannot recall where. Any help in tying this IP to {{noping\|JovanAndreano}}? --] <sup>]</sup> 17:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

	:Someone indeed mentioned something like that earlier in a comment, but I cant recall either which one it was saldy enough. ] (]) 17:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I think that this is the first time you will hear something like this ;)
	:::I think you saw it on television or elsewhere ;) ] (]) 17:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
	For you Alhaqiha i think that this page represent your case ] ] (]) 17:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

	You know what it is that I dont like, You vandalising pages, deleting information and claiming other peoples heritage. think that this is your case of ], , , , . And should he be able to just join a comment like this @ NeilN. ] (]) 17:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
	<br>This is not my ip !<br>
	I've checked your contributions history <br>
	From your first edit to this edit all was just vandalizing of berber and moroccan related pages <br>
	LMAO not only in this version, but even in the French version !! ] (]) 17:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

	:You mean reverting your edits that you made with your 100+ accounts here on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
	LMAO how do you calculated this number of accounts <br>
	Give me some evidences <br>
	I think you are talking about yourself ;) <br>
	You're english and french accounts show who you are <br>
	HHH omg your was removing berber and your and your seventh edit was a !!

	:The blocked sock-puppet is going to criticise others now? Take a look at the etymologie of the word Bastilla, then you will understand my first edit. Claiming all of North-African cuisine without sources is probably your work again, second edit. Adding the origin of a dynasty or rulers isn't POV, unless you switch information or delete information like you do. And don't try to start a commentsection war like you did on the talkpage of EdJohnston.] (]) 18:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Again you're talking about your self<br>
	::I think you should take the prize of the biggest underhand and misleading user in all[REDACTED] <br>
	::You are the one who claiming that all north afican cuisine is arabian <br>
	::And all tribes are arabian (like chiadma) <br>
	::And all dresses are arabian (burnous) <br>
	::WTF so every berber user in[REDACTED] is a sockpuppet of "X" ] (]) 18:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

	Guys, this isn't ]. You'll need to open an investigation with evidence or go to another admin familiar with the case as I'm not prepared to block based on what has been provided. I have my suspicions, but not enough for a block. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Okey ] (]) 19:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Ban, of user ] ==

	Why you banned her, This checkuser was only 13years , and coundn`t write Excelent apeals (she was from ] <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:{{tpw}} IP, so now you're ? Come on, both IPs are from poland -- ] <sup><small>] or ]</small></sup> 10:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	::The latest incarnation sent off as well. Range block being considered. ] (]) 10:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

	== University of Glasgow ==

	That was not a "bizarre threat." That was a desperate cry for help. ] (]) 16:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{tpw}} Whatever it is, you are '''NOT''' permitted to write that kind of stuff in an article. It is considered vandalism. Take your "cry for help" somewhere else please. Misplaced Pages is not the place to do this, and even if you were allowed to, we cannot help you. If the number for this guy isn't working, I suggest you phone or email the University of Glasgow yourself who will put you through to him. Thanks. '''] (])''' 16:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:WMF Emergency has already been informed of this so there's nothing left for us to do here. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	::{{u\|NeilN}} Those revisions may have to be deleted as well. '''] (])''' 16:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Done. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Would a <nowiki>{{Template:Suicide response}}</nowiki> be required here as this is a suicide threat. I wasn't taking this seriously until I read ] just now. '''] (])''' 16:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	::], I wouldn't as the editor hops IPs a lot and there's no guarantee they would see it. Plus it would be disconcerting for any new person assigned that IP address. And, as you've read ], you won't treat these events as vandalism? --] <sup>]</sup> 16:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Yes, I'm not going to treat this as vandalism. I was going to revert that template myself until I saw you removed it. Only reason I templated the IP was because he was block evading. I hope I don't come across this myself, but if I do, i know what to do now. Thanks for everything! '''] (])''' 17:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

	== SPI for Who R U? ==

	Looks like they came right back as ]. I saw you closed the SPI, so I didn't want to re-open it or add to it. ] (]) 20:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Hi ]. {{u\|Bbb23}} actually closed it. I don't close SPI's where a checkuser request is still open. The new sock is blocked - thanks for the note. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Hi Neil,

	Do you believe that these two accounts: {{u\|Honadoern}} & {{u\|Poldqnlo5ver342}} belong to the long list of socks that were blocked on this page? Regards. ] (]) 20:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Yes, thanks, both blocked. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

	== SuperMap ==

	Would you mind undoing your revision deletion on ]? See the talk page; we have OTRS permission to use that text under appropriate free licenses. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 03:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Done, thanks for the note. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Response to Ritchie333 ==

	As I am unable to respond to ] on his talk page, and continue the discussion like adults, I am placing the response here. It is standard practice to revert a ] edits. You should know that. You also know you can put back that post and take responsibility for it. Accusing me of "censor a viewpoint you don't like" is yet more poor judgment on your part. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

	== I messed up a ping- ==

	-and tried to re-sign- it; don't know if it worked. But, if you're still around could you give us on ], a fresh set of eyes on the article's opening text? Won't take long. TYIA, ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 18:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], ping worked and I've responded there. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Excellent. The re-signing thing worked. Thanks very much for the opinion. I know we din't need an admin- but one had already been summoned so, an equal was required :) cheers. ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 18:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Sorry about that, the padlocks from ] usually give better descriptions of protection, but yours was definitely the right one, my bad! ] (]) 18:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], no problem. The date also makes it easier for the bot to remove the padlock when protection expires. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Coven (band) ==
	Thanks for adding the reference. ] (]) 22:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
	:You're very welcome. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

	== {{vandal\|AmigaCD 32}} must have talk page access revoked ==

	Because of as well as it has been determined to be a sock of {{user\|John Daker}} based on his ], he should lose his ability to edit his talk page. ''']]</span>''' 02:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Eyesnore}} Done per ] --] <sup>]</sup> 02:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

	== FARKENOATH ==
	You blocked this user, another vandal-only has appeared ] <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Blocked, page semi-protected. Thanks for reporting. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

	==You are blocked from editing==
	I have reported you for your aggression towards me and other users and you will be blocked. Exhibiting confrontational attitude is not an option. There is no room for thugs on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Mmmmm. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I'll miss you, NeilN. Sniff. --] (]) 22:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::], hey, you can lift my block! Will you? Unblock reason? Let's see... It was totally them and not me. Wait no, that won't work. FREE SPEECH!! No. ]? This is harder than I thought... --] <sup>]</sup> 22:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Wall of text required. --] (]) 22:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

	] There you go! --] <sup>]</sup> 22:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

	::::::Per start date of WOT, block reduced to 300 years, starting from 1677. The next block may be longer. --] (]) 22:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

	I'm calling for a consensus on this. This block shall not stand it's a travesty, it was an evil Clone I saw the whole thing!!😂 ] (]) 22:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

	::All of these posts are making my grin stretch from ear to ear. Number one on ] seems to apply. I'm guessing that several others do as well. You probably have read them before but they are always good for another read through - especially when things get a little crazy around here. Cheers to everyone. ]\|] 22:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

	I have unblocked you, Neil. No worries, the wire transfer came through just fine. Be more careful, the next time will cost more. --] (]) 23:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|MelanieN}} A bargain compared to what I had to pay Bbb23 to get out of my "Using Misplaced Pages for spam or advertising purposes: sock puppetry; possible incompetence" block! --] <sup>]</sup> 23:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Shucks. I'm new here, I didn't know the going rate. --] (]) 23:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::{{re\|MelanieN}} maybe what you need is to sell unblocks on eBay. Let the market assess the rate. ] (]) 23:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::I thought this kind of thing was all controlled by the Cabal. Do they run eBay too? --] (]) 00:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::]. I should know. They kicked me out. Therefore, I deny their existence. <sub><nowiki>sniff</nowiki></sub> <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 01:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

	Hmmmm – there's somethin' ''fishy'' goin' on here... --] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

	NeilN, I hope you can now contribute thoughtfully to Misplaced Pages. Remember you are still TBANed from all talk pages, and all edits must be repeated reversions to restore unsourced COPYVIO in BLP articles, and must add the words "Jimmy lik3 gayz!!!111", broadly construed. Secret edits to noticeboards to replace all the names listed in closed reports to be against your enemies are allowed, since no ever notices that if you do this while signed-out. And please remember to use edit summaries with caps lock on. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 16:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Regarding '']'' ==

	What I should have said was that it's unreasonably heavily-edited compared to other articles under pending protection, although it looks like you're right: I looked for a recently-released movie that isn't under any kind of protection and yup, ].

	Also, thank you for the protection. I suppose that completely solves my concern. To be clear: if I'm noticing problems like this in the pending changes log, is RFPP the place to go? ] (]) 18:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], yes, RFPP is the right place to request an upgrade from pending to semi if multiple daily reverts are being made. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Could you??? ==

	Could you have a look at this ANI if you haven't already? After reading this on and on and on.... you get the picture, The user in question is displaying OWNISH behavior on the article and on the ANI, yes seriously it's insane. I didn't start this ANI but someone needs to stop this insanity. ] ] (]) 00:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Been watching it grow too, with a horrified fascination. I agree that it should be ended. The longer it gets, the more it's going to end up as death by admin. ] (]) 00:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

	:], I'm aware of that thread. A topic ban has been proposed by one editor. There's some discussion around it but no clear consensus on what to do. Right now all I would do is caution {{u\|Mathsci}} about how they perform translations on Misplaced Pages with respect to copyright and to cool it with casting aspersions. If you want admin action taken, there needs to be consensus around a proposal. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

	Gotcha, your right I think only 2 people have really supported a topic ban. The whole thing is just insane. ] (]) 00:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Question ==		== Question ==

			Hi, NeilN. Some years back, I remember an exchange that I had with you on my Talk-Page. Were you ever an administrator here on Misplaced Pages? Just curious.] (]) 10:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
	How do you get the deletion tag removed and who says that he could put a deletion tag on it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:{{tps\|w}} ] - If you're referring to a ], anyone can place a speedy deletion tag on an article and nominate it for speedy deletion if the article meets the criterion. The tag can also be ''removed'' by any editor (''except'' for the editor who ''created'' the article) if the article clearly does not meet the criterion that the tag was placed for (an edit summary with an explanation needs to explain the removal). Creators of articles that are tagged for speedy deletion must contest the deletion by explaining their rationale on the article's talk page. Administrators read these pages before deciding to delete an article. This is what you must do if you've created an article and it is tagged for speedy deletion and you wish to contest it. Do not remove the tag yourself; someone else must do so. I hope this answers your question :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 02:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], '''anyone''' can nominate an article for deletion if they feel it may not meet our content guidelines. The tag will be removed when ] is closed by an admin or experienced editor (in about four days). I encourage you to add your input there. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Oh, he was referring to an ]. I tried :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 02:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Always check recent contribs :-) --] <sup>]</sup> 02:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Well you know what? I... yeah, you're right I totally didn't lol. It's one of those days again, I can feel it ;-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 02:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

			:{{u\|Davidbena}} NeilN has not edited since (and I still miss him). To answer your question yes he was an admin. ]\|] 17:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
	== Question ==
			::Thanks.] (]) 19:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
			== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
			]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 16:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

			== Azov Battalion ==
	Who is the main person in charge of deleting a page after the discussion page? and also how do you find a users recent contributions <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:], there is no main person. In this case an uninvolved administrator will look at the discussion, assess ], and make a decision. As for looking at contribs, please read ]. If you have further questions after that, please ask. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

			I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at ] Cheers ] (]) 01:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
	== Statement ==

	I'd just like you to be aware of ] who recently wrote on my talk page that I will be blocked from editing for using "poorly referenced" material on ]'s wiki page. He is defiantly abusing the power of admin and shouldn't blackmail other users. Daniel Keem has reliable sources and I assume that JJMC89 has something personal against the page. ] (]) 18:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], JJMC89 is not an admin. Anyone can warn editors. Have you been reading the for that article? "] violating material requires reliable '''secondary sources''' before it can be reinstated. Citation needed tags are for non controversial material)" --] <sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	::], JJMC89 is deleting more than ]. He is deleting his birth information which is not relatable. ] (]) 19:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::], okay but that's something you can discuss with them. {{u\|JJMC89}}, your revert left an unsourced birth date in the article. Did you mean to do that or are you contesting the source? --] <sup>]</sup> 19:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::], I would love to discuss, but I think JJMC89 is being rather immature, my just leaving stupid warnings rather than a text explaining why. ] (]) 19:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::: Leaving it in the lead was unintentional. Famous Birthdays is not a reliable source. — ] <small>(]'''·'''])</small> 19:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Famous birthdays is a reliable source. They have been feature on news outlets and they have 350K twitter followers ] (]) 19:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: It is not reliable, see ]. — ] <small>(]'''·'''])</small> 19:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::], I trust the above will stop you from reverting again. Also, please read ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::Yes I won't revert, but that noticeboard section was from 2013. Is there anyway to block bullys like ]? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::::::::], you've called editors bullies and you've accused other editors of trolling. These ] against editors following Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines need to stop now. Yes, that discussion is from 2013. You can start a new discussion to see if consensus has changed. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::The "bullies" phrase was uncalled for, but the "trolling" comment wasn't. "Let's get roight into the noose" is an internet meme (you can search it up on Google if you would like) and unprofessional of a 6 year wiki veteran (in my opinion) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::::::::::I was just making a joke that keemstar fans would be able to spot. Anyone who had watched even one dramaalert video would immediately pick up on it. I was just an apparently ham fisted attempt to interject some humor into the discussion. Childish? yes Trolling no. Either way I would highly suggest that you take Neil's suggestions to heart. I've been here a couple of years, as you know, and I've never known Neil to be on the wrong side of something. Cheers mate.--]<small> ]</small> 02:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::::], ack! Don't ''say'' that! Now I'll probably screw up and block Jimbo or something. And there have been a few times my thinking hasn't been in line with consensus. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::<small> This Jimbo guy is not good enough for Misplaced Pages. Lets do the ]. - NeilN.</small> ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Copyvio revdel needed at ] ==

	Revision 733011405 from 12:28 Pacific time (diff: ) contains a direct copyvio of the cited article from theblaze.com. (I'll refrain from comment about the fact that the IP address is registered to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs...) Thanks for taking a look! - ''']''' '' ]'' 19:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Revdelled. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Thanks much! - ''']''' '' ]'' 20:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	== Reference errors on 5 August ==

	] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. {{#ifeq:1\|1\|It is\|They are}} as follows:
	*On the ] page, caused a ] <small>(])</small>. ( \| )
	Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can .
	Thanks, <!-- User:ReferenceBot/inform -->] (]) 00:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Thanks for fixing, {{u\|Adam9007}} --] <sup>]</sup> 00:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Since you were named.... ==

	I thought I should share this with my "''so-called''" sockpuppet:
	*"''] and ] are both trolls and liars. Ahem~Sockpuppet~cough. That belongs to ] who operates a number of sockpuppet accounts including ]. So I ask that you take the block off of me for good behavior, ] and prevent these two users from infecting my page with spam and viruses. Thanks, ] (]) 22:04, 5 August 2016]''"<br>

	wow. --] (]) 01:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], saw that earlier. As I mentioned elsewhere, an indef is probably headed their way sooner than later. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	::They're on a last chance, certainly. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 01:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	:::Que?
	*"''''"<br>
	:::I am seriously too sober to understand this person. --] (]) 01:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::], ] --] <sup>]</sup> 01:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Yeah, I saw that as well. Clearly this person has a problem. --] (]) 01:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	August Fools' Day ?--] (]) 01:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	== 188.32.99.202 ==

	] (]) 04:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	] (]) 05:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], did a rangeblock. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Would you be so kind,........ ==

	If you would, could you semi protect ] for a few days, been dealing with some IP Vandalism for the past few days.] (]) 05:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], two weeks, seeing the long history of protects. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	Thank you sir ] (]) 05:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Still awake? ==

	If so, ] ] ] 07:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{u\|Materialscientist}} got them. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	The semi-protection should be removed due to pending changes.<br>]<br>] (]) 09:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	:https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Hand&curid=38890050&diff=733228910&oldid=733228174 -] ] 09:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	::And now blocked. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Please open sockpuppet investigation about ] ==

	Hello NeilN. This editor seems like a sockpuppet of ] to me who has been repeatedly creating sockpuppets, edit-warring and disrupting. Please note that he's a very new account who has limited his edits merely to Kashmir-realted articles like this one and of Kashmiri separatist leaders like Geelani and Andrabi just like Exciting2015. He has made grammatical and spelling mistakes like him as well. Not only that, just like Exciting2015 he gives reasons that aren't even related to what he is doing and is dowright not true. This can be seen here where he removes properly and reliably sourced content about action against police officers saying that the Education Minister asserted there is no ban on newspapers (even though the section doesn't mention any ban on newspapers and is about action against police officers) and it was not reliable (even though multiple well-reputed and reliable sources are used). In addition, he hasn't cared to discuss anything with anyone at all even though he tells others to do it and is edit-warring with multiple people, just like Exciting2015. The only thing he does on the talk page is make an edit request, just like Exciting 2015 and his socks who only made edit requests or page protection requests. This editor's behaviour seems stronly familiar with that of Exciting2015. I cannot understand how to make a proper sockpuppet investigation request, therefore I am asking you to do it. Thank you. ] (]) 11:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	:One important evidence I forgot to mention. DnDamubit's account was created a mere day after Exciting 2015's sock account ] was blocked. See the of DnDamubit as well as the result of against Exciting2015 to confirm this. This account is likely another sock of Exciting2015. ] (]) 11:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	::], I've looked at your evidence and I agree. Editor blocked as a sock. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	He has been constantly creating sockpuppets. I doubt this will be the last time he socks. Please keep a watchful eye on articles related to Kashmiri nationalism and separatists to catch him in case he creates another account, these articles are the one he usually edits. His behaviour is always familiar so I doubt he will be difficult to find if he resurfaces. If I find anyone with this behaviour in future then I'll report to you. Thank you. ] (]) 11:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{replyto\|DinoBambinoNFS}} An easy way to report sockpuppets is using ]. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 12:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Thanks for informing me DatGuy, I didn't know about it. I'll try using it next time. ] (]) 12:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	==Disruptive IPs==
	Hi, Neil. Thank you for . Unfortunately, was the response. Regards, ] (]) 14:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Xenophrenic}} I've blocked 2602:306:ce98:1510::/64 for 2 weeks. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Thanks. I'll keep my fingers crossed. Regards, ] (]) 14:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Please check the false info on galkayo page ==

	Even the user Dhinawda is lying about the source. Please check it for your self. The source does not say Galmudug control Districs. It says Galmudug control its southern part.

	This is the true information about the city: " The city of Galkayo is divided into two areas,
	separated by a distinct boundary, with the main nor
	thern portion ruled by the Puntland
	autonomous Government, and its southern part govern
	ed by the Galmudug State." <ref>http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4f675c5e2.pdf</ref> <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	{{reflist-talk}}

	== Redrose64 at RFPP ==

	See ]. --] (]) 20:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	== ArbCom request ==

	I have made a request to ArbCom, in which I have named you as a party. It is at ]. ] (]) 10:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Query ==

	Does qualify for Revdel? If so, please do. Thanks. ] (]) 22:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], I think you have the wrong diff but I revdelled what I think you were pointing out. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Yes I was wrong yes you were right and I thank you kindly. ] (]) 00:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Your block of Jgrantduff ==

	I am a little disappointed that you decided to block ] without taking the time to explain what it was about his behaviour that was problematic. I'm sure you are aware that one of the big issues for Misplaced Pages is retaining content creators of all types, especially with those editors who are capable of producing useful content without having fully developed the skills to interact with other editors. I have had my own difficulties with Jgrantduff; his insertion of undesirable markup took many, many hours of work to identify and clean up, but I supported him as an editor and cleaned up after him - recognising that the majority of what he did was good work, and I made the effort to communicate that some of his effort was unwelcome and, eventually the message seemed to be understood. He never engaged with me, but I managed to communicate all the same. I understand that as an administrator the demands are many and often decisiveness is the order of the day, but carrot is always better than the stick and a little subtlety can go a long way. Best. ] (]) 23:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], have you looked at our prior interactions from last year? Also, a small thing, but despite told a number of times to fix his signature, he's never done so. That indicates an unwillingness or an inability to compromise on the smallest of community standards. He is free to edit in peace. But he can't turn his ownership issues into disruption in article space and pointy, nonsensical requests at RFPP that leave admins wondering what is going on. Perhaps you can convey that to him? --] <sup>]</sup> 00:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I will try Neil. ] (]) 13:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Rob Hirst ==

	{{redacted}} Vandals are changing the website for malicious reasons. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Blocked yet again. You have caused two articles to be protected because of this nonsense. --] <sup>]</sup> 06:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Adding improper and unencyclopedic content on Kanye West by an editor (a West fan) see his continuous contributions ==

	An user has been relocating "AD NAUSEAM" improper and unencyclopedic content to the West article, which is already becoming annoying and really disgusting. Misplaced Pages is right this "an encyclopedia", not for this kind of shameful content ==="I'm a vessel, and God has chosen me to be the voice and the connector." "I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex/Why?/I made that bitch famous"=== or a large amount of never-*ending Twitter feuds, filling up this irrelevant facts with a large number of references.

	I know the administrators in this ENCYCLOPEDIA will take action on the matter. ] (]) 15:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], I just asked {{u\|GentleCollapse16}} to stop calling ''you'' a vandal: ] This looks like a content dispute and should be discussed on the talk page. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
	:: Thanks for your mature behavoir; as you can see, most (if not all) of the articles about the actors/singers/media personalities of the 2000 post-2000 era, are '''extremely overdetailed''', filled up with fandom stuff and trivial facts added by a bunch of ], UNLIKE what happens to the articles about important pre-2000 subjects, in which their articles are very precarious and have a lack of important and relevant content, and nobody cares this, cause they are no longer on the "public eye" and they do not burn Twitter, facebook or any other social network with pathetic feuds, erratic behaviours and one million selfies, see the difference between the ] article and the ] or ] articles (specially the kind of content), for instance. just my IMO. making some clean up to some of these extremely overdetailed articles apparently wreaks havoc to the Status Quo. Greetings.] (]) 16:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

	:::], like NeilN and I , the way that you clean up is not always what's best for the article. You commonly remove important detail and edit war. If "pathetic feuds, erratic behaviours and one million selfies" is what a celebrity is well known for or mostly known for, and it's been covered by a number of ], it is something that should be mentioned in their Misplaced Pages articles. At least some of it anyway. This is why a Public image section commonly exists in our celebrity articles, and not just the ones pertaining to millennials. And per ], a brief summary of the matter should be covered in the lead. A number of these articles are ] or ] articles and have already been through reviews. It is not up to you alone to decide that these articles are not good enough as they are and must be your way.

	:::I've been gone from this site for two days, and I see that you are . This type of behavior is going to make your goal a tough one. ] (]) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

	:::: I´m not gonna to revert the Walhberg article anymore, not for the reason of yield to the continuous foolish reinsertion of promotional stuff and trivial facts and addition of a family tree in the infobox with no article by one new user called jibix, but not to follow that never-ending silly game (which I'm already bored and tired) of non-sense revertions by some editors, including such user, who in his last revertion on Wahlberg, he has no more excuses for his silly endless revertions, simply he reverted this again without any explanation after explaining to him this reasons according to the Misplaced Pages´s policy '''"OBVIOUS PROMOTIONAL stuff in the lede, ADVERTISINGS in the lede (own hamburgers business with no Wiki article) and FAN TRIVIA. no article, no mention in the infofox (never-ending family tree), as simple as that!"'''. I can´t help anymore, besides I run the risk of being blocked, '''some may frown''' with this removals of useless content; so, you can keep stuffing the article with superfluous details, while many other important articles need for help. greetings, bye. ] (]) 15:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Deletion ==

	Why did you delete the Ratatouille photo? It is on the Disney Parks Blog, which is fair use ] (]) 19:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Hi ]. Everything on the web is implicitly or explicitly copyrighted unless stated otherwise. The blog says: © Disney • Pixar, All Rights Reserved. So the photo is non-free content which fails ] #1. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor ==

	Hello. Thanks for deleting and salting. There are two more article titles that come to mind, ] and ], both of which have been used by them and no doubt would be prime targets for the next recreation, so could you please salt them too? Tom/ ] ] 21:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{done}} --] <sup>]</sup> 21:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Alrightie. Based on my very very very (I can’t stress this enough) limited JS and mediawiki knowledge, I’ve {{diff\|User:NQ/sandbox.js\|prev\|733616214\|tweaked}} ] to kind of do what you’re looking for. Copy the code from ] into one of your subpages and import it to your common.js. A "(Diff History)" link should be available under the navigation tab in your sidebar when you’re on a diff page. - ] ] 00:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|NQ}} This is awesome! Thank you!! --] <sup>]</sup> 03:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

	== REVDEL request ==

	{{ygm}} ] ] 04:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|EvergreenFir}} {{done}} --] <sup>]</sup> 04:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

	Sending you another one. ] ] 20:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|EvergreenFir}} {{done}} --] <sup>]</sup> 20:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

	And another one. ] ] 20:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Michael Hardy ==

	I am here regarding Michael Hardy. They are '''''refusing''''' to drop the case as per the new contributions on Guy Macon's talk page. He's just fueling more fire. Is there anyway to settle this until the case is resolved or something? I am getting really annoyed with them. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] ] 06:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Hi ], if you are referring to Michael Hardy posting on Guy Macon's talk page, I did see Guy Macon request for Michael Hardy to stop posting on his talk page in one of his latest edit summaries, but suggestions/complaints should be made at Michael's ]. Happy editing! ] (]) 07:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Callmemirela}} Let's wait and see what happens next. Right now, it's just more evidence (I've posted about it on the case request page). ], being a new editor, I strongly recommend you just watch the proceedings instead of posting. I realize you want to help but anything to do with arbcom cases should be managed carefully and having more experience on Misplaced Pages helps with that. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
	::For convenience:
	::* ]
	::* ]
	::* ]
	::* ]
	::In a now-familiar pattern, Michael Hardy took a statement (my "unmitigated gall" comment) about some aspect of his behavior, pretended that it was criticizing some other, unrelated behavior, and manufactured a demand that was never made.
	::For the record, nobody has to answer any question I ask, and I have never implied otherwise.
	::NeilN, could you please ask Michael Hardy to stop posting to my talk page? I of course have already stopped posting to and unwatched his talk page before asking him to stay off of mine. --] (]) 10:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::], done. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Separate infobox for militants/modifications for military person infobox ==

	The ] is currently the one in use for militants as they don't have a separate infobox. One of the sections "Service years" isn't probably fit for a militant as service years means the time someone spends serving a country's armed force. Besides a military person is used for someone serving in a country's armed forces. I think it would be better if either a separate infobox is created for militants or another section titled "Activity years" is added to the military person infobox. I would like to request this change. Can you point me to the proper place for to request it? I will be thankful. ] (]) 10:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], to request a change go here: ]. To propose a new infobox go here: ]. Hope this helps. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

	== FYROM ==

	Can I add one last thing ? Can I continue the discussion ?--] (]) 13:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
	:] not before September 4th or you'll be blocked again. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

	== A beer for you! ==

	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| I think you've earned this for the swift action in indefinitely blocking that Greek guy for harassment. I was going to give you some Baklava for the humour value, but then thought a beer would be much better. <span style="font-family:Times;text-shadow:#FF9F00 2px 4px 6px;">'''] ]'''</span> 16:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
	\|}

	* He hasn't stopped at Greek, German, or English Misplaced Pages. has started a rampage across other places of Wikimedia, including Sri Lankan, Romanian, Ukrainian, Turkish, Bulgarian, and Wikidata sectors. This guy is becoming a menace to Wikisociety. Do you know if there is a way to warn all of the Wikimedia foundation, to prevent the user from cause mass-disruption? <span style="font-family:Times;text-shadow:#FF9F00 2px 4px 6px;">'''] ]'''</span> 18:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|Wesley Mouse}} Going to the scary, unfamiliar place of Meta, I find . --] <sup>]</sup> 19:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for finding that on Meta. I agree, it does look a scary place to be wandering about. Anyhow, I have and hope (fingers and everything else crossed) that we are able to put a stop to their harassment and victimisation on a global scale. <span style="font-family:Times;text-shadow:#FF9F00 2px 4px 6px;">'''] ]'''</span> 19:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

	==Protection question==
	Hello NeilN. Currently the {{pagelinks\|Mahatma Gandhi}} article is in the ]. The log shows your changes on Aug 5. The protection template has an expiry time of Aug. 7 but, from what I can tell, the PC protection is still active. When you have a moment would you please check on things - it might be as easy removing the expiry time but I didn't want to assume anything regarding your work. Thanks for your time. ]\|] 17:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Thanks for checking on this and for adjusting the template. ]\|] 18:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
	::], no problem. Kept me from falling asleep during a conference call :-) --] <sup>]</sup> 19:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Input request ==

	My request at ] is going nowhere. We're stuck on definitions of military person and militant. And not a lot of people responding. It will be highly helpful if you can give your opinion there whatever it may be. ] (]) 18:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Martone/Doherty ==

	Hi NeilN, a few days ago you blocked an IPV6 who kept redirecting Martone to Doherty. A similar IPV6 is continuously redirecting Doherty to Martone and the IP keeps changing but is still within the same range as far as I can tell. Is there anything that can be done?

	Thanks, ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 13:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], semied the page for a month. Range too wide to block. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
	::OK, thanks. I have it on my watchlist so if something else pops up I can revert. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 13:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Vandalism by sock-puppet ==

	Hello NeilN! This user is probably a sock-puppet of JovanAndreano based on reverting a lot of my edits and removing arab related information in North-African pages ]. Can you take a look. ] (]) 15:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Arab related information
	:You're kidding me ?
	:You are the one who removing anything related with berbers
	:Stop trolling
	:You are a destructive user
	:Vandalism and misleading sources in all[REDACTED] versions
	--] (]) 17:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Why removing turkish salad from this ?
	:Removing berber architecture from
	:Removing citation templates from
	:Removing berber from
	:Removing berber from
	: (i just remove the ovecat)
	:Removing berber architecture from
	:Adding unsourced categories in and
	:And this nothing to do with
	:I think you have some anti berber agenda
	:Stop harassing berber users and removing any berber related informations--] (]) 17:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], you're going to have to take this to ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I think he have a ]
	::'''Symptoms'''
	::Invoking sock-puppet exemption to edit war your favoured version into the article.
	::Reverting every other SPA's edits, calling them a sock.
	::Stalking SPAs that have not made any poor edits.
	::Reverting all contributions of SPAs or even an actual sock without checking if some of the edits were good.
	::Not properly explaining the policy to new users, assuming them to be experienced editors.
	::Outright reverting when seeing the sockmaster's IP range making any edit.
	::Assuming only IP editors who support your view or unambiguously vandalize to be normal IP users.
	--] (]) 17:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::{{u\|Ponyo}}, you've blocked. This is JovanAndreano based on behavioral evidence? Asking so I know for the future. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

	: Even if he is not a sock, Ponyo has blocked him for interuptive editing. Yesterday two of his accounts were also reported at the SPI and blocked. The fact that he creates a new ip account everyday and follows my contributions to undo everything on a daily basis, reverts all the edits back when they are reverted with another IP adress, and goes to the same pages with the same topics over and over again proves it is him. But we have been following him for months now, so we know when it is him. And next to that, he vandalises articles which is enough reason to be temporarily blocked. ] (]) 18:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
	::No, the IP was blocked for block evasion. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Hi NeilN. If you look in the ], it's definitely block evasion by the same user that is rangeblocked by {{U\|Vanjagenije}} . The edit history at ] and ] is also telling. If you don't immediately see the behavioural tells I can clarify privately, just drop me an email.--]<sup>]</sup> 16:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::It's moot at this point as the IP admits to being a sock ], though connected to a different master. --]<sup>]</sup> 16:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

	== It's true! ==

	{{You've got mail}} ]] 21:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Crow}} Done. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Help with ] ==

	Hey Neil, wonder if you can lend your eyes to this article. I've been trying to clean this article up, though it's seemingly a lost cause. The subject appears to be notable, however he's the subject of some sort of internet meme apparently. There's been nothing but vandal edits and possible BLP vios since the page was created. Any advice? ] (]) 17:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], this article was reported at ]. I took a look and deleted both it and its copy per "BLP violations from first version onwards". I've also salted one version per your request. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Thanks, per this edit summary on the Draft page for him I think I see why we had such idiocy: "Jared himself posted on facebook that he wants this page to be edited to be as ridiculous as possible." ] (]) 17:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::], good catch. Deleted the draft as well. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

	== ''Michael Hardy'' arbitration case opened ==

	''<small>You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on ].</small>''

	You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-variant:caps;">] (])</span> 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	<!-- Message sent by User:Kharkiv07@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael_Hardy/Update_list&oldid=734026717 -->

	== List of political parties in Taiwan ==

	Hi NeilN. I noticed you reverted some moves of pages from "... Republic of China" to "...Taiwan" made by {{u\|Coco977}}. I also noticed there was a RM discussion at ] which was closed as "no consensus" by {{u\|EdJohnston}}. Would you mind taking a look at ] because some it looks like that not only the page has been moved from ], but that the move was a copy and paste move which lost quite a bit of the article's edit history which is now found at ]? Whether the move from ROC to Taiwan is acceptable is something probably best left to be resolved through discussion, but the dumping the edit history seems wrong. There are now redirect for "List of political parties in the Republic of China" created which have no record of any edits prior to the page be created was also seems wrong. FWIW, I only have this on my watchlist because I was checking non-free images and found some had been inappropriately used in the "List of political parties in the Republic of China". -- ] (]) 21:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], I think I've fixed everything and everything is back at ]. I've also warned {{u\|Coco977}} - this isn't their first problematic move. Thanks for alerting me. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	:: No worries. FWIW, I have no bias against either name being used; it just seem that the way the move was made was incorrect. -- ] (]) 21:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Remarks on the admin noticeboard ==
	I was concerned to read your remarks on the ]. You say "you started editing with this account yesterday and have focused on Murder of Seth Rich". Since I started editing only yesterday, surely I would not have had time to do much else? But more importantly, can you justify your assertion that "the pushback and warnings you received were well-deserved", because I cannot see that at all. Can you point to edits that were problematic or not up to scratch? I think I have done a good job in a very difficult editing environment with plenty of troublesome editors who have no interest in writing articles. ] (]) 21:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|TradingJihadist}} {{u\|Acroterion}} and {{u\|Volunteer Marek}} more than adequately explained the issues to you. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I don't believe they have, as I've explained elsewhere. Can you point to edits of mine that were problematic and we can discuss them? I want to be as constructive as possible here, but I can't do this if there's nothing to work with. ] (]) 21:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Sure, log in with your regular account and I'll do that. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::I don't have a regular account and I think it isn't helpful on your part to state that I have. I want to talk about what part of my editing and which edits you find problematic, but you seem unwilling to discuss this, always deflecting towards some side issue. If there's a problem you have with my edits, then it would be helpful if you would engage so that we can work towards a better solution. ] (]) 21:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::{{tps}} Your first edit was to create a properly-formatted, decently-sourced article and your second edit was to nominate it for ]. That's not the sort of thing a new editor does. ]<sub>(])</sub> 21:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::I don't believe you. Regardless, the two editors I named above adequately explained the problems. You can believe what you want. --] <sup>]</sup>
	::::::If you don't believe that, I obviously can't 'prove' it. Those editors have not explained anything. I'm asking you to explain what part of my editing you find problematic but you won't answer (except to vaguely point to other editors). I'm trying to be as constructive as possible but there is really not much more I can do in this situation. If you don't want to engage further on this issue, then perhaps you should state this, so we don't waste our time. ] (]) 22:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::As you were told, using the Daily Mail to source anything that remotely comes close to or used to support gossip, innuendo, conspiracy theories is not on. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::Can you point to where this happened? Again, you seem to be in the business of vague and false assertions. If this is all you're going to do, then it's a waste of my time dealing with you. ] (]) 22:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::, , Stop posting about this here please. It seems we both feel we're wasting each others' time. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
	I'm letting you know that I've created a thread here: ]. ] (]) 23:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Vandalism ==

	Hi. Can you please revert user SapraAshuraya's edits on ]? He deleted and falsified sourced content and i cannot do it "manually" now. And please add it to your wathchlist cause as far as i can see, the article is target of edit wars, major content deletions and pov pushings. {{Ping\|JamesBWatson}}, sorry to bother you again but since you are one of the few admins who gives feedback fastly, i wanted to inform you too regarding the issue. It would be nice if you rv the vandalism i have mentioned above and watchlisted it to prevent further vandalisms. Bests. ] (]) 00:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	:I do not have the expertise needed in that area to judge . {{ping\|Harizotoh9\|Cirflow}} Can you help here? --] <sup>]</sup> 00:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	: It doesnt requere "expertise". Read the sources and compare it with the previous and present statements. Clear source falsification and ]. ] (]) 00:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	::The user censored Hurri, Kardukh, Kassit, Medes and replaced it with Assyrians which is not in the source. It is a source falsification and censorship. And also an another sourced paragraph was deleted by the same user. ] (]) 00:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Okay, I've deleted the "In its long history..." sentence. I haven't restored the original because it was a straight word-for-word copy from the source. I suggest you look at this and restore what you need to (not the copyright violation please). Also, SapraAshuraya has done a lot of editing. Have you looked at his other edits for similar issues? --] <sup>]</sup> 00:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	::: I didn't take a look at his/her other edits. But i will do it when have a time. Others also can do it. Maybe user {{ping\|Zoupan}} may comment on too. As far as i i remember, he is active and interested in similar issues.] (]) 01:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::PS: The other content deletion regarding the 14th century and Timurlane is also should be checked. It was also deleted/distorted by the same user. ] (]) 01:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::If you wish, you can re-add/fix it, no? Go , click "edit this page", copy what you need, go to the current version of the article, and paste it in, with an edit something like, "restore deleted content". --] <sup>]</sup> 01:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	: Since I have been pinged here, I will comment. Like NeilN, I do not have the knowledge of this subject to be able to make judgements about the validity of edits. I could check all the sources, but from what has been said above, I guess NeilN has done at least some checking of them, so unless you tell me otherwise I will assume that issue has been dealt with. However, I see that SapraAshuraya has never been given any message about this. If you think there are problems with an editor's editing, you should almost always start by posting to his or her talk page to inform him or her of your concerns. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 12:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|JamesBWatson}} I do not trust the editor's neutrality and therefore wanted to contact admins. Anyway, thanks to NeilN, the problem was partly solved. And again, such unpopular articles should be watchlisted by admins in order to prevent them further problems. I rarely edit wikipedia. That is the reason why i noticed the problematic edit after 3 mounths. ] (]) 15:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Discretionary Sanctions ==

	Neil, If ] has violated DS at ], he/she should self-rv. If he/she refuses to do that and is not sanctioned for it, then I think it's reasonable for me to request a dispensation from the requirement moving forward as well. It doesn't seem reasonable for me to adhere to a requirement that isn't enforced.] (]) 00:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], Rockypedia stopped editing three hours ago. Let's see what they say when they come back. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

	:: ], did you mean to reference when you made ?] (]) 22:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Fixed, thanks. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

	Hi Neil. Thanks for not blocking me for a "hint of snark". :) Seriously, do you have any suggestion what to do when editors keep putting back a POV tag atop the main Donald Trump article against objections from multiple other editors, after the POV tag has already been up for days at this high-profile article? There are plenty of editors engaged in discussing how to improve the lead, so it seems overkill to maintain the tag until the tag proponents get their way (so to speak). I mean they can do RFCs, or install an inline tag, et cetera.] (]) 01:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], from ]
	:#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
	:#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
	:For any article, the tagger needs to clearly articulate specific POV issues. These concerns can be used to convert the article tag into inline tags or section tags if appropriate. Discussion can take place around each issue, keeping in mind what ] actually says. I have it in my edit notice (hopefully it hasn't changed!): "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, '''proportionately''', and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." --] <sup>]</sup> 02:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Hmm, thanks. The editors who put the tag at the top say that their problem is with the lead, and otherwise they would put the tag in a particular section. But the stuff they want to put in the lead is not apparently supported by the body of the article. So I am a bit flummoxed. The idea seems to be that the lead should say a lot about Trump appealing for the support of racists, but it's not in the article body. What's in the lead now is that he wants to limit legal immigration from terrorist countries, and wants to eliminate illegal immigration, and readers are free to interpret that as racist. Anyway, thanks again for your comments, I may be back, because I see little chance that these people are going to remove the tag until they get everything they want, though maybe I'm overly pessimistic.] (]) 02:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::], again speaking generally, the lead summarizes the body. If what you say is accurate, you can ask how their wishes are supported by ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Okay, will give it a try. Unfortunately, presidential election season is not a season for harmonious and logical editing, but it never hurts to try.] (]) 03:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, I am not an American so I'm watching your election with a vast amount of bemusement along with not infrequent bouts of irritation as the shenanigans on all sides trigger disruption in our project. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::Lucky you. :-) I've written a mammoth reply to Dr. Fleischman and Gouncbeatduke , following your advice as much as possible, but I have no illusions that it will likely do any good. Cheers.] (]) 04:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: It's definitely a bummer that we have 18 months of goat rodeo here to pick a president, while they seem to be able to pick a new PM in the UK in about 3 weeks. I don't think anyone here enjoys it (except maybe the people selling ad space.)] (]) 04:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

	Neil, Gouncbeatduke has repeatedly restored the same content to ]:

	I made to consolidate sections and remove redundant content was at this article. The revert had the effect of restoring the redundant content (reference to March 2016 letter). I the editor of the issue and requested a self-rv, but that was disregarded. The editor has been that discretionary sanctions are in effect at the article.

	The content was by another editor and again by Gouncbeatduke with edit summary: removal had no consensus on talk page. I don't believe this is consistent with DS requirements.] (]) 15:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Gouncbeatduke}} Why in the world would you restore content that was clearly identified as sub-optimal on the talk page without fixing the issue? You know every edit on that article is subject to intense scrutiny and could lead to sanctions. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Why do you say "was clearly identified as sub-optimal on the talk page"? The last comment I see in the "Security Expert" section of the talk page is "Retain 'National Security community' section, I say. I'm backing up User: Gouncbeatduke on this. It's obviously not a party issue entirely. I'm positive the 'redundancy issue' can be handled in a reasonable manner. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)" Yet CFredkin and Anythingyouwant continue their edit war edits that complete remove all reference to the nuclear issue that both parties raised and just cover the GOP objections. You seemed to only be interested if editors support your preferred candidate and do not appear to be reading the talk page. ] (]) 02:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Replied . --] <sup>]</sup> 03:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

	===Consensus needed to restore tag atop high-profile BLP?===
	An editor at the Donald Trump talk page has raised an interesting question. If the tag atop the article is removed because of a good-faith belief that the removal criteria are satisfied (see and and ), then would a firm consensus be required to revert the tag back in? I strongly believe that the stated reasons for the tag have been fully addressed, that the lead accurately summarizes the article body, and that no one has identified any problematic section of the article body where a section tag should be inserted. Can you please tell us whether the tag can keep being put atop the article without any consensus to do so, much less a firm consensus? Thanks.] (]) 16:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Replied . --] <sup>]</sup> 16:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

	== need help regarding ==

	I believe a ] is ] and that he created the page:

	in the page Jose Roel Lungay :

	"Early life José Roel Lungay, fondly called Father Roel or Fro, " and in the User talk:ChicogoN several times is said user called Fro.

	what can be done? ] (]) 07:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

	another item is this Page ] which has so many problems, but as I'm not the best person to cite the specific problems, would you mind looking at the page?
	:Hi ]. ChicogoN hasn't edited since 2011 so it's probably of little use trying to engage them. I've nominated ] for deletion. If it is kept, it probably should be substantially pared down. For ] I suggest you remove any unsourced contentious content and judiciously trim the list of external links. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

	Thank you ] (]) 13:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

	what are your thoughts on these non-notable pages

	] ‎,] ‎,]
	] ,]
	] ‎ (notability issues)
	] ‎
	] ‎
	] ‎
	] ‎
	] ‎
	] ‎
	] ‎
	] ‎
	] ‎
	] ‎
	] (bishop) ‎
	] (bishop) ‎
	] ‎
	] ‎
	] ‎
	] ‎
	] ‎
	]
	]
	]
	] ‎
	] ‎
	] ‎] ] ] ‎
	as per[REDACTED] notes on Religious leaders notability :

	In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, an individual will often meet notability guidelines if they: Are the head of a major Religion. Played an important role in a significant religious event which itself received considerable coverage in sources. Made a material contribution to the Philosophy of religion that is indisputably attributed to them. Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on religious matters/writing. Conversely, brief descriptions in genealogical records or church histories of specific individuals are not considered specific indicators of notability. To this end, more than just a church record of a Bishop existing is required to establish notability.

	I believe these Bishops are best presented in a list, rather than have individual pages. ] (])
	:], see ]. It's part of an essay, but will give you an indication of the AFD outcome. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

	] thank you for the clarification. ] (]) 13:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	Im just checking on the article ] and I see its not anymore listen in articles for deletion. ] (]) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

	== No toe-stepping intended ==

	Hi Neil, no toe-stepping was intended with the GabriellaComitoLovesCandy010.1 block. As I'm sure you've seen from the SPI, she's been a persistent pain. If it was toe-steppy, I apologize. Have a good weekend! ] (]) 03:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], no, I didn't have all the information as there was no indication I should check for socking (the block log doesn't indicate that). All I saw were some semi-disruptive edits. Absolutely no issue now that I know the block was for socking. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	::{{Thumbs up}} {{P}} ] (]) 03:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

	== FYI ==

	] put back the copyvio that you reverted... ] (]) 04:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Thanks, they've stopped now. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


	== OneCoin SCAM ==

	'''It's really 118 000€'''! This is serious! Must be fixed asap!

	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8x3z4wtsyA&t=1m51s <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Youtube spam isn't a ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

	The women speaking is the boss/guru of the company...

	I don't see infos about these paying packs on their website. They pretend to be a cryptocurrency, fact is it's also a big MLM. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== IP Vandals ==

	Hello, a week and half or so ago you blocked {{IP\|212.171.27.3}} for evading a previous block. Today another IP ({{IP\|95.238.111.82}}) added the same content that 212.171.27.3 was adding to ]. - ''']''' ] 10:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Yellow Dingo}} Blocked, thanks for reporting. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Protection of ] ==

	{{Yo\|NeilN}}, you forgot to give it move protection i believe... All my other user requests for protection included move protection. Thanks! ] (]) 21:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], done. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
	::{{Yo\|NeilN}} Thanks! Feel free to archive this discussion whenever ] (]) 16:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Occupational Therapy Page ==

	Hi NeilN:
	I have been doing some edits on mostly occupational therapy related pages but I still consider myself pretty new around wikipedia. I just made a few edits on the mental health section of the Misplaced Pages occupational therapy page but they were reverted back to the original. I know that some students attempted the same before and ran into some problems. I was wondering if you could please advise me regarding how to be successful with adding some changes. The page is in clear need of updating and mental health services have been highlighted in several new rehabilitation legislation as they affect the disabled, veterans returning home, homeless, etc. I will appreciate any feedback. Thank you. Dr. Gustavo Reinoso, Ph.D., OTR/L. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Editor was checkuser blocked. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|GustavoReinoso7777}} As you are indef blocked for socking, I will not be answering your email. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Confused ==

	You just edited about Non-Free content. Is this about an image on the Donald Trump page? ] (]) 04:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], yes it is. It's a copyrighted image and I've deleted it. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Trump ==

	The disruption and pointyness is continuing, in spite of the warnings you have given at the talk page and on the editor's talk page: . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 19:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Yes, any advice would be appreciated. The disparaging label is supported neither by the two cited sources (which the editor admits in his edit summary) nor by talk page consensus.] (]) 19:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Two day AE block. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

	===1RR===
	Could you please give me your opinion as to whether these two edits by ] violate 1RR: They certainly seem so to me, and I know that I'm not the only editor who has been trying very hard to avoid similar edits that would violate 1RR. Thanks.] (]) 04:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], it's probably a ''technical'' violation of ]. If you want them sanctioned over this you'll probably need to head over to ]. I will likely not block over initial changes to completely different material. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Then this one editor can completely rewrite the article and I can't undo it. No one can. I'm not going to pursue this further. I am de-watchlisting the article immediately.] (]) 04:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::] "No one can" is not accurate. Over a thousand editors are watching that article. 99.9% of them can revert. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Inactive editors tend to remain that way. Anyway, I don't intend to continue trying to edit in good faith while other editors collect diffs for my planned topic-ban, and slander me without consequence. Cheers.] (]) 05:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::That user has now added the POV tag for a fourth time, despite a growing consensus at the talk page that it doesn't belong there. I reverted the fourth addition and warned them on their talk page. --] (]) 05:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::Thanks ]. I intend to stay away from that article at least for the time being. I feel that ] (after being canvassed) has made serious and false accusations against me at the article talk page. Although I have denied the accusations, I have no desire to be in a flame war that may be designed to get me topic-banned, which is an outcome that ] anticipated long ago at that talk page. Another problem is this: when extensive discussion results in multiple different compromises, a single user is currently allowed to come along and un-do all of them without regard to 1RR (even if the talk page discussion hasn't been archived yet). If that kind of thing is a technical 1RR violation, then I feel it's dangerous for me to engage in that kind of behavior myself, and yet I'm helpless to prevent that behavior by others. So the whole thing is just very vexing, and I'm staying away for the time being.] (]) 14:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::That's an empty accusation of canvassing. NeilN, FWIW, 's a bit of background on Anythingyouwant's 1RR inquiry. --] (]) 18:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::I don't think it's an empty statement, especially in view of what ensued. What's really sad, it seems to me, is when a user decides to consider a good faith 1RR report against him (which was later withdrawn) the basis for treating the filer of that report as an "enemy". I hope that's water under the bridge.] (]) 19:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::], is it water under the bridge?] (]) 18:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::], you may be interested in ]. Discussion is good, but the editor may be headed for a topic ban if they continue making posts like these: , --] <sup>]</sup> 05:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::I see that you have pretty extensive experience with this user - and that their edits on some other hot-button pages have been even closer to the edge than the Trump ones. Thanks for continuing to keep an eye on these articles and their participants. Much appreciated. --] (]) 05:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

	===Question about topic-ban===
	Hi Neil. I see that you . But Gounc . Now Gounc appears blocked for a week, but not for violating the one-month topic-ban. Can you please tell me what's up with this, and why Gounc was able to edit the Trump pages during the apparent one-month topic ban (including the edits that I started the preceding subsection asking about)? Thanks. The whole thing is confusing to me.] (]) 23:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], that was an error on my part. I copied the text from another topic ban I did (ironically, for an anti-Clinton editor) but forgot to remove the signature and re-sign when I tweaked it. I actually topic banned Gounc today. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I see, thanks. So the topic-ban has a wrong date-stamp, but it's all archived. Cheers.] (]) 23:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Dalian Atkinson ==

	His death was confirmed by the police, so please stop vandalising the page. ] 10:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], I was about to post to your talk page after you reverted {{u\|Rayman60}}. '''Do not ever''' call reverting unsourced ] information "vandalism". --] <sup>]</sup> 11:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

	:: What else can you call it if the two of you were reverting confirmed information a number of times? ] 11:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::], you've been editing here for far too long to not know about ] and ]. If you want to add information about a death, '''you''' need to provide a cite along with it. provided no such reference. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::: I did. I provided the Sky News link. ] 11:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::], ''look'' at what you reverted as "vandalism". Was there a source in there? --] <sup>]</sup> 11:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: If you look at my 11.55 post, it does show link there. Saying this, now I can actually see where the confusion is coming from since it reads that the victim is ''believed to be...'' and ''..has been locally named as...'' ] 12:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::: Here. ] 12:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::: Also, why do you keep using someone else's revert? ] 12:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::], because, as I said in my initial post, I was going to tell you that your edit summary was unacceptable for that revert. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

	== frivolous RFPP stuff ==

	Hi - take a look at the last RFPP request I declined, as it's from a guy you blocked for something similar. I don't even know what's going on with this dude because that was nonsensical. I'm inclined to reblock for an extended period for disruption at least and indef as NOTHERE at most, but wanted your thoughts. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 13:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], I would probably block for a month, indicating the next block will be an indef. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I did try, and will continue to do so, but I agree this kind of disruption is unacceptable. Best wishes and thank you. ] (]) 16:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

	== A barnstar for you! ==		== A barnstar for you! ==

	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"		{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]		\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''The ~~Anti-Vandalism~~ Barnstar'''		\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''The Original Barnstar'''
	\|-		\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| ~~Keep~~ it ~~up!~~ ~~Cheers.~~ ] (]) 16:30, 15 ~~August~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| I like your posts ] (]) 20:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
	\|}		\|}
	:], thank you! --] <sup>]</sup> 01:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

	==Superman==
	Thank you for your quick respnse ]. After everything multiple editors reported at the initial ANI, and desite my hopeful talk-page note , the shows 20 undiscussed edits by ], including wholesale removal of text, at least one contentious addition, and then edit-warrng over it .

	This is heartbreaking. I have been a supporter of his quality work for a very long time. But for me, his behavior tips the scales. It is exhausting to me and other editors. --] (]) 16:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Do white edits matter? ==

	I noticed that a white editor made two reverts in two minutes, in two separate sections of the article and in clear violation of the one revert per 24 hour revert rule for the article.

	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=734622411&oldid=734622291

	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=734622291&oldid=734622262

	As they are a white editor, and you only block or ban editors if they are black on brown, I am aware it doesn't matter. If a black on brown editor does the exact same thing, I will be sure to let you know, so you can ban them. ] (]) 19:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

	:That'll do it. Extra silly because you must have missed . --] (]) 19:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

	::And has any white editor been banned? ] (]) 19:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Don't know, don't care. You are judged on your edits, not anything else. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

	:I have topic banned Gouncbeatduke for one month. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Editor blocked by Bishonen. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Thank you, ] and ]. This kind of comment is absolutely beyond the pale. (How in the world are we supposed to know what "color" an editor is anyhow?) --] (]) 20:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::I'm more of a peach myself, though a bit of the tanned side at the moment. ] (]) 20:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Personally, I can smell it. Can't you? ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Some rare editors have "This user is x" infobox on their user page for whatever reason. If I see one of those, I'll forget about it five seconds later because it's not remotely something I need to retain. After ten years here, I can only recall offhand the "color" of a handful of editors, either because I've seen their photos often enough or because they've suffered harassment due to it. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::The problem is that so many users (apparently including Gounc) assume that everyone here is white. Or American. Or male. Or whatever their particular stereotype for Misplaced Pages editors is. How does Gounc know that those other editors they complain of are "white"? How do they know that you or I aren't "brown"? How do they know the ethnicity of the four (that I know of) editors that have been topic banned? They don't. They just assume - stereotyping. And then they accuse you of discrimination based on their assumptions. --] (]) 21:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::I think the only piece of personal info I've ever disclosed here is "I am not American" because I got fed up with being accused of editing with a Democratic/Republican POV. There have been other assumptions made that had me rolling my eyes and going, "if you only knew..." --] <sup>]</sup> 21:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::Wow. Just wow. Here's me thinking only dogs get banned. -] ] 22:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Peace and copyright question ==

	Hi again ], I've read on your page here that you know a lot about copyright. Can you confirm / disconfirm that screenshots of[REDACTED] pages that do not include the mediawiki logo are copyright-free? Is there a protocol for attributing a screenshot?
	Also, I'm puzzled as to why OFT is showing up (so beautifully, the text is brilliant juxtaposed just so). Is this magic?
	]
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJill_Stein&diff=734657413&oldid=73461491 I would very much appreciate your insight on this question, if you have a guide to the perplexed...
	Best wishes, ] (]) 00:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], I've fixed the license on Commons. Not sure what you mean by "OFT is showing up" --] <sup>]</sup> 01:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Peter Hurd's text (or somebody's text with Peter Hurd's name on it) on Optimal Foraging Theory appears at the link above, or here:
	::], ah okay! You've got the ID of another page in the oldid parameter of your link. See, for example, where I entered a random oldid. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	::The oldid is missing a digit. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJill_Stein&diff=734657413&oldid=734614913 is what you're after. - ] ] 02:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Misplaced Pages sho' is a complicated place. One serendipitous back space, serious? Thought I'd been hacked :P ... Sorry to trouble you with that, it was much better reading that way, gives perspective to the lost "battle" on the page. Thanks ] & ]! ] (]) 04:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

	== User page vandalism ==

	Hi {{u\|NeilN}}, Apologies for the interruption. If you're around, could you have a look at the edits to ] and either add some protection and/or block, as and if appropriate? - ] <sup>]</sup> 00:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	: ], dealt with for now. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Semi protect request ==

	Neil can we get a semi protect on ]?? We have an IP who is jumping IPs placing a custom blank image on the article after its been removed several times. ] (]) 03:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	:One week. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	Thank you ] (]) 03:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

	== ] + paid editing ==

	I noticed that you asked the above user about undisclosed paid editing, I have asked him the same.
	I won't put details here, as I know we are not supposed to reveal personal details about any editor, however with a few simple google searches, I came to the conclusion that this user represents an online marketing organization, and is a paid editor. ] (]) 06:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Thanks.... ==

	... for untangling the protection at ]. Your interpretation was correct, I intended to use PC. I'll blame the script I was using; apparently it tagged the page with a PC tag but actually applied semi. --] (]) 14:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Kenny Loggins vandal ==

	Hi NeilN, you recently protected some article targets of the ]. However, they have been coming back on different pages. Would you consider semi protecting or pending changes for these pages: ], ], ], ], ], ]. Thank you ] (]) 15:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Hi {{u\|Sro23}}. {{u\|Laser brain}} applied a short protection to the first article. I've applied a three month semi to the rest. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

	== What am I doing wrong?? ==

	I have removed a link and reference twice now from ] as the website it refrences is no longer valid. Yet two different editors have put it back. Why are we leaving outdated and unavailable references on an article? I have explained this both times yet no one is listening and I'm not about to get hit for edit warring by changing it again. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knight_Rider_(1982_TV_series)&curid=43274&action=history

	] (]) 02:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Hi ]. Have you read ]? --] <sup>]</sup> 03:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

	Yes sir I have as the article is suffering from ] which is what I was trying to fix. The reference link in question takes you to this page http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ia9c51f5ef29150aa83bf8dab9a5cb9de which shows the article is not there, which would make it dead linked. I am on my phone because my laptop is down and I know where I can get better references so I removed the dead ones went to add new references and couldn't because the 2 editors got revert happy which caused edit conflicts, no I couldn't add while I was removing on my Droid it locks up when I have more than 1 tab open on chrome so I was trying find the new reference copy it open the article and add it back.] (]) 03:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], there are two easy solutions to this. 1) Add the new ref in the same edit you remove the dead ref. Or 2) In your edit summary indicate you will be replacing the ref in a subsequent edit. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

	They have now added an archive of the original site instead of just putting a fresh source that works with out having to link an archive or a site that doesn't exist.Clearly no one wants to better the article and I can't add as I remove because my laptop is down, this stupid phone keeps locking up when I open more than one tab, I give up. Sorry I bothered ya ] (]) 03:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

	== BLP Violation & Violation of DS ==

	Hi Neil, Can you please take a look ? In addition, to the DS violation I mentioned there, I believe it would also be considered a BLP violation to restore unsourced, contentious content to a BLP. I have no idea what ] is talking about with his accusation regarding me trying to "sneak in" the phrase "until a screening process has been perfected", but it seems to be irrelevant. Thank you.] (]) 04:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Neil, I just spent half an hour researching this mess so you wouldn't have to. 0;-D This is about the ] article. It appears to be a misunderstanding, on ]'s part, of a revert request made by ]. As you can see on VM's talk page, each is accusing the other of reverting. Here's what I think happened: VM made a multi-part edit described as ''"undoing some of the no-consensus changes"'', in which he removed part of a sentence (at the end of the last sentence of the lede) and also added two sentences to the "Trump expands" section. CF posted on VM's ] asking him to revert that edit. CF said the edit was improper because it restored two sentences that CF had removed from the "Trump expands" section. VM misunderstood and thought CF was referring to the part of a sentence VM had removed from the lede ("until a screening process has been perfected"). He thought CF had added that phrase and was improperly asking that it be restored. That phrase had actually been added by User:Zaostao and had nothing to do with CF. And in any case it wasn't that phrase that CF was objecting to; it was the restoration of the two sentences. My suggestion to VM is that he self-revert those two sentences, before he gets nailed for restoring contentious material. Your mileage may vary. --] (]) 05:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I'm sorry, I'm confused, what are the two sentences? ] (]) 05:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Is it the sentence based on the Philadelphia Inquirer? Then I'm confused as to why CFredkin is claiming that is an "unreliable source", that seems way out there (the danged thing collects Pulitzers the way people collect Pokemons).] (]) 05:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Look at your "undoing some of the changes" edit. In it you added two sentences to the "Trump expands" section. They had been deleted by CFredkin earlier in the day. He provides the links at your talk page. ] (]) 05:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::One begins "It performed poorly." The other is "The high roller suites." ] (]) 05:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Yeah I see it now. I removed the first sentence. That one was indeed based on a non-reliable source. I'm looking at the second one, gimme a sec. I'll probably remove it too, though I still want someone to explain to me how anyone can in good faith call a Pulitzer winning newspaper an "unreliable source" with a straight face. This looks like a ] attempt by CFredkin to ] the DS restriction.] (]) 05:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}}Just to be clear, the following material hasn't been self-reverted yet:
	{{cquote\|The poor results exacerbated disagreements between Trump and Harrah's,<ref name=swartz>{{cite news\|title=Holiday, Trump drafting terms to end rocky alliance over Atlantic City casino\|newspaper=Wall Street Journal\|author=Steve Swartz\|date=November 11, 1985\|url=http://search.proquest.com/nationalnewspremier/docview/397993833/CE0F988D5C424FD9PQ/156}} {{subscription required\|via=ProQuest}}</ref>.... The high-roller suites were seldom used and Trump tried to expand his operation, ultimately owning three casinos in Atlantic City. His revenues at Trump Plaza declined in 1990 when he opened the competing ].<ref name=johnston>{{cite news\|title=Deal protects Trump Plaza from bankruptcy\|newspaper=Philadelphia Inquirer\|author=David Johnston\|date=April 6, 1991\|url=http://articles.philly.com/1991-04-06/business/25777697_1_donald-trump-trump-s-atlantic-city-fidelity-s-capital\|accessdate=2016-03-29}}</ref> These two properties filed a pre-packaged bankruptcy in March 1992.<ref>{{cite news\|title=Two Trump casinos file for Chapter 11\|newspaper=Philadelphia Inquirer\|author=Terry Mutchler\|agency=AP\|date=March 10, 1992\|url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/286594703}} {{subscription required\|via=ProQuest}}</ref> Trump sold the Plaza in 2013 and it closed in 2014.}}{{talkref}} that the ''Inquirer'' published.] (]) 05:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:(ec) Evidently, I said "gimme a sec". I'm reading the sources again. And "evidently" I also said "I'll probably remove it". Now, do you want to explain to me how in the world these are suppose to be "unreliable sources"? ] (]) 06:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:: to the Johnston article. I haven't read any of these articles yet. I think the usual routine is to discuss it at the article talk page after the material is removed from the article. Then if there's consensus at the talk page to put it back in, it goes back in. Suppose the sources are reliable. Suppose they report something that's also reported by other reliable sources. And suppose the Misplaced Pages editor accurately reports what's in the reliable sources. Then the info goes back in if there's consensus.] (]) 06:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Looks like it's all self-reverted now, except for <nowiki>"The poor results exacerbated disagreements between Trump and Harrah's,<ref name=swartz>{{cite news\|title=Holiday, Trump drafting terms to end rocky alliance over Atlantic City casino\|newspaper=Wall Street Journal\|author=Steve Swartz\|date=November 11, 1985\|url=http://search.proquest.com/nationalnewspremier/docview/397993833/CE0F988D5C424FD9PQ/156}} {{subscription required\|via=ProQuest}}</ref>"</nowiki>] (]) 06:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

	I guess the only thing I have to say here is, thank you {{u\|MelanieN}}. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:You're welcome. And thank you to ] for following along and describing where we are in the process, so that I don't have to. 0;-D If CFredkin is satisfied, I guess the immediate matter is resolved and the content will be hashed out on the talk page. --] (]) 14:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Per a discussion at my talk page, I may have been misinterpreting this situation. I was under the impression that if content is removed from a DS article, it can't be restored without consensus. In this case, ] removed content, so I thought ] was wrong to restore it. But I have now had it explained to me that this applies only to recently added content. Removing '''longstanding''' content is itself an "edit" as DS defines it, and that "edit" (i.e., the removal) can be challenged as contentious by reverting it (i.e., restoring the longstanding material). The goal is to promote stability of the article, not to privilege "removal" type edits over "addition" edits. That makes sense. So VM, I apologize for telling you to self-revert; wiser admins have explained the rules to me and I now realize that your restoration of the material was not a violation. --] (]) 15:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC) <small>ping {{u\|CFredkin}} --] <sup>]</sup> 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)</small>
	::That makes a lot more sense now.] (]) 15:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Well, except it turns out the material CF removed wasn't long standing; it was recently added. You probably had no way to know that. --] (]) 16:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

	:: Thanks, ] and ] for digging in. The disputed content was indeed (almost immediately prior to my edit). So I believe VM's edit would be considered a violation of DS's. Not only that, ] committed multiple BLP violations with unsourced content in the same edit, and personally attacked me when I made what I believe was a pretty civil request that he/she self-rv. My favorite part of the whole bit is where he/she finaly self-rv's the content (including this sentence: "Trump sold the Plaza in 2013 and it closed in 2014." which had absolutely no source at all) with the following edit summary: "I'll self revert this, but it's ridiculous to call these sources unreliable, AND without this information the information doesn't make sense." Very nice.] (]) 16:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

	:: The situation is greatly improved with recent edits. However there are still some inaccuracies based on existing sources. I should be able to address them with a couple of additional edits. I'm going to try to do that, but given VM's historical interactions with me and his/her commentary here I think there's a non-trivial possibility that will result in more contention. If/when that happens I'm planning to remove the remaining new content and it can be hashed out in Talk.] (]) 16:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	::: Thanks for showing that the material was recently added, CF. In that case, your removal was appropriate, and VM's restoration was inappropriate so it's good that it's been self-reverted. I don't know how anyone is supposed to know when a particular bit of information was added, in an article with so many edits every day, and yet that information is crucial in knowing whether an edit can be reverted or not. I have a suggestion for you, CF, to head off this kind of controversy in the future: in your edit summary, say "removing recently added material" along with your reason for removing it. --] (]) 16:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::: I agree that would be prudent. I'll try to be better about including that in the future. Thanks] (]) 17:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::CFredkin, I'm not sure how your prudence lines up with you violating 1RR , , especially with two completely different rationales which don't jive with each other.] (]) 23:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::], I noticed those reverts. ], not sure what you were thinking there. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::: As far as I'm aware, the article isn't under discretionary sanctions.] (]) 00:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Revdel needed at minimum ==

	on ], for pretty much every IP contribution today. I don't see this as an oversight issue but some of this stuff is grossly disparaging. Thanks! - ''']''' '' ]'' 16:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Done. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Merci beaucoup! ''']''' '' ]'' 17:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Drama at the Trump talk page ==

	Neil, can you please take a look at . Four times the other editor has falsely accused me of lying at this talk page, and I am getting really tired of it. ] has edited this article this summer, so I assume these accusations are in his capacity as an ordinary editor. What should I do?] (]) 17:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:How about an interaction ban? I already try to avoid this editor as much as possible, but I don't want to run away from every article once he shows up. I've already completely stopped editing articles about ] for this reason.] (]) 17:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Replied and you'll need to propose an IB at ANI with a fairly comprehensive and convincing set of diffs. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Thanks.] (]) 18:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

	== I guess I need a refresher. ==

	Could you please explain to me either here or my talk page about what constitutes vandalism. I seem to be getting conflicting advise from you and other administrators through the years and I don't want this to happen again. We have editors try to do this in tennis articles and it's always been vandalism. A case would be like if we suddenly see ] blanked and redirected to another article we revert it instantly. If it happens again we tag it as vandalism, report the guy, and revert him on sight. Never a problem and I deal with it off and on. What makes this Cryptid article different? I'm not talking about my last edit (which I was going to self-revert but it got protected)... I'm talking about the blanking of the entire contents. Why is it vandalism in some cases but not others? Does it just depend on the administrator? Is it the type of article? Is it different if it's a new editor rather than an old editor? It really is confusing when not just part of the content is removed, but all of it. I read the vandalism topic and it seemed to support me so I'm more confused now. Thanks. ] (]) 23:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], please read ]. "Although at times the following situations may be referred to as vandalism, they are not usually considered vandalism as such. However, '''each case''' should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether or not the actions violate Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines." Here, you have bold editing and what you probably consider "disruptive editing or stubbornness". The opening section of that policy page also has, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any '''good-faith''' effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." So you need to ask yourself, was the editor's intent to deface the encyclopedia or to improve it by turning a questionable article (in their mind) into a redirect. There's plenty of evidence for the latter and none that I could find for the former. As for tennis articles, I would have to see a specific example before commenting on it. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Let me chew on this a bit. I can see it the first time but Good-faith is very iffy once reverted and told. And I might say that while there may not be evidence for the former, I see scant evidence for the latter either. And that's not even touching on his falsehoods about me personally and how that might factor into me determining good faith. I just wanted to know in general. Intent is quite subjective but I guess it's better to err on the side of "good-faith." Thanks, I'll think about this some more. ] (]) 00:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Fresh off the evasion block and repeating the same edits. Seems static-enough to block for longer if it hasn't been reassigned in the past week. --] (]) 00:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:One month --] <sup>]</sup> 00:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Barnstar ==

	{\| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" \| ]
	\|rowspan="2" \|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| '''The Admin's Barnstar'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| With gratitude for all your assistance. Cheers, ] (]) 03:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	\|}

	== A beer for you! ==

	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| Nothing like waking up to see a bunch of vandal edits to my talk page, thanks for locking that down! ] (]) 12:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	\|}

	== ] ==

	I'm not sure what to do about this editor. Despite having been warned about this matter, he's been going around to many articles, unilaterally changing 'RoC' to 'Taiwan'. I've reverted his edits. He doesn't seem to understand that an RfC or series of RMs would need to be held to effect such a change, and seems to prefer change by fiat. ] — ] 15:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|RGloucester}} against that particular kind of edit. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

	== that 86... 214 IP ==

	THANK YOU for blocking this dude! I think every contribution that IP has made today is going to need RevDel at a minimum and potentially more. ''']''' '' ]'' 16:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{u\|Julietdeltalima}} I've revdelled the obvious ones. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	::much obliged! thanks again! - ''']''' '' ]'' 16:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

	== P V Sindhu ==

	Hi Neil, P V Sindhu is a South Indian badminton player who is Telugu by ethnicity. Certain Ip addresses are giving her family as Jat which is a North Indian Aryan Surname. Kindly check these vandalism that is being done by these Ip Addresses. These Ip adresses are notorious for mentioning the same ethnicity at other articles possibly creating vandalism. Her place of Birth in the officially entered Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2014 is mentioned as Secunderabad, a division of Hyderabad located in Telangana Region, India. <ref>http://g2014results.thecgf.com/athlete/badminton/1014180/p_v_sindhu.html</ref> Mencherla is a wrong birth place without any source indication. Kindly look into the matter and take necessary action. --] (]) 16:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Hi ]. Please post this on the article's talk page - ] --] <sup>]</sup> 16:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	::{{re\|NeilN}} . It shall be restored. {{ty}} --](]) 17:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

	Hello iam not unnecessarily editing the page pv Sindhu
	one editor has edited i talked about it with that editor and he agreed now another editor is editing
	as his wish. secunderabad is nothing but it is known as Hyderabad if u hv doubts please check sec'bad wiki page
	] (]) 23:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Hi ]. Please look at your talk page to see how you can add a reference to back up your claim. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

	{{reflist-talk}}

	== ] ==

	You there? — ]] 03:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Eh! {{u\|Someguy1221}} did that already. — ]] 03:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Concerning The "Pete Is A Wolf" Vandal ==

	Would this be the final nail in demonstrating that the vandal's account of {{user\|Petermiketaylor}} is clearly ] due to his insane obsession and extreme reluctance to prove it?--] (]) 05:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], I've indefinitely blocked. --] <sup>]</sup> 06:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Given as how he's now reverted back to his old behavior of IP-hopping, should we upgrade ] to semi-protection?--] (]) 17:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::], I've put on a short semi and extended the PC. Let's see how that works. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Understood, and thank you.--] (]) 20:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Sindhu image ==

	I see, thanks for your message. So this image (https://www.flickr.com/photos/146254539@N08/28452108543/in/photostream/) -- the license on flickr is nor not accurate? i see that there is a similar reuters image, so you are probably right. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:{{ping\|Dalek2point3}} Correct. And I have my suspicions as to who the Flickr account belongs to. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

	== YouTube licensing ==

	I felt it was better to continue the discussion here. I found the "Show more" button, and also found ] Terms Of Service. And from what I can see there the standard YouTube license does '''not''' allow making screenshots from videos and uploading elsewhere (start by reading section 8.1 of the TOS and then section 5.1). Because section 8.1A of the YouTube TOS says ''"to each user of the Service, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such Content '''to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Service'''"'' (my emphasis), section 5.1L says ''"you agree not to access Content for any reason other than your personal, non-commercial use solely as intended through and permitted by the normal functionality of the Service, and solely for Streaming"'', and section 5.1M says ''"You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content"''. And since YouTube doesnt have a button that takes a screenshot and uploads it to Wikimedia Commons, making a screenshot and uploading it to Commons violates the TOS. Any thoughts? - '''Tom''' \| ] ] 19:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], can we move the discussion ] as it affects ''all'' CC-licensed content on Youtube? BTW, I know the Commons hosts complete Youtube videos. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I have already moved it there. - '''Tom''' \| ] ] 20:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Possible harassment account ==

	It looks like some has created a harassment account against {{u\|TheBellaTwins1445}}. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/KaşarTheBellaTwins1445 was created today it looks like and has done nothing but revert TheBellaTwins1445's edits. If I'm not mistaken the name alone violates Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 23:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], you are correct sir. Blocked. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Thank god I'm not alone ] (]) thank you so much, actually do not even understand what was he doing, he don't even speak my language so I don't have any idea of that thank you really much.<span style="text-shadow:pink 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 00:18, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Hello NeilN,

	As you know, this article has had problems for years with IP editors trying to add the name of a (then) 10 year old boy who was a suspect in setting the fire but never charged or convicted. There are no reliable sources. You semi-protected it a little over a year ago, and the disruption started again as soon as it expired. Can you extend it? Thanks. ] ] 23:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{yo\|Cullen328}} 2 years semi with indefinite pending changes this time. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Thank you very much. ] ] 23:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

	==]==
	Hello NeilN Im new here and don't know if this is the correct place to responded to your requested information regarding users Themrmxyzptlk (]) & 104.32.227.109 (]). removing information on the '''Brooks Institute'' page. This user keeps removing a notable alumnus from the notable alumni section. Please advise how we can stop this user as our school is closing and we would like to keep the integrity of the school alumni. I apologize if I am adding this in the wrong section of your page, you can tell me where these request go in the future and I will follow your given directions.
	Sourced link from the school https://mfa.brooks.edu/studio-wall-project-the-third-effect-matt-revolter/ <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Hi ]. Regarding "High level of IP vandalism in the from of a IP/User that keeps constantly removing sourced information and hasn't stopped since last week." - First, removal of unsourced information about a living person is never vandalism. All challenged material needs to be re-added with a source. Second, following from the first point, the information had no source. I will place instructions on your talk page on how to add one. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

	== IPv6 socks of M Rob1119 ==

	Assuming gets lost. New range is 2602:30A:2CF6:D169::/64 but looking at seems like only M Rob1119 is in that higher range right now. You previously blocked in same /48 range] (]) 01:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	:] /48 range blocked a month. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

	== A barnstar for you! ==

	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''The Brilliant Idea Barnstar'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| Thanks for your help and perseverance within the past few days! <font color= "#0000FF">]</font><sup><font color="0000FF">]</font></sup> 10:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	\|}

	== Revdel request ==

	could probably use some revdel'ing. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Got the last one. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Chelsea Clinton ==

	Thanks <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 03:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Johnsc1277 ==

	This ] was the final straw. I have made the block indefinite and revoked talk page access. ] (]) 14:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Favonian}} Inevitable, really. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

	== SPI on Harner COI SPAs? ==

	:Semi-ing the page has probably taken care of it, but it's a perennial issue. Wondering if there's a point to doing an SPI or checkuser on the named accounts, if nothing else to start a paper trail. Thoughts?
	:Recent accounts that have edited with the same promotional agenda and admitted COI:
	*{{user5\|Loganscott}}
	*{{user5\|Spirittruth}}
	*{{user5\|Bashamfour}}
	:And older ones with same patterns (one an IP; there are other IPs lying around as well). The named account in particular, Anomazee, went through talk pages removing any critical discussion of the subject.
	*{{user5\|2601:9:2F00:417:3615:9EFF:FE2F:B454}}
	*{{user5\|Anomazee}}
	:- ] <sup>]</sup> ] 18:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Hi {{u\|CorbieVreccan}}. The first two can be checkusered, the rest are too old. I'm wondering if the accounts are meatpuppets in the form of his students? --] <sup>]</sup> 20:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Yeah, agreed on all but the first two being stale. Added them because of the pattern, which may prove more relevant in case they're smart enough to evade. The three most recent have all indicated they are editing on Harner's behalf (diffs on the COI notices I put on the Harner talk page and on their talk pages), with the most recent account, "Loganscott", seeming to imply that he ''is'' Harner, per the diff I left in the last warning. But as all have either discolosed editing on Harner's behalf, seemingly referred to themselves as Harner, or used the royal "we", I think it's fair to treat them as meats at best or, just as likely in most or not all of these, a sockdrawer. I realize now I should have just put this all at SPI, but I'm tired and not braining that well today.
	:::More diffs, old ] SPAs to more recent:
	:::*Anomazee COI declared as they removed all criticism of Harner from talk pages : "We are researching the source of this somewhat persistent falsehood"
	:::*Bashamfour COI declared : "I am an independent consultant for the Foundation for Shamanic Studies and Michael Harner. My consulting services, for which I am compensated..."
	:::*Spirittruth COI declared : "I have replaced Michael Harner as President of the Foundation for Shamanic Studies and am in touch with him. We wish to set the record straight about his career"
	:::*Loganscott COI declared in their edit summary : "(Changes made by Michael Harner)"
	:::: - ] <sup>]</sup> ] 22:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

	== No Edit Warring Violation? ==

	No violation on Nazi Gun Control Theory article? How so? My edits have been removed, again, for no good reason except the editors' bias against the theory that the page is supposed to be about. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Grayfell has two reverts. You have three. Neither of you have broken ] but you are closer. And posting to your talk page likely won't attract anyone's attention. Suggest you post to the article's talk page. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

	Correct me if I am wrong, but edit warring is "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". It is my contributions that have been overridden, not Grayfell's. I did not override anyone's contributions. I contributed several hours worth of carefully cited neutral-point-of-view material. My contributions have been deleted/censored without any just cause. Now a Misplaced Pages administrator is accusing me of almost starting an edit war? I insist that my edits be restored immediately unless they violate the rules of editing wikipedia, and if they do violate those rules, then please explain which rules were violated and please also remove all of the non-neutral opinions of the opponents of Nazi Gun Control Theory, such as the claims that Nazi Gun Control Theory is "preposterous" and "counterfactual history" that appear in the opening paragraphs of the article, if the opinions of the proponents of Nazi Gun Control theory cannot also be communicated alongside the views of the opponents of the theory. Grayfell is violating the[REDACTED] policy of neutral point of view by only allowing the perspective of the opponents of the theory that the page is about to be posted on the page, and by preventing the views of the proponents of the theory from explaining what the theory theorizes somewhere in the article about the theory. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:"An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Your contributions changed other editors' text. Revert 1. You then reverted twice to your preferred version. Reverts 2 and 3. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::This editor is where user Tempus Loquendi left off (although that editor's 3RR block already expired). Before that, 184.155.110.2, from somewhere else, was making similar edits, with multiple editors reverting. I'm just the one who got reported and , lucky me. ] (]) 20:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::User IP address 24.119.20.133 has also accused me of edit warring for the Nazi Gun Control article on my talk page. this is the response I gave to him:
	::::::"I am certainly not edit warring, but you may be. I simply removed your overly-aggressive, non-NPOV, unsupported edit. I see user Greyfell has also had to revert your edits--twice. Please DO edit the page, but you must first take such an aggressive position to talk, AND you must provide in-line references for your claims that come from legitimate source (e.g., not blogs).99.242.108.55 (talk)"
	:::::I think if user IP address 24.119.20.133 takes it to talk, this can be resolved.] (]) 20:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

	Here is the most recent attempt to resolve the edit war that has been waged against me without just cause, NeilN. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Nazi_gun_control_theory&diff=735598532&oldid=735598160 I encourage you to join the conversation and act as a mediator. Please come demonstrate you adherence to the Misplaced Pages principles of neutrality and the free flow of verifiable information. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Your insistence on having this conversation in two places is becoming disruptive. No admin is going to make content decisions for an article they've made admin decisions on.--] <sup>]</sup> 21:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

	==Colorful language==
	In case you missed it, the Trump talk page now includes an assertion that this BLP is "sending out racist remarks to those who are predisposed for that and longing to hear illiberal, autocratic tones from their 'Führer'".] (]) 01:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Sigh. How hard is it to understand that you can't spout your personal opinions, especially if you're casting aspersions, on a BLP talk page? --] <sup>]</sup> 03:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Thanks. ] once said "". It's a common sentiment.] (]) 03:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Semi protect request ==

	Can you semi protect ] please IPs are running rampant on it and it's getting out of hand.] (]) 02:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Two days. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

	Thank you, maybe they will give up by then lol ] (]) 03:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Toni aureada ==

	Hi NeilN. I saw you blocked {{u\|Biofrance}} per ]. Just for reference, there is a {{u\|Toniaureada}} who has a draft about ] in her sandbox. Both accounts have edited similar articles and there is also some similarity in the kind of posts they make on user talk pages. Do you think this is a ]? -- ] (]) 14:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Hi ]. At the very least they're meat puppets, having worked on the same hoax articles. Blocked indef. Thanks for reporting. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:: No problem. I only stumbled accross them because of some problematic files one of the accounts had uploaded to Commons. -- ] (]) 14:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Range block ==

	Hi, looking at the range block report I see you recently blocked the 51.171.156.0/23 range. If you look at the , there have been multiple IPs in this range making unconstructive edits. As I know next to nothing about range blocks, could you take a look at this and act accordingly? Thanks, ] (]) 20:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], reblocked range for one month. Hopefully they'll move on. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Arb comments ==

	Thanks for listing the edits you made to MH's talk page. Upon closer inspection it appears you were just trying to help resolve the issue. I'm sorry my comments came across as accusative - it was not my intention. This case is very frustrating to me, and I hope no one comes out of it with a lessened outlook wrt contributing to Misplaced Pages. I was and am still worried that people could target admins they don't like, but I will have to try to trust arb com to see through attempts to game the system and do the right thing. ] (]) 21:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Thanks for the clarification ] and yes, as arbcom is not bound by community consensus for these types of decisions they can cut through the bullcrap, so to speak. I do think these types of cases are valid; if they weren't, we might as well remove ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Ahmadsw ==

	Thanks for dealing with the ] socks earlier. — ] <small>(]'''·'''])</small> 02:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Basically a VOA ==

	New user {{noping\|Pittman440}} is basically a VOA but not obvious enough yet to report to AIV. Can you take a look and if you agree, block as appropriate? He has only edited on the article ] (the guy who wrote "]"), putting in blatantly false and blatantly racially charged text: , . Previously (today) edited as an IP, making those same edits: . . Has been warned twice, once by me on user-talk , once by another editor on article-talk . Can you deal with this? I don't currently feel like taking it to ANI since it's pretty new and ANI is a hassle. -- ] (]) 13:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Softlavender}}, Pittman440 is edit warring (gave them a warning) and adding unsourced information and possibly POV editing but I can't call them a VOA. I'm not familiar with the subject so I can't call their additions blatantly false, especially when I did some research and came across So what they're adding ''might'' be plausible. If they continue to revert, let me know and perhaps add a quick note to the talk page. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Yes, Newton was a slaver for many years, and even remained one for two years after his initial religious conversion. That's all already fully documented in the wiki article. That's not what the user was adding. Thank you for adding the edit-warring notice to his talk page; since he's already received three notices I don't think he needs any more, and I'll let you know if he persists. ] (]) 14:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Hmm... ==

	Just going to leave here, since you seem to be the last active admin on EW3. From the looks of it, this admin is fairly evidently engaged in an edit war. May want to police up your boy. ] 19:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
	:] a reasonable and approachable editor. I usually drop a "Please be careful of ]" note in these cases. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
	::To be clear "police up" means essentially "pick up after" or "watch out for". ] 19:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Request ==

	{{ping\|Ritchie333}} Please stop accusing me of things I've never done ("censor criticism of the block", "harass John") when you refuse to allow a polite, measured response. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Another Favor to Ask ==

	You don't suppose I could ask your help in getting another one of favorite targets of the vandal behind blocked user Petermiketaylor, ], semiprotected to keep him from editing to keep his original research nonsense out of that page?--] (]) 01:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], one year semi as the article just came off a six month semi. And the dinosaur guy and the wolf guy are the same person? Seriously? --] <sup>]</sup> 01:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Yes, he is. The whining comments made in response to people reverting his original research identifications in the Ice Age characters page are identical to the whining comments he's made edit-warring at fictional wolves, fictional cats, Disney's Pete, and I believe at some of the Walking With Dinosaur pages.--] (]) 03:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::{{facepalm}} --] <sup>]</sup> 03:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::{{facepalm}}{{facepalm}}--] (]) 03:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	In your opinion, is there any difference between the huge removals of content by the above editor on the ] article, and the content that I removed, that resulted in large amounts of people screaming for sanctions against me, in ANI? I'm hoping that he doesn't get a free pass because he's an admin. (it made me laugh a little to see that he was an admin, based on his conduct and attitude, I guess that I would be suitable for adminship as well.) ] (]) 06:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

	:: Either way, I've reported him for edit warring. From past experiences, in which I've reported editors who know the right people, and have been here a long time, I'm not exactly hopeful of this being dealt with fairly, but I can live in hope. ] (]) 06:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::], FWIW, I would have closed the report in the same way, as it's the same situation as ]. The "being an admin" aspect should not be addressed at ] as we can't really place ] blocks there. Not sure what's in the water right now but Arbcom is already looking at one admin conduct case and accepted a second. Don't know if they have an appetite for a third if that's where you're headed. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::: It would be a bit hasty based on the brief interaction that I had with him. Perhaps he is awesome 99% of the time, and I was unlucky to be there for the 1%. I guess I was a little disappointed to see an admin acting in the same manner that had admins/editors screaming for sanctions against me. But, is it worth following up? No. I'm sure if he is really acting in an unsuitable manner for an admin, someone more connected, and less confrontational than me, will notice it and deal with it. Oh. Thanks for the reply. ] (]) 12:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Need assistance, many mistakes... ==

	So, I've been working on a draft to supersede a non-existent article that existed only as a redirect. It didn't work out at all for me. I thought it may be due to the redirect so I move the redirect away from the original space to ], it's empty content because it only existed as a redirect. I then tried to move my draft again but it still wouldn't let me. I then moved my draft from my user space to draft space; ], and then from there tried to move it to article space, and still no. So, rather than play around with this any further I've come to you. Things that may need doing, well delete ] and the redirect of ], then move the draft into mainspace... if that is possible. The draft is ]. Sorry for the wrecking ball attempt at a move there... mea cupla shouldn't have tried to invent a solution where one is unavailable. I also checked RM, I'm not sure they deal with RM's for userpages to mainspace. ] (]) 09:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

	:To remove cross-namespace redirects (one should never move or redirect article titles to anything but article-space), use the ] tag <nowiki>{{Db-r2}}</nowiki>, and the redirect will be speedily deleted. That will allow the draft to be moved to article space. ] (]) 09:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Thanks for that {{u\|Softlavender}}, wilco and a good lesson for the future. ] (]) 09:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

	:::], you put the tag on the wrong page; it needs to go . Then put that page on your watchlist, and when it gets deleted, you can move your draft there. ] (]) 09:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::I, didn't even realize that's where it went. Wilco, again. And thanks for helping me out here {{u\|Softlavender}}, this was a far bigger mess than was needed. Should have tried to have it deleted first, I completely forgot that moving a page leaves a redirect from the old one. Absolute potato. ] (]) 09:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::To repeat, don't ever move an article title to anything but another article title. You should never have moved it to your own userspace. ] (]) 09:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::::Sorry, I was trying to create a solution to a problem without thinking it through. Won't happen again. ] (]) 09:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Thanks for doing the deletions NeilN, much obliged, I have moved my draft to mainspace. :) ] (]) 11:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	::], yes I edit conflicted with you on the move :-) I've deleted the draft redirect. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Thanks again, hopefully next time I'm here it'll be for something more intelligent. ] (]) 11:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

	== ] ==
	]'s just started up this contest about topics and articles covering ]. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks. {{smiley}}  — ] ] 10:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Balochistan conflict ==

	Hi Neil, an IP hopper has been edit-warring at ] again , . Looks suspiciously like Nangparbat. -- ] (]) 00:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], one year semi-protect to stop that nonsense. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Can you please set Pending changes or semi-protection on this article, however you see fit? Normally, I'd take this to RFPP, but it involes the same user that you just recently blocked. Thanks. ] (]) 01:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
	:I think it's okay for now but I'll keep an eye on it. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Could you have a look........ ==

	Could you have a look at ] and tell me if I'm wrong when I think this is a dirty sock of BB. ] (]) 12:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], too soon to tell if it's a ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Salt request comment at RPP ==
	Howdy, Neil. I saw your comment at the RPP board about Blue Magic Records . It's actually been created five times, twice under Blue Magic Records and three times under Blue Magic Reocords. ] (]) 15:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|GigglesnortHotel}} Derp, I actually protected the misspelling and then got distracted by something else. Protected ] now. Thanks for checking in. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
	:: Thanks! ] (]) 16:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Vandalism report (Alt-right page) ==

	=== ] ===
	* {{pagelinks\|Alt-right}}
	'''Full protection:''' Mass defacing raid imminent


	A white supremacist group from 4chan plans to make various changes to the alt right page in the near future if they have not already. They are doing this because they believe that after Hillary Clinton makes a speech, people will search this page up. They want to spread as much misinformation as possible to show them in a positive light despite whether the information they add is truthful or not. I cannot add a link or a picture to prove it, I am new and it is not allowing me to do this for reasons unknown to me. The raid is originating on 4chan, which is blacklisted, so I cannot link that page. I tried posting a screen cap as well, but it would not let me and gave me error messages I don't understand.

	"Do any of you guys have a[REDACTED] account that has made over 10 edits on wikipedia?
	We need to deface the Alt-Right[REDACTED] page immediately after Hillary's speech but it's semi-protected.
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Alt-right"

	This the OP of the thread made on 4chan, you should be able to find the thread if you google this exact quote. The thread will be archived for a day or so after it expires. A word of warning though, this website has NSFW content that may be disturbing to some viewers, view at your own risk.

	I advise that this page be protected to save trouble and time. I would be obliged to post a picture and a link if I were instructed how to do so without being denied access.

	Thank you,

	] (]) 16:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{tps}} {{replyto\|BlackusN}} 4chan is a baddie, but according to ], ''the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection.'' ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
	::], {{u\|DatGuy}} is correct (see ]). However if disruption you describe starts happening then I think ] would do the job well. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

	== BusriderSF2015 ==

	User has been unformally warned ] about personal attacks and adding unsourced info, I did unformal as I thought it was just a simple misunderstanding but I got ] response, I responded with ] which caused me to remove part of my own comment that I corrected ], which got ] response. I left it at that and thought nothing more about it as clearly this talk was pointless until these edits ] removing content for no reason "note his comment for removal instead of a valid reason and note it has since been pointed out it was doubled on the page and removed by another user with the reason" and ] tonight reverting another editors Grammer correction which should not have been done. I was going to issue a formal warning this time but I think it is ill advised after the last time I tried to talk to them. I have a feeling this is going to turn out bad in some form, Suggestions?? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)</span></small>
	:Dropped a note . --] <sup>]</sup> 03:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	::Note:: Looks like you got the same ] I did from Bus, welcome to the flamer club =) <font color="Blue">'''Chris'''</font> <font color="Red">'''"WarMachineWildThing"'''</font> 09:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::], he's been warned so... --] <sup>]</sup> 12:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	===IP section===

	Thanks can you block ] IP please they are vandalising articles and keep reverting me after I fix them.] (]) 03:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Please look at the ]'s talk page before you blindly block me for being an IP. It will quickly become apparent that WarMachineWildThing is the ]-driven vandal, nobody else. ] (]) 03:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I'm not blocking anyone yet. Neither of you are vandals and both of you are edit warring. The key question to ask is if a person '''unfamiliar''' with the subject could be looking for articles listed in the hatnote. You may want to ask this question at a centralized project page. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	Consensus was reached in Wrestling Project for that info. ] (]) 04:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:No, it wasn't. ] (]) 04:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], then it would be really helpful if you linked to that discussion. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	Working on it that's why I'm trying to get ahold of other editors in the Wrestling Project. It was decided before I got here ] (]) 04:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	::{{tps}} Edit war between {{ut\|185.54.163.137}} and {{ut\|WarMachineWildThing}} on {{pagelinks\|World Heavyweight Championship (WWE)}} vand and own claims. ] (]) 04:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::], I agree, yes, see my second post in this section. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	No evidence of any consensus claimed by WarMachineWildThing. ] history scoured; nothing found. WarMachineWildThing is simply reverting valid edits as part of a ] agenda. ] (]) 04:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	{{U\|LM2000}} and {{U\|Crash Underride}} can prove this IP is vandalizing and it not an edit war, They would know where the consensus is. IP is now following me on here to user pages harassing me. ] (]) 04:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Nope, I'm defending myself against your appalling accusations. ] (]) 04:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], editing against consensus is '''not vandalizing'''. And, as you are trying to characterize them as a vandal, it is natural they watch your edits. I think you would do the same if your positions were reversed. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	Both of you, is Misplaced Pages going to break because the hatnotes of a few articles aren't perfect? If not, I suggest you grab your favorite beverage, relax, step back, and let other editors weigh in during the next day. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Sounds very reasonable, but not all of us have a life outside of the internet. There's a lot hinging on this, and I'm not being in any way facetious. ] (]) 04:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	::All right, why is there a lot hinging on this? --] <sup>]</sup> 04:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::I won't make this therapy hour. All I'll say is I can't back down now. ] (]) 04:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	I have never edit warred, I have never vandalized, I have followed everything to the letter and came to you when I wasn't sure. This IP has been reverted by me, another user and has been told there is a consensus by another user for that to be on those articles. If you honestly think {{U\|NeilN}} that I am not being truthful with my Editting history then you block me. I can't find the consensus in the Wrestling Project, I have reached out to other editors that would know about it and where it is. I know it was reached before I was here. You do what you need to do. Clearly by] comment after they were told there is a consensus I see what this is about, so if you truly feeling I edit warred or OWNED then block me.] (]) 04:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], you know I think you're a good editor. But I don't think you can say "I have never edit warred". No experienced editor can. Heck, as I've reverted multiple times on more than one occasion I could be seen as a serial offender. I have blocked the IP not for vandalism but for making statements like the one above and continuing to revert. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	I have never warred Neil after 2 reverts I have come to you for your advise and to see if I am wrong, I wasn't wrong this time and I know the consensus exists. I have been made out to be a liar and accused of OWN and edit warring and I am not a liar or a vandal or an OWNER, so with that said just block me because this when thing has now destroyed the credibility that I gave worked to earn for 6 months, that IP did that shit on purpose and their comment proved it. I reverted a similar edit on one of the title pages earlier by an editor who gave the same reasoning and I wish I could remember which one. This was done on purpose. ] (]) 04:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], okay now I understand why you're upset. First, it was the IP who was making ownership and vandalism accusations, not anyone else. I think you can ignore those. Second, and most important, '''edit warring does not mean you broke ]'''. Edit warring is just a series of back-and-forth reverts. If an editor reverts a couple times, and their reverts are not covered by ], then they are edit warring. Almost everyone gets into that situation once in a while. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	Then block me Neil, I did what I knew was right. I have been involved with 3 damn ANI over OWN behavior why the hell would I do it? I wouldn't and didn't. My credibility has been destroyed and I know somewhere that damn consensus exists. Doesn't matter anymore, I was setup period and it worked, nothing I say or do will will ever be trusted again. ] (]) 05:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], why would I block you for doing what almost everyone else has done? Nothing has been destroyed. If you continue on editing as you have been, you'll find nothing has changed and your fellow editors will treat you the same. You might attract a few more trolls because of posting here, but ignore them. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	Won't be attracting anything as I will not be editing. I'm not a liar and I can't prove it because I can't find the proof.] (]) 05:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], I know you're not a liar. Anyone who counts knows you're not a liar. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	::Note:: I appreciate what you said <font color="Blue">'''Chris'''</font> <font color="Red">'''"WarMachineWildThing"'''</font> 09:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	I have users pissed at me because of the havoc that IP caused on their user pages when I went to see if they knew where that consensus was. 6 damn months down the drain, he was vandalizing those pages by removing that information that had a consensus and I stand by that, I've never even had a damn warning missed to me in 6 months and over 1000 edits and now because of all of this I am now made to be the very things I have fought against. I was set up and it worked. ] (]) 06:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	] is the other IP it started with that I had reverted and told not to remove before this second IP started, I knew there were 2. I was set up, the comments on both IPs removals are exactly the same. It was done on purpose to get it to look like I was the problem and was in the wrong, when I wasn't.] is where another user they targeted reverted the first IP too for those removals, the same user who agreed about the consensus on the talk page, and same user they made the comment too about us ganging on IPs before you banned them, this was all a set up. There is the proof, same person 2 IPs that one back in ] knew about The Wrestling Project, that info on those articles had been there before that. The second IP never made an edit until they targeted me. Their flipping socks of someone setting me up I knew it ] (]) 07:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Sri Chinmoy page: 'Controversy section' - response to your points and a question for you - thanks. ==

	Hi there NeilN, thanks for your note on the Talk page of the Sri Chinmoy article about Wikipedias policy about not segregating off information into a 'controversial' type section. I would like to ask about Wikipedias policy or opinion about non biographical opinion or claims about a person in the biography section of an article? Please as you are a Misplaced Pages administrator could you give an opinion/advice on the second half of the paragraph on the Sri Chinmoy page in the biography section that starts after reference (53)with the sentence 'In 2009 Jayanti Tamm published....perceptions'. I feel the information there although cited is not actually about Sri Chinmoy's life and not appropriately placed for a biography section. Any suggestions would be very welcome and thank you in advance. I also asked softlavender the same question but would very much appreciate hearing from an administrator. Thank you.] (]) 06:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Sock blocked by Bbb23. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	==Re: Formal warning==
	Per ,may I change them now since I discussed it on the talk page and there is no response for a week?--] (]) 07:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], do you think proposing a change for a wide range of articles by making one post to one lightly watched article is sufficient? Of course not. Find an appropriate centralized location and hold a RFC. {{u\|RGloucester}}, any suggestions? Or is this duplicating an already existing discussion? --] <sup>]</sup> 12:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I thought we are suppose to discuss it locally before opening an Rfc(]). By the way, it is clear that the consensus is using "Taiwan" for the election articles in the previous RFC, and there are no new discussion for a week, could you help closing it?--] (]) 07:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Your proposal does not affect one article, it affects ''many'' articles. Therefore a local discussion is inadequate. And there's no need to close the RFC early. Another admin can close it when they feel it's appropriate. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Talk:Alulim ==

	Just to let you know that the IP you were reverting here was a sock of blocked editor Til Eulenspiegel. ] ] 11:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Doug Weller}} Thanks, will keep an eye out. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	== A little harsh? ==

	Don't you think you might have bit a newcomer on the block of 2602:306:CF43:9850:227C:8FFF:FEE8:B16C? After all, he only had one warning and it was from cluebot. I may not have seen something you did, but is a block really needed after 1 level 1 template? ] (]) 18:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{tps}} {{re\|Joel.Miles925}} There is some OS stuff but, according to they probably warranted the block. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 18:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	:{{tps}}I'm curious, Joel. How did you run across this block of some random IP from a month ago? The IP hadn't edited since then, but did edit 11 minutes '''after''' you posted this. --] (]) 18:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I'm curious, so I'll ping. ]. --] (]) 18:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	:] Are you sure the timestamps weren't wrong? I posted this after I saw his edit come through the abuselog and noticed the block after one warning. That is definitely strange though... ] (]) 18:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	:::Yes, that is the correct answer. Strikes me as odd to see a random edit in the abuse filter (which was obviously vandalism) at 18:00 (which did not make it onto the page), decide to investigate that IP further, notice there was vandalism in July and a block after the second edit, see how many warnings they received, see who made the block, but not bothering to see what the edit was that caused the block, and then post a question 3 minutes later at 18:03 asking why the block was made. But I suppose stranger things have happened. --] (]) 19:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	::Yes well, the point is moot since they now have a after receiving a warning on their talk page . Note; whatever they did at Jeff Roland has now been revdeled. ] (]) 18:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	::They did trip ] a before managing to edit some other pages. ]<sub>(])</sub> 18:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	::All I know is that[REDACTED] timestamps can be very strange sometimes, and that even cluebot sometimes misses warning editors like this one.
	Also, User:Floquenbeam, as Mr rnddude said, that edit has since been revdeled so I had no way of knowing what that edit was. Cheers! ] (]) 19:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], if a human had caught the edit instead of Cluebot, the IP would have gotten an only warning. Continuing to edit the BLP, and probably continuing the unacceptable editing, got them blocked. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Why attack users like ] and ]? You will be reported if not clarified the justification for this decision ==

	Why attack users like ] and ]? You will be reported if not clarified the justification for this decision <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:See each editors' block log for the reasons. , Not sure why you're posting here. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Although thank you for drawing attention to your edit warring (blocked for that) and an article in need of ECP. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::<small>]! ;) ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 15:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)</small>
	<s>You are kidding right?</s> ] <sup>]</sup> 00:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

	I strike my previous question as clearly they were dead serious and did not know of what they do. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

	== You've got mail! ==

	{{You've got mail}}
	-- ] <sup>]</sup> 11:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{done}} --] <sup>]</sup> 11:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

	== ] page protection ==

	Hi there. Would you be able to give page protection to ]? It has seen persistent IP vandalism for months, if not years. Regards, ] (]) 22:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{u\|Widr}} protected for a week. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Yep, thanks. ] (]) 08:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


	== Adressing the page ] ==

	Hi NeilN, yesterday i sent a page protection application because i tought the orphan thing on top of the page was vandalism. After reading everything, i saw that i was mistaken. Afterwards, you sent me a message that the page could be deleted because i was talking about myself, which i was not. I was talking about a professional basketball player that i personally look up to, and i had the sources to write a page about him. So what i am asking you now is, will the page get deleted or will it stay in its place?
	] (]) 12:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{u\|Impuls20}}, what did you mean when you wrote, "the page that is very important to me and my career"? As to deletion, does the subject meet this criteria: ]? If so, the page most likely won't be deleted. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{u\|NeilN}}, When i wrote "the page is very important to me and my career" i meant that it is very important for me to have experience with Misplaced Pages and so that my boss knows that i have knowledge with Misplaced Pages. It is very complicated, but if you wish to know more, you can contact me via my e-mail adress. ] also fits the criterium. ] (]) 23:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
	::], I recommend you read ] and ] and see if they apply to you. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Donald Trump request for close ==

	Hi Neil. Are you willing to assess whether there's consensus at ] or if not find another experienced editor who is? I thought of you since you've been playing admin on that page from time to time. (But perhaps not editing, so maybe uninvolved?) I added an entry at ] but noticed that there's a huge backlog there. It would be nice to get some closure on this matter ''before'' the November election, ha. --] (]) 17:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], I don't think me handing out blocks and bans and dictating content by closing such an evenly split RFC (it could go either way) would be a good idea. Perhaps you could entice {{u\|Bishonen}} (although I'd like to see {{u\|Bishzilla}} doing the close) or {{u\|Euryalus}}? --] <sup>]</sup> 19:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Ok, will do, and thanks for the recs. --] (]) 20:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::{{replyto\|DrFleischman}} Happy to do this in next day or so unless anyone beats me to it, though a Bishzilla close would be both messier and more satisfying. -- ] (]) 22:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Ha! Thanks in advance. --] (]) 22:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	] and ], I hate to be the skunk at the garden party, but a close at this point would be very premature, IMO. The RFC was only started '''''four days ago''''', and there continues to be '''''active''''' discussion and interest. I think this one should remain open at least for the default duration of 30 days. I for one just got back from a five-day vacation of hiking, biking, and swimming in Maine (yippee!), and so have not had time yet to fully participate in the RFC beyond objecting to having footnotes put into the lead (I still have no idea if Dr. Fleischman is willing to forgo footnotes in the lead). Moreover, depending on what I find, it may be useful to more-widely publicize this RFC, given the extraordinary nature of the proposed edit to the lead of this very high-profile BLP (i.e. "Many of his statements...have been...false"). Incidentally, this RFC is about the lead, whereas a separate talk page section is discussing , and I regret that the discussion about the lead could not await the outcome of the discussion about the article body (which the lead is supposed to summarize), but I guess that's the way it is, and I am willing to fully address both matters simultaneously and independently. But could ] at least "please clarify the proposed sources in the RFC statement" as I have already requested, so that readers can understand what the proposed sources are beyond the two that are acknowledged to be insufficient?] (]) 23:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Duplicates: Section 5 of ] and Section 4 of ] ==
	You were the first to oppose my merge request. And indeed, a complete merger would be in conflict with the articles of the former presidents as they also have these "Presidency"-articles. But there is better separation. Compare ] (71 kB) and ] (109 kB): They are duplicates. --] (]) 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Hi ]. The answer is to judiciously trim and condense content in the main article. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Do you think it's time for another protection to this article? Cheers. ] (]) 18:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Hi ]. Semied for one week. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Saint Petersburg ==

	Hi, I was surprised to see your closure ] because the issue hasn't been resolved. Did you mean to just kick it to SPI, or did you not see my comment, or ...? This is an exceptional case of a crazy person edit-warring exceptionally crazy stuff into Misplaced Pages for at least six years. My favorite is "The redshiftedness of the Mongoloids and the blueshiftedness of the Jews imply that they are the broad Epimethean and narrow Promethean parts of the same funnel-shaped gravity well". The range blocks have expired and need to be renewed. An SPI can linger for weeks until receives attention. If you'd rather not deal with the issue in the ANI thread, would you please reopen it? ''] ~ ]'' 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], I thought I had dealt with it by blocking the current IP. It seems you are asking for a long term rangeblock of 91.122.0.0/22. You might want to approach {{u\|HJ Mitchell}} directly and see if he thinks the collateral damage is acceptable. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	:: Passing the issue to HJ is fine, but in that case the close should say something to the effect of, "Contacting HJ for renewing the two expired range blocks," and then he should be contacted. I spent some time gathering those links because I'm trying to help Misplaced Pages deal with this long-lasting problem. It doesn't help to close the thread and ignore it. ''] ~ ]'' 22:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Good Articles, something odd going on ==

	I found this morning that a new editor of about a month with 1,000 edits and no known GA contributions is trying to tackle 11 GA reviews simultaneously. I believe that they have only ever made a single GA nomination that quick-failed after being reviewed by Miyagawa and which they hadn't actually contributed to. Of note the editor themselves acknowledges that they are new to Misplaced Pages. Rather importantly, they have completed a single GA review on the 2nd of August (which they passed) which would have failed had I, for example, done the reviewing for lack of citations, just skim the article, ] and tell me it's GA worthy with at least four whole paragraphs that aren't attributed to any source. It's an article that could and should be GA, but, one that is far from it even with the 103 current citations. Not to mention, possible copyright violation (I reckon its a false flag based on the source and wayback machine) but the editor didn't even comment on it when doing the review. I'm not sure how to proceed here, I want to assume good faith, but, the editor may need to attempt mentorship and be wary of taking on anything GA related until they have at a minimum one GA themselves. ] (]) 22:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Hi ]. Step 1: Talk to the editor, outline your concerns (which I share), and ask them to withdraw from reviewing GAs until they have more experience writing GAs (or at least limit themselves to reviewing one GA with a mentor). Step 2: If that fails, take your concerns to ] to get community input and consensus. Step 3: Initiate a GA reassessment of ]. It's mostly well written but I could easily spot content that needed inline cites. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Cheers, I came to your first on account that two of the GA reviews that they have taken on-board to review are my own nominations. Hence, I consider myself an involved party. I'll start up a discussion on their page and request that they withdraw from the reviews. Which, I need to ask a second question, how precisely does one close a review without action that wouldn't automatically delist the nomination? or would they need to be resubmitted for review. ] (]) 22:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::], the second paragraph of ] has instructions on what to do if a new reviewer is needed. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Thanks Neil, I'd never needed it so hadn't even noticed it was there, I'm currently drafting up a comment for the Emir to look at on their talk page. ] (]) 22:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Electricbassguy IPsocks/blockevade ==

	Pretty sure these two are socks considering their edits to the master's page.
	] & ]. Posting here because you appear to be online, recently (21 August) blocked some of his evading-IPs, and per "not feeding trolls"/RBI. ] (]) 22:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	:], I enacted a short rangeblock and indefinitely protected the user page. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Thanks! Let's hope they'll get bored and waste their time elsewhere now. ] (]) 22:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:50, 17 August 2024

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. NeilN has not edited Misplaced Pages since 4 October 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

This is NeilN's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

Archives

Archive 1: Aug 2005 - Oct 2007
Archive 2: Nov 2007 - Jan 2008
Archive 3: Feb 2008 - Mar 2008
Archive 4: Apr 2008 - Jun 2008
Archive 5: Jun 2008 - Oct 2009
Archive 6: Nov 2009 - Dec 2009
Archive 7: Jan 2010 - Mar 2010
Archive 8: Apr 2010 - Mar 2011
Archive 9: Apr 2011 - Apr 2012
Archive 10: May 2012 - June 2012
Archive 11: Jul 2012 - Jan 2013
Archive 12: May 2013 - Jul 2013
Archive 13: Aug 2013 - Sep 2013
Archive 14: Oct 2013
Archive 15: Nov 2013 - Dec 2013
Archive 16: Jan 2014 - Feb 2014
Archive 17: Mar 2014 - May 2014
Archive 18: Jun 2014 - Jul 2014
Archive 19: Aug 2014 - Sep 2014
Archive 20: Oct 2014 - Nov 2014
Archive 21: Dec 2014 - Jan 2015
Archive 22: Feb 2015 - Mar 2015
Archive 23: Apr 2015 - May 2015
Archive 24: June 2015
Archive 25: July 2015
Archive 26: August 2015
Archive 27: September 2015
Archive 28: October 2015
Archive 29: November 2015
Archive 30: December 2015
Archive 31: Jan 2016 - Jun 2016
Archive 32: Jul 2016
Archive 33: Aug 2016
Archive 34: Sep 2016 - Jan 2017
Archive 35: Feb 2017
Archive 36: Mar 2017
Archive 37: Apr 2017
Archive 38: May 2017
Archive 39: Jun 2017 - Nov 2017
Archive 40: Dec 2017
Archive 41: Jan 2018
Archive 42: Feb 2018
Archive 43: Mar 2018
Archive 44: Apr 2018
Archive 45: May 2018
Archive 46: June 2018
Archive 47: July 2018 - August 2018

I still miss you, NeilN!

I know that you haven't been on Misplaced Pages for some time now, but I just wanted to leave you a message nonetheless and let you know that I miss you a lot, and that I was thinking about you... ~Oshwah~ 11:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Me, too. It's hard not to know why you're not editing, you had such a big impact on Misplaced Pages. Liz 23:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Was thinking of you today. Hope you are well. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 21:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Add me to the list of people who wish you were still around. It's a shame you haven't been active since 2018. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I too wish you were here NeilN, —Paleo Neonate – 02:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I miss you too Neil. We didnt interact much, but it was your talkpage where me, and PaleoNeonate interacted for the first time. You two were good to me in my early days here. If it wasnt for you and a couple of other editors, I might have left the project in my early days. I hope you are fine in real life. If possible, kindly drop at least one line message on your talkpage. Take care of yourself, and yours. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Boy did you bash me real hard during my early days of editing but for some awkward reason I actually miss you. I really do hope and pray that all is well with you. Celestina007 (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Just came to say the same thing. I'm not sure we ever interacted, but I remember your name and have a positive impression of you. Whatever you're up to these days, I hope God is blessing you. —Compassionate727 00:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Same here, Sir, god bless you thank you kind sir - Mini Stephen Hawkins of India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.158.16.17 (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU 02:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hi, NeilN. Some years back, I remember an exchange that I had with you on my Talk-Page. Were you ever an administrator here on Misplaced Pages? Just curious.Davidbena (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena NeilN has not edited since October 2018 (and I still miss him). To answer your question yes he was an admin. MarnetteD|Talk 17:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/List of terrorist incidents in April 2017

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Tamzin (she/they) 16:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at ] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I like your posts Jesse Daniel Brown (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Categories: