Talk Archive 1, Talk Archive 2, Talk Archive 3, Talk Archive 4, Talk Archive 5, Talk Archive 6, Talk Archive 7, Talk Archive 8, Talk Archive 9, Talk Archive 10, Talk Archive 11, Talk Archive 12, Talk Archive 13, Talk Archive 14,Talk Archive 15, Talk Archive 16

Silly and funny stuff can be found here

I prefer to keep communications on-wiki if possible, but if you need to discuss something privately, please send me an email.

So there's this map:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module_talk:Turkish_Insurgency_Detailed_Map

And it is full of wrong information and it's being used to spread wrong information in a article. You can even see senior wikipedians calling this map a "anti-Turkey propaganda map" at the talk section for this map. Could you do something about this shit-show? Thanks in advance.

I don't care who is right or wrong. You are edit warring. Heed the warning, or I will block you. Lectonar (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you disable talk page access? I see no abuse. User's are allowed to blank their own talk pages. I will undoing that part of the block unless you can justify it. -- John Reaves 21:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do as you please, but I remove talk-page access when the block notice is removed, being aware the editor must have read it. I find it easier to process. Lectonar (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ever even read and check the grammar there:D Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

When I left this comment I didn't realize you deleted Einstein Syndrome in February 2016. Einstein syndrome is at WP:UND, and it was deleted in December 2015.

My point, if the versions deleted as G4 in 2015 and 2016, were substantially different from the version deleted at AFD in 2007, then didn't the nominators lapse, because a new version of the article required a new AFD? I am afraid you and the other administrators who didn't recognize that the G4 were bogus also fell short, by not recognizing the G4 as bogus. But I would not have left that comment, that might give the appearance I was outing you, at ANI, if I had been aware that you too had deleted an article under G4 that didn't qualify for deletion under G4.

Am I wrong that you deleted an article under G4 that didn't meet the criteria for deletion under G4?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed. I have commented at WP:UND. Lectonar (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reduce the protection of Master of Puppets? It was vandalized because it was the TFA. Thanks. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 17:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Was out for dinner, sorry. Lectonar (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that was nonsense? Adam9007 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The progression the article took made it nonsense..it started with a sentence in Spanish, with a question in Spanish in the edit summary, which was answered by the same user in English after you added the notenglish tag....would you prefer vandalism as reason for deletion? Lectonar (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure; I can't remember exactly what it said, but nonsense hadn't even occurred to me, so I'm guessing it wasn't. Adam9007 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on definiton; I prefer that one: sometimes in ordinary usage, nonsense is synonymous with absurdity or the ridiculous...which the whole thing was. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think G1 means nonsense as in incomprehensible. Absurdity would fall more into vandalism I'm guessing. Adam9007 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, what do you expect me to do? Every time you answer you include that "you're guessing"..... Lectonar (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the impression I'm getting from my understanding of the criteria. Of course, I could be wrong. Adam9007 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then let me repeat: what do you expect me to do? Lectonar (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nothing. I was just confused as to why you thought it was nonsense, that's all. Adam9007 (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I though I did explain why...let me see...yup, I did. So I am a little confused by the whole ecxchange here. Lectonar (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake? Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

blushing...yes Lectonar (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another clash. This one was caused by a delay between when I protected the page and when I posted to RfPP. Although the most recent vandalism was all one IP, there is a history of vandalism by different IPs, going back to the point the page was automatically unprotected on the 3rd of Jan. So I thought PC would be a good move. Yaris678 (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...I saw your protection shortly after I posted...pending changes is fine with me. Lectonar (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with many of your recent decisions to decline protection for pages suffering vandalism, saying that recent vandalism levels are too low. Such decisions waste the time of established editors, as well as negatively affecting readers while the vandalism is unrepaired. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, I stick to the Protection policy. Maybe we read it differently. Using protection to prevent vandalism is a last resort, not the norm. We have AIV for that, amongst others. And while protection may prevent vandalism, it also prevents constructive edits by IPs and unconfirmed editors, which should not be discouraged. Thank you for your feedback, though. Lectonar (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps see here: Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection. Lectonar (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do it read it differently. Wikipedia:Protection policy does not mention "last resort". More specifically, the relevant language is that semi-protection "is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users". "Significant" is not a precise term, of course. For me, the rule of thumb would be, if there have been five reverted edits by new or unregistered editors, without a useful edit by such an editor, then semi-protect. What is your rule of thumb? I would remind you of the concerns about the shrinking population of active editors--to what extent do you want us to waste our time tidying up after unconfirmed editors doing nonsense?--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five reverted edits in what amount of time? If in one or two hours I would concur, especially if there is already a history of vandalism. If 5 reverted edits in as many days...not a case for semi-protection. Please have a look at Arizona Wildcats men's basketball before I protected the article: that imho is significant vandalism. So I think we must agree to disagree. Lectonar (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, so your bar is, what, 35 vandalism & reversion edits in a 24-hour period? And you don't think that's too high? The issue is the amount of time wasted reviewing and reverting vandalism and needlessly complicating edit histories, versus the inconvenience to unconfirmed editors. If 5 reverted edits in as many days...and that's the only activity...then who is inconvenienced, other than vandals? But I don't seem to be making any headway with you, so I'm have removed French from my watchlist, which only got on there in the first place in the course of cleaning up vandalism elsewhere. As you don't seem to find it a nuisance, I'd appreciate it if you took my place and put French on your own watchlist. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page? I did. And there is not much movement on the page afais. Lectonar (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --12:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear sir / madam,

We have been trying to upload a wiki page for Philippines Urban Living Solutions and have been rejected 3x for "unambiguous advertising or promotion." We apologise for this and have sincerely tried to make it neutral and objective with ample reference to third party sources. To our opinion the article is no longer advertising in nature, but you still seem to disagree :). As such, could you please be specific and let us know what we need to change to get our company piece accepted? Your advice / assistance is much appreciated. Thanks, Steven Zwaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idolzyp (talk • contribs) 06:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you use a "we" in your post here, it is implied that more than one person is using the account. See our username policy. I have therefore blocked your account. Also please disclose any conflict of interest you might have in regard to the subject of the article. Lectonar (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lectonar, I wanted to let you know that I boldly re-added the murdered International Committee of the Red Cross aid worker's name to the above dab page. Although he does not have his own article (looks like it was PROD'ed) I found he is mentioned in at least five articles (including the one I linked in his entry). I found a reliable source, which I added to all of the articles. If you have any concerns about my approach please let me know. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already did ;) Lectonar (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. My thought was he seems notable because of the circumstances of his death and the ICRC's reaction to it, but not sure that warrants his own article if there is nothing to add beyond what is contained in the ICRC article. (I've seen this approach taken with other murder victims.) Can you make the PROD'ed article text available to me so I can see if there is anything else there that would influence my decision on whether or not to write an article? Thanks. Accurizer (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no worries. Thanks! Accurizer (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Received, thanks very much. Accurizer (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gute Nacht. The article you are protected , in this thank you. Now what do I personally advise ? Or are you willing to make me a scapegoat and lock ? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Я не понимаю, извините. Я не против того, кто прав. Я вижу, редактировать воюющих, Я запираю статью. Ваш английский не является хорошим, Это проблема. (I do not mind who is right. I see edit warring, I lock the article. Your English is not good, this is a problem.) Lectonar (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not write in Russian , I read well in English, but the writing is bad :) But rather than give advice or to ask is not to big revisions , his trying bully me. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...I was only trying to be friendly. See: from what you wrote above, your last sentence makes no sense, and the second one only partly. Anyway, as administrator who protected the page I will not comment on the content of the disputed article. Use other venues for that please. Lectonar (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I 'm telling you, I'm very bad writing big complex text. The fact that I did not ask you to discuss the article , I was afraid of such persecution because of one article. Well , have a nice day Solaire the knight (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been vandalism. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how it evolves; it is on my watchlist. Lectonar (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just saw you have deleted Vasilije Pejović in the past and it has now been recreated by the same editor. Just wanted to let you know, perhaps it could be CSD or something and removed immediately. Qed237 (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say that they left phonenumbers and emailadresses in the article. Qed237 (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw....just trying to make my mind up as to how to delete....the phone number and youtube link make it spam...Thanks for the head-up. Lectonar (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted as self-spam; leaving the phone number of your manager doesn't really help. Lectonar (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would two reverts this month justify PC renewal? --George Ho (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not imho...but as I can see at WP:RFPP, different admins decide differently in these cases. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been reverts, especially in the past seven days. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting Michelle Fields earlier today. I'm sorry to bother you about this page subsequently, but as Talk:Michelle Fields#Today's edits describe, there is a concern over violations of WP:BLPCRIME, as well as WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTTABLOID, and editor intimidation. Perhaps you could take a look about the BLPCRIME issue particularly?--Tenebrae (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Tenebrae I did, and I do not see something which is of immediate concern; what I see ist that the articles talk-page is used...which is good. The "new" user has already conceded that "your" version stays in place or can be reverted to. What I do not see so far is a real SPA from his part, more a newbie with strong opinions. I think you need to get some more people on the talk-page, essentially someone who is not involved; a 3rd opinion would be good. As I protected the page(s), I consider myself involved, so will not comment on the topic. Cheers, and thanks for the heads-up. Lectonar (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to look; I can't imagine being an admin and having to field these kinds of requests all the time. It seems exhausting to me and I admire al of you for doing it. The BLP concern is from the redlink intimating that the prosecutor is violating ethics laws. And since he was still arguing in favor of that snyth a minute ago, I dread where this is going. Still, you admirably fielded a good-faith request, and for that I thank you.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...he insinuates...but that makes it NPOV...something he has been warned about of sorts, and can get his nose rubbed in at need. And thank you, you're gracious...but as you might see I am not one of the busier admins, I just hang out a lot at page-protection. Oh...and thanks for the userboxen for 10year veterans. Lectonar (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And: the sources he cites might include said information, but as you so succintly put it: it's cherry-picking...because the sources include more than the info he wants in. Lectonar (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Tenebrae I am (still) following the discussion on the talk-page...it's on a good way imho. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal parents are humorous but incorrect. Linda and Cole are his parents Awesome1986 (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article's talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been reverts, including self-reverts. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My ususal answer...let's see what happens if the protection runs out :). Lectonar (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! How is there not enough "recent disruptive activities" in List of Lip Sync Battle Philippines episodes to justify protection when there is obviously a persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content on the article? From March 30 to present, 5 unsoruced edits has been reverted and undone already. I hope you can re-check the page again and reconsider. MBdemigod (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not done so, please read the protection policy: 5 unsourced edits in as many days is really not very much. We don't tend to lock articles for something like that; have a look at the edit-history of WWE Women's Championship (2016–present): that is disruptive and had to be protected. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two out of three edits by IPs and newly registered editors were reverted. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very scarce editing overall; let's see how it works unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loads of reverts and a few self-reverts. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here I have extended for another month. Lectonar (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether reverted edits were of vandalism or in good-faith. Would you extend PC in any case? --George Ho (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the IP edits come from the 107.xxx range; I would say it was in good faith, but there might be COI-editing. We'll see how it turns out when it is unprotected.. Lectonar (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page protection for Foundation for Economic Education has ended. Pending changes seems to have slowed down the disruptive editing not at all. The anonymous editor continues to make edits that violate policy. When another editor corrects the changes the anonymous editor just rants endlessly about edit waring and violates even more policies by abusing warnings. Many administrators have explained policies yet the anonymous editor just tells them that they are wrong and goes right back to ranting. The anonymous editor constantly makes grammatically invalid edits, yet labels that with things like "write good grammar now." So since pending changes failed to change any of the disruptive behavior, what would make for a next logical step? Abel (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it did help...as none of the (scarce, I count about 10 edits in 30 days) IP-edits went "live"...and that is what pending changes is for. I will not comment on the quality or merit of the edits, as that would make me involved. I would invite the participants in this slow-burning edit-war to seek a third opinion. Lectonar (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already did that. The anonymous editor filed a dispute resolution where multiple administrators explained policies in detail. The anonymous editor told them all that they were wrong. The dispute was closed as nonsense. Then the anonymous editor proceeded to pepper the talk page with why all the administrators were wrong. Administrators have issued multiple warnings about the anonymous editor's disruptive editing, which the anonymous editor assumes are for other people. I would chalk the entire ridiculous saga up to a combination of incompetence plus a complete disregard for gaining competence by learning, but the constant change of IP address, sometimes in the middle of editing, is all kinds of shady. The anonymous editor constantly makes fake edit war, conflict of interest, and personal attack claims. It really comes down to, "How much nonsense must people endure to keep a good article within the good article criteria?" Keeping a good article good should not require constant vigilance. Abel (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the pending changes protection and will watchlist myself. Lectonar (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Help is very much appreciated. Abel (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, can you please look at FEE page and talk the months sinc Nov? I feel user Abel is trying to Own the article, and making personal attacks. Also he might have Conflict or connexion with FEE and he argues on other pages, like 'Irvington' Thankyou.107.107.60.21 (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC) User Abel has just again undone my new edit on FEE article. And he continues unkind remarks here with no truth or evidence. 166.171.187.167 (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point, here "unkind remarks" literally refers to "Improper grammar." Incompetence is absolutely expected from new editors, but new editors labeling ever tiny correction as a personal attack is beyond ridiculous. Abel (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no,ubkind personal insults here, above 8 April. What is bad when i added college undergratuate? Not bad grammar at all! 107.107.58.215 (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

The anonymous user made a giant deal out of including the phrase "think tank" in the lead of the Foundation for Economic Education article. More than a week ago RaphaelQS deleted that phrase. Yesterday the anonymous user made changes to the Foundation for Economic Education article, yet completely ignored the deletion by RaphaelQS. Yes, this all could be a case of incompetence combined with an attitude of assumed expertise. However, the IP addresses that changes often, sometimes during editing, and only taking issue with what I have touched is all very suspicious.Abel (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected for some lomger time; let them register accounts if they want to edit. Lectonar (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated.Abel (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not currently protected. Think something went wrong. Abel (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is semiprotected until August 2nd...that is what it shows in the log. I just lifted the pending changes and inplemented semi-protection. The bot just removed the pending changes template from the page. Try editing the article while logged out, and you will see. Lectonar (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will trust your far superior understanding of the mechanics of the process. Semiprotection sounds like a better fit than pending changes.Abel (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism still occurs; extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean "I will watchlist"? Does that mean the article is on a list, and if so how can I access it.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will watch it...it is on my watchlist. This will extend the number of eyes watching the article. Lectonar (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lectonar, I hope you don't mind but I unprotected Sun Vandeth a couple of weeks early per this request on my talk page. Please let me know if you foresee any issue with the early unprotection. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problems...I would have unprotected as well. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to reconsider this decline. There has been more activity today from yet another IP and all IPs in question have been "properly warned", but they blank their talk pages immediately after being warned.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 16:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come late to the party....seems to have died down now. If it picks up, ping me please. Lectonar (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw attempts to uppercase indefinite articles and prepositions. Also, I saw unsourced additions reverted. Is PC extension needed? --George Ho (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not for now; pc is doing its job just fine. Lectonar (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People keep changing pronouns because of the nature of this person. Upgrade to semi? Extend PC otherwise? --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don#t see enough disruption for semiprotecting; for pc...let's see after it expires. Lectonar (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also remove the things added onto the AQA page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJRiver123 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...as I am not an expert for that, I'll leave it to others. Lectonar (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I saw you protected the page. Maybe the page should do what Materialscientist did before. Protect it for a few months, if the few day protection fails. Etimena 14:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually I protected for one year....Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would it be possible for you to close the discussion on Template talk:RC-stub? I would, but I'm an involved editor. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the older admins who does not stand that much on formality ;) (IAR and so forth), so do not think a formal close is necessary. But with this snowy outcome, no one will object you closing it if you really see a need to do so. Lectonar (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you would, In Stereo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as well? Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim1138: done. Lectonar (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed! Lots of vandalism. Some "let's go out and vandalize something" group. Thanks again! Jim1138 (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to alert you but I'm not sure my comment on my existing Protection Request is enough. You declined semi-protection for Salinger (film) due to no recent disruptions. A day after your decision, someone removed all of my changes to the page with a single post. Link to diff.

Note that this change was done with a post, not a reversion, so I did not receive an alert. Several additions to the page that I had added were also removed.

Abuse of this page has been going on for a year now. Originally, the reversions were being made by user RoobyRinkyRoo.

All of the edits by RoobyRinkyRoo were either to the Salinger page or the page for the writer-director of Salinger, Shane Salerno.

RoobyRinkyRoo also uploaded the headshot of Shane Salerno used on his Wikipedia page. Note that the page has been flagged (by someone else) for reading like a news release.

Please read the Talk:Salinger_(film) page for a more complete idea of what is going on.

Here is a tweet by film critic Dave Chen when I tried to alert others to what was happening a year ago, just to be clear I'm doing this in earnest.

Danwroy (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Danwroy: When you read our protection policy, protection is not the way to go here, as the disruption is simply not high enough. RoobyRinkyRoo has not edited since April 2015, and the IP you mentioned above has edited other pages as well, so I would not say it is the same person. Anyway, to deal with this, you would have to engage the IP on the IPs talk-page, and tell them what you think is wrong with their edit. If it is obvious vandalism, warn them and report to WP:AIV later. Lectonar (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lectonar: Please read this carefully: when I tried to make the page NPOV a year ago, I got into an edit war with an account which only edited the Salinger page, and the page of Salinger director Shane Salerno, including uploading the headshot used on Salerno's page. That should be plenty of evidence that there is something fishy going on and the page needs some form of protection.

I had given up because my changes kept getting reverted. But when I tried again recently, my numerous edits were reversed by an unknown IP in a single post with scant justification, which would have been prevented if the page were semi-protected. And while that IP had multiple edits, all were a) on the 22nd, after the protection was declined, b) within less than an hour, c) to the pages for: the Salinger movie, the accompanying biography of the same name, the upcoming biopic based on the movie and the book, a page about one of the author's books, and there was one additional edit to a page about a TV show.

I can argue with an IP address that is likely no longer be in use, but it would make more sense to read the page as it is and see it has a clearly promotional tone, and compare that with how I left it, and consider my entire edit was undone with a single post.

I'm asking for assistance, this page has been in bad shape for more than a year now. Danwroy (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert on the topic, so place a note at one of the appropriate wikiprojects and ask for assistance. Page protection is not the way to go, as the disruption is really not that great compared to articles which really need protection. Semi-protection is not be used to keep the articles at stable versions, as this is still the encyclopedia that everyone can edit. Sorry to be not more helpful. Lectonar (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 45.64.16.165 (talk · contribs) is still disruptively editing. Could you please block them? Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: Done at 12.24 :). Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lectonar,
I just noticed you deleted Fritz-Kola per WP:G11. Would you please take a look at the last version and clarify how this article was "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic"? Given the fairly good article at de:fritz-kola and the large number of language versions, it is hard to believe that there was no properly sourced content that could have been copyedited. Please ping me, so I don't miss your answer. Thanks, --PanchoS (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PanchoS:...actually I said it was G11 and A7...should have been the other way round. Content was: "Fritz-Kola is a soft drinks company from Hamburg, Germany. They are mainly known for their high caffeine cola and lemonades with a caffeine amout of about 25mg per 100ml. Coca Cola and Pepsi has a caffeine amount of about 10mg per 100ml. Fritz-Kola was founded in 1973 when the Fritz brothers (Herman and Karactacus) had a disagreement with their former employers Munchen-Soften-Trinken over the branding on their newly invented product. Karactacus died in 2005 following a fatal sneezing accident, since when Herman has taken total control of the company." + a link to the company's website. Unsourced and tagged as such. Probably the company-link and the comparison to the main brands was the cause I used G11, but I actually do not remember. No problems if you want to work on it; I can easily restore the article. Lectonar (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you put a full protection on this page. I've been an editor on that page for years and have been clearing it of vandalism any chance I get. A fully protected page doesn't do anybody any good. As it stands right now there are several things on the page that are incorrect that need to be changed. Most notably the number of PPV events should be 322, not 310. Not sure who changed that. Semi-protection to eliminate IP users and vandals is much more acceptable and practical. Thank you. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected because of a request at requests for protection; as it was, there was indeed....let's call it slight disagreement about the content. Communication by edit-summary is never helpful for any side, so all parties are invited to use the article's talk-page to have a nice talk about sources and content. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I greatly appreciate the effort, blocking a chronic IP-hopper (without a range block) doesn't seem to be an effective solution. A little history on that editor. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, but a range-block is not possible with the range of IPs involved, semiprotecting all articles he targets seems like shooting with cannons at sparrows...and so sometimes playing whack-a-mole is the only solution left. Lectonar (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there isn't a perfect solution. I hope the vacation time is awesome. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I was reading Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 31#Template:Lang-zh. The result was supposed merger. However, it was deleted but then undeleted. What to do with the template? Pinging Plastikspork about this. --George Ho (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question that can be answered via WP:RFP. I defer to someone else to do that. Lectonar (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that you have inter-language links in the left sidebar to your de and fr user pages (which I assume are wikidata-based) when I see no Wikidata item for your User page? If I want to do that, do I need to create a Q-item for my User page? Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just put in interwiki-links as I would for articles, like de:Benutzer:Lectonar and fr:Utilisateur:Lectonar (double bracketed of course); if you go to edit mode on my userpage, you will see them as the last items on the page. So it is imho not wikidata-based. And what is a Q-item, btw? Lectonar (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hab's schließlich geschafft. Wusste nicht dass du Muttersprachler bist; wieso kennst du so ausgezeichnet gut Englisch? Wohnst du in dem Englisch-sprachigen Raum seit lang? Oder verheiratest du mit eine Englisch Mutter-sprachler[in]? Benutzt du Leo oder Linguee für übersetzungen?

Übrigens, » Q « ist die Zeichnung in Wikidata für jede Wikidata element; z.B. d:Q702442 bezeichnet » The Golden Twenties « (u. auch, » Goldene Zwanziger «, » Els feliços anys vint «, u.s.w.). Auf wikidata, Sie sagen dass » Q « hat keine Bedeutung, aber ich meine es muss » Quelle « bedeuten, denn Wikidata ist meistens ein Deutsch-beherrschte Projekt. mfg, Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do not live permanently in an English-speaking country, I live either in Brussels, Berlin or Kerry. And I do not use online-dictionaries; I still have some written ones, though ;). Thanks for the heads-up. Kind regards. Lectonar (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider seeing the page thoroughly. An IP address is consisting that Yanson Group of Bus Companies bought the company and renamed it into "Advanced Liner", which is not. Thanks! Bumbl_loid 14:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I did ...but this is way below the threshold of qualifying for semi-protection (1 or 2 edits per day, with stretches of not being edited for days at a time). If you have not done so already, please read our protection policy. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the edit history Sir. An IP address had attempted it to edit more than two times a day. And the same IP address is insisting the wrong information in Wikipidia. Furthermore, Advanced Liner does not exist. Please see how Advanced Liner was poorly edited and was made by that same IP address. Bumbl_loid 14:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

These are not problems that would be solved by applying semi-protection; I take it you have read the protection policy in the 3 minutes it took you to answer? Lectonar (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then suggest me the best possible options I should take in order for that said article to either be protected or not be edited with such fake information. This is ridiculous seeing an IP address making fun out of Wikipidia. Bumbl_loid 14:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia involves a long apprenticeship...so let's see (if you have not done so already)...how about engaging the IP user at the article's talk-page? Talking to him directly? Then there is dispute resolution with all it's facets. If it is really disruptive editing, you can report it at WP:AIV. Another thing: please fix your signature, so that it actually links to your user- and talkpage. And, concerning Husky Tours, I feel a slight hint of ownership from your part. So perhaps a link to conflict of interest might be ok. Lectonar (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I did tell to the IP address for how many times. Yet that IP address is insisting for his "facts". Though it was I who made the article, but knowing the fact that Yanson Group of Bus Companies didn't bought the company and the existence of Advanced Liner was a total hoax. I would not do this if it is the fact.....however, it wasn't. Bumbl_loid 15:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had no clue - really can't read a single word of Malay so for all I knew it could have been a comedy club specialising in road-crossing poultry jokes!! Good call on the deletion... Mabalu (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabalu: If you are into chicken-raising humour, take a peek here: OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies. All these spies are running chicken trading/raising endeavours as cover-ups. And there is a chicken-throwing melee. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ramana809 also belongs to the same group who created XYZ EVARINI VADALANU and used the same image uploaded by user Sbkfilms. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: deleted and blocked. Thanks for the heads-up. Lectonar (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice at my RPP request for Deepwater Horizon oil spill on when to use AIV vs RPP. As a relatively new editor it is most appreciated. Have a great day!

--Jack Frost (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Frost: You're most welcome; as long as your at it, please also have a look at our protection policy. Lectonar (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding [1] and [2]: FYI: my report at AIV resulted in a block and this. I hadn't misread after all: the most recent pp had just expired on 10 Feb 2017. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up; I think that a 2 year semi-protection is way too long, because after the protection expired on 10 Feb 2017, it took 2 weeks for the article to be edited at all. I also think that with the rather low frequency of disruptive edits the article does not qualify for semi-protection at all. Pending changes might have been sufficient. See also: Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection. Lectonar (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting guide, that. But, given that it's a BLP and its PP history, I do see support in there for pretty long term semi, perhaps even for indefinite. But mileages can vary of course . Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been here longer than you :)))); being an old coot, I really like the idea of the encyclopedia that everyone can edit. And of course we have admin discretion ;). Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already made a post on the talk page and no one objected it since then, after two days of wait and no response of objection on the talk page I proceeded and undid your revert on my changes, as you didn't object what I stated on the talk page post, but shortly after I made the change a random user called Herostratus came in and reverted my changes telling me to discuss on the talk page, he reverted it without even going there and posting why he thought the content on the article should stay, and told me to discuss it with someone, assuming good faith, I presume that the user thinks that you and me still have a sort of disagreement that wasn't resolved yet, but I think that isn't the case here, could you step in and tell your opinion on the matter? - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was already solved, there is no need to step in anymore - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Battle of Mosul (2016–17)" article is semi-protected indefinitely and undergoing PC-protection until June 2017. Shouldn't it be indef. PC-ed and temporarily semi-protected? --George Ho (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, thank you. And corrected. Lectonar (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. But shouldn't the expiration date be June or September, i.e. three or six months? George Ho (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PC I wanted indef, and semi expires 6 months from yesterday. Lectonar (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you object that strongly to the edits I had submitted, or were they just caught in the crossfire over Jerry Jeff Walker? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...more or less enemy fire; my bad. Which means that: no, I do not object (although, being German, I somewhat do not see Matilda as a German, but Frankish, Queen (I know she is listed as being German Queen)). Edit away, and sorry. Lectonar (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might have fixed it....Lectonar (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And "Frankish" is probably better, yeah. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I also went looking and apparently we say Walker's birthday is the 16th, not the 14th, which the other guy probably should have mentioned. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work...patting our shoulders...Lectonar (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with locking the page it should be rolled back to before those edits and an anonymous edit which removed. On 19th February 2017, he lied to the Australian public^[1] on the show Insiders about the cause of the South Australian blackouts which by that time it had been already proven false.^{[2][better source needed]} On February 8, 2017, over 90,000 households in Adelaide lost power for 45 minutes in the middle of a major heatwave. It was ordered to be cut by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), causing controversy with the state government. ^[3] Councilscribe (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would have to be done by someone else; otherwise I would have to consider myself involved. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is Patrick's day today i hope anyone told you the same as me ,Say you changed a bit in your edits and you! so go to my page and we can talk and join my team!? MonkeyPanda1 (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC) *_* oI:) <patrick's hat[reply]

Hello there! Over the past two months, the WTDY-FM page has been constantly vandalized by what appears to be spambots using random IP addresses. The vandalism includes original research, redundant and unnecessary information, and numerous grammar and punctuation errors. (For proof, please check the last two months worth of changes after the station flipped from Top 40 to AC and changed call letters.) In general, the vandalism of the page makes it look unprofessional and sloppy. Is there a way the page can be further protected to prevent even more of this? Thanks. (I will also post this on the W:RFPP section.)

Alex jirgens (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has been dealt with. Lectonar (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An user is making mass edits by citing joshuaproject[3]. As far as I can remember, it's not a RS and removed by admins many times. Would you please warn her/him? 88.232.102.155 (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my area of expertise; afaiks, the edits are not challenged, but feel free to bring your reservations up on the appropriate talk-page(s). Lectonar (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you. 88.232.102.155 (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Lectonar,

You have recently protected the An-Najah National University article due to it being an Arab-Israeli conflict related page. This block would be valid for articles "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". This specific article is not really related to the conflict. IMO, it does not make sense to protect every article about Palestine or Israel, especially non-controversial ones such as this one.

Best regards, --Fjmustak (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very sensitive subject; being in Palestine, I think it can be considered as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and looking through the article history, I did not consider it to be non-controversial. Be that as it may, I think this probably needs to be discussed (again) on a broader scale. But for now, feel free to ask for a reduction in protection at WP:RFP; I'll leave it at extended confirmed for now. Lectonar (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Lectonar the content of the page is outdated and the article about academic university not related to the conflict and no need to be protected ! i think if you remove the protection this will able the other to update the content. --Basheer.f (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...interesting, a new user knowing how to ping and how to directly find my page. See what I wrote above please; I will not unprotect this page unilaterally. If you have any kind of conflict of interest, just declare it openly. Lectonar (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lectonar, I understand your concern regarding the IP and the page protection requests.[[4]] Please note the IP editor has been blocked for block evasion [[5]]. Springee (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I have lifted the full protection. It's not always possible to keep track of every sockpuppet etc; only one small brain here. So next time you request protection, be so kind as to include some more info. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would never presume to make POV corrections as MLpearc. I understand this looks like an 'edit war' but mlpearc never let the changes stand long enough for me to include the references on a sentence that didn't have references to begin with. Now, I under this editor's reservations, but the fact remains that my changes to the sentence are accompanied by references.

[begin] http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/united-states-and-canada/north-american-indigenous-peoples/apaches "Apaches have endured severe economic and political disruptions, first by the Spanish, then by the Comanches, and later by the United States government." [end]

Apache land was, in fact, Apache land when the Spanish arrived in the 1620s. And it was still Apache land under Spanish 'agreements of territoriality' until the Americans invaded in 1840s. So the sentence, which I edited - and to which did not originally have a cited source either - was incorrect, and I corrected its syntax. If it is the aim of wikipedia to continue misinformation in the name of politics, than so be it. I am well aware, that mlpearc's racism should stand, and the entirety of the world should think that Cochise was just some criminal on American land before the Americans invaded, correct history be damned.

As I said...provide the sources, and use the article's talk page. Form consensus. And assume good faith; one persons POV is the other persons bias. And please do not see a conspiracy where there is none. I consider myself neutral, as I am an European, and I do not see Wikipedias aim being misinformation. Heed the edit-warring warning please. Lectonar (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to ask if it's possible to delete the revision titles in the "view history" section with vile and crude language in the article Warsaw? It was directed by an unregistered user. Best Regards Oli (TALK) 19:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that; please have a look if I caught all of it. I also protected the page, as there was IP-hopping. Lectonar (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help. I appreciate it. Best Regards. Oliszydlowski (TALK) 23:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also look at Largest capital cities of the European Union revision? Best Regards Oli (TALK) 23:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party, seems to have been taken care of. Lectonar (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lectonar, sorry to bother you, but how would one add the note you suggested? Furthermore, what about visual edits? I imagine they would not see it - and even if they did, they couldn't seem to see the four notes in the article itself... Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saturnalia0: No bother, please see Wikipedia:Editnotice. If you do not want to go all the way to make a proper editnotice, please see the last bit on the page, "Alternatives". I don't know about the visual edits, though. Lectonar (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh. I hate to split hairs over this, but this is one IP that currently reading through the article and doing pretty good c/e. May want to consider waiting literally just ten more minutes. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grrrmbbll....if I unprotect now, we get him, but also 10 vandalisers to boot. I will reduce to 2 days, but not unprotect. I wish there was a possibility to code exceptions for single IPs not to be caught by protection. Alas. Lectonar (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick action on that page - we seem to have overlapped each other's edits when you semi-protected the page, so apologies for that. I don't think I have permissions to re-add semi-protection - is that something you can redo? The vandalism was so extensive it seemed easiest to just revert to the last known-good version of the page, but I'm not sure if I did it in a proper manner or not. Juansmith (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Juansmith: All is fine...the protection just adds a line to the article history without changing the article...protection persists regardless of how much you as an autoconfirmed user edit (try editing the article while logged out, though, to see the difference:)). Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, cheers. Juansmith (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lectonar, I noticed earlier that you deleted my pages, Anti-Gravity Freedom Machine, The Anti-Gravity Freedom Machine, and AGFM on the basis of promoting spam and having no relation to the redirected article (Email). I'd like you to explain your reasoning that the AGFM is not a fork of Email's history or has relation, and therefore can not have the redirection to Email, and that it promotes spam. -Patrick Boots CEC (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam" as there will be no mention of AGFM in the email article unless you come up with drastically better sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NeilNs interpretation; as long as I see no consensus on the talk-page of email to even include this in the article, I see no sense in a redirect, as I consider it implausible. Lectonar (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... with a new IP. Blockevasion? See here. The Banner talk 18:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And quackblocked. Lectonar (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is really getting annoying: two new IPs (of which one is a static IP) and new personal attacks, suitable for revdel. The Banner talk 17:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok..blocked and blocked, revdeledx2. Lectonar (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just make a list out of it... The Banner talk 01:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. attack
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]
5. [9]
6. [10] This time in the 82-range

And the pattern is always the same: first an edit to link a year, 5 tot 20 minutes later the attacks. What a pitiful creature. The Banner talk 02:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic is rather understated; blocked and revdeled. The range of the 178.xxx IPs is too big for a rangeblock. Lectonar (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a bit of a respite now; I had some fabulous help which did apply a rangeblock. Please keep me updated. Lectonar (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds really nice. The Banner talk 22:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another rangeblock. We'll get them yet. Lectonar (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here we go again

I guess the range block had expired? Attack 1, attack 2 and attack 3. That guy (?) really has a problem. The Banner talk 08:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the same pattern: first adding a wikilink, then the personal attack. The Banner talk 08:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And blocked the single IP; the rangeblock calculator is down, but I will get to it asap. Lectonar (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. The Banner talk 08:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause confusion. The reason I saved the German text first (which I don't normally do) was that there was a Wiki popup over the editing screen that I couldn't get rid of. By saving the text and re-opening it, the popup disappeared. Anyway, all sorted. I think there's a "translation in progress" hatnote that I guess I could use in future. Fortunately I didn't lose my translation when you deleted the article! ☺ --Bermicourt (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: And I would have undeleted at a pinch anyway; sorry for deleting it in the first place. Cheers and happy editing. Might I coax you over to WP:PNT, btw.? Plenty of work there :) Lectonar (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just took a look at WP:PNT and can see some articles where I can easily help. Thanks for drawing that to my attention. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: Splendid; adminning takes up too much of my wikitime, and translations need plenty of that....Lectonar (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit conflict on the Kashmiris page has been solved now. Please remove the protection. Losthistory9 (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Losthistory9 I'd rather have that discussion on the talk-page of the protected article; be so kind as to move the discussion there to get more eyes on it. Lectonar (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion turned sort of private. So there's some details that I don't want to share. But basically the conflict was over a spelling of a caste (clan) name. We both acknowledged both spellings as in use among caste members. Just that the other user did not want to use one of the two spellings in the article. So now we have compromised by agreeing to include both spelling variants. Losthistory9 (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discusion you had linked, and, sorry to tell you, nothing here on Wikipedia is private. I have the strong impression that you kind of very strongly nudged the other user into compromising. And let me assure you that I am well aware of what this was/is about. But my opinion stands: I would really like to see this on the talk-page, as mentioned above. Lectonar (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well since you have such a feeling I have no choice but to withdraw my request for lifting page protection. At the same time I would re-ask you to consider the factor of the use of WP:RS which I have strictly adhered to. I would not like this discussion moved to a talk page but I am happy to re-discuss this issue with that user on the talk page afresh.Losthistory9 (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By asking you to move it to the talk-page of the article, I just adhere to the process laid out after fully protecting a page, see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Types of protection, full protection/content disputes. Lectonar (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lectonar. Just to let you know, @Oshwah:. Nothing came of the dialogue between the other editor and myself and unfortunately no-one else has weighed in. For me, without further voices and suggestions on the matter and on how to proceed, I am leaving the article and moving on. However, that should go both ways, but the other editor feels different about it. Actually it would appear that is has now become an obsession, a question of proving a point, seeing that he has done nothing else on the English Wikipedia for almost two months and for two days did nothing else other but this. To me, the shorter this etymology section the better, for it makes no sense to go into such detailed analysis in the article, as I said here, to wit, "The only reason that article has such an extensive etymology section has nothing to do with the tree, but with the unending debate over the |origin of the name Brazil/ Brasil. And the reason for that unending debate is exactly because it is not possible to ascertain for sure what the origin of the name is.". In other words, that level of detail belongs at Name of Brazil, not in other articles about the species. Keep well, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Gabriel Correia Thank you for your patience and calmness; I have one more idea, and that would be to list this at WP:3O (it seems to be an ideal case for a 3rd opinion). Would you be so kind to do that? I don't want to put it there because it would make me involved, and I try to stay as impartial as possible while doing admin-stuff (it leaves me more options). My rather small hope from the beginning was to get more on eyes on the problem. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lectonar. I will list it at WP:30. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeking clarity on the WP:3O process. I see that there is an IP who routinely goes to the page, responds to the request with a few lines and deletes the request. However, it feels odd that such a process is handled in such a manner by an individual who one knows nothing of, has no credentials, etc. What weight does this IP's opinion carry? Who is then to act on the opinion and implement whatever is to be implemented? Thanks, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you change it to pending changes anyway? The policy says its great for BLPs, which the article is.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate the attempt! But I guess because they're already autoconfirmed...? Anything else can be done, or just watch the page? I didn't think it was disruptove enough to ask for 30/500 (or whatever the numbers are). Anyway, thanks for looking in! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...the autoconfirmed-status was what made me undo it; extended confirmed is too heavy handed and actually not indicated with essentially just one user. Still mulling over how to proceed.....a rather stern warning might be sufficient. I will decide after some coffee. Thanks for the head-up. Lectonar (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The user change his ip frequently. Also, another user reproaches him for suppressing passages sourced unilaterally and according to his personal analysis. So, I have warned him. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then file a SPI; sockpuppetry and block evasion is easier to block, and so an easier way to deal with problems like that than page protection. Lectonar (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this - [11]. I probably got a little to carried away on seeing the magnitude of people working to disrupt an article. Jupitus Smart 18:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It just struck me as worth mentioning; Wikipedia is caustic enough already. And well...they are probably not in cahoots, and I always tend to think fanboys-/girls... they are just as passionate as they come (which does not mean I condone the their behaviour). It always pays to keep a cool head, though. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The article has been moved without consensus an the party will be renamed on 15 July 2017. Could you reverse the name to En Marche! ? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move-protected at "En Marche". Lectonar (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally requested protection on several of my userpages several months ago following a run-in with Amotrtias/ Armotrias/ 92.40.156.172 (not to be confused with Amortias) and this RfC a weeks/months later. The account I mentioned is globally locked and I requested G10 (on only the pages they created) and (later) oversight on several (if not all) of their edits, so I'm not sure if you are able to see what pages they started creating after they noticed it was always the same user undoing them, but they were not nice (to put it very mildly). After the RfC passed for default protection on all root userpages (not user talk pages), I later decided to protect most of my subpages (except a draft I had in my userspace at the time which didn't go anywhere and I eventually deleted) to avoid vandals and new users being able to edit pages they shouldn't need to edit. That request at RFPP was granted. I requested page protection on all my currently unprotected subpages a few days ago with the same reasoning in mind. I just didn't realize I had created so many subpages in the time between that request and this one. — Gestrid (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of that, and I answered at WP:RFP; my answer took the form of a note to allow other administrators to weigh in and protect the pages if they thought it warranted.....but no one else did. The part I quoted from the protection policy is still valid, though. As of now, I (still) would not protect as I do not see the actual necessity (no vandalism, no disruption). I admit there is a bit of admin disgression where, so perhaps you should relist it at RFP. I would then recuse myself from answering. As a sidenote: what might also be a problem is the amount of requests at RFP overall, with perhaps only about 5-10 admins dropping by regularly. Cheers and happy editing, and keep up the good work (I see you allover here, Teahouse etc). Lectonar (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll relist at RFPP for now. It could be seen by some admins as somewhat disruptive since I made the request a few days ago and got an answer (albeit, not one that caused the bot to archive the request).

Also, it's kind of amazing that, with as much vandalism as we get, there aren't enough admins on RFPP to answer requests seconds after they come in. I suppose it's because many users prefer to ask specific admins (ex. the bot they call Oshwah) on their talk pages and IRC to get answers quickly. And I guess users prefer to do that because not many admins patrol RFPP. It's an endless circle!

— Gestrid (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't enough admins as it is it; I think around 540 are listed as acive at the moment, but this does not mean they are doing adminny things (activity being measured against edits, not admin actions). All in all I would tend to think that 90% of adming actions are done by 50-100 admins (100 being on the optimistic side here). I am in Europe, and I get the feeling that from the morning up until 2pm my time I am the only one doing RFP at all (I might be wrong, but it sure feels so). Anyway, thank you for taking all that in good grace. Lectonar (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The title was used from years. Also, the rules are clear. The first title was used since 2 years so you should revert the move then we will launch a request move. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what administrative action is needed in your opinion? Lectonar (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the freaking tag on top of the article! It is polluting the article! Holy Goo (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Full_protection. Aren't you a little ray of sunshine. Lectonar (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the nazi that came up with this bullshit. What happened to the padlock icon on the top right corner? Holy Goo (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I know you can write in a friendlier fashion when you put your mind to it....let's just say it like this: do your own research. Lectonar (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lectonar, please may you downgrade the protection level. From the protection log, talk page and page history I can't see the justification for full protection. You could downgrade to pending changes or semi? Tom B (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the talk-page being unused is an indication that the article need full protection; I have protected after a request at WP:RFP, because experienced editors were reverting back and forth all over the place. Form consensus on the talk-page and then the page can be unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going on as a slow-burning edit war for a long time, topic cryptoviral extortion. Now of course in the news...Lectonar (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you could help remove to protection/blacklist so that the SahBabii article can be created. I started a draft, thanks! 2602:30A:C06D:8D00:A91A:66FB:DC4D:575A (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Kimber0316 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. If you want this to go to mainspace, follow the AFC process. Too many problems in the past. Lectonar (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please consider adding a protection template on the page Love in the Moonlight as there has been several reverted edits by an IP address claiming other editors are sock-puppets without any proof and confirmation. Thanks! 103.212.222.155 (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I don't know why, in this case, an editor would claim they are socks of one specific user unless they are actually a sock of the specific user. Usually they just claim other editors are socks of no one specifically. It seems the user the IP mentions in their edit summaries was recently identified as an LTA, and, what's more, they also had a few of their accounts blocked on the 17th of this month. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bertrand101. — Gestrid (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know {{pp}} or {{pp-vandalism}} should be added to the page as the page was protected. Matthew_hk tc 20:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then go ahead, but actually it is not strictly necessary; for once, it will be added by a bot sometime in the next 18 hours, and the protection doesn't depend on the template being added: every IP or not-autoconfirmed editor who tries to edit the page will not be able to. I only template protected pages when I fully protect. Lectonar (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please Consider Recreating the page, Camp Carmel. I represent them on some matters and we are a non-profit. If I need to take some information out, that is ok, otherwise the source is CampCarmel.com and I will be able to put that under references, which I suppose is my fault for not doing so. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheep11 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please use WP:REFUND, or deletion review, but I see think your chances to have that restored are slim either way. Lectonar (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for added Protection to La Luna Sangre. But the IPs' now turn into red users. They deleted all my contribution (where I added many sources to the page). I saw one of the users also being blocked from editing another article. Please help to block the users. I've listed their vandalism here.

This is my [last edit]

Vandalism:

• Charchang 08
  • [deleted plot]
  • [deleted casts that mention on the given source]
  • [adding casts without any source]
  • [inserted information again and again]

• User_talk:Anonymous_234
  • [deleted infobox and wrote in Filipino mean edit you edit]
  • [change the cast insult them]

And this one

• User talk:Yellow2pig
  • [he added a commando to deleted all edit except theirs] see the translation [here]

This is serious, they worked on group. Please help us Best Regards

Puchicatos (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please report those at WP:AIV, wih a short summary why you think it is vandalism. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You might want to keep an eye on this article. Although you recently set pending changes on it, the back-and-forth edit warring/disruption is still continuing. Regards. 78.84.108.148 (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up; it is on my watchlist. And pending changes prevents the edits of the IP-hopper from going "live"...which might be frustrating for them :). Lectonar (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lectonar,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from German to English Wikipedia?

File:Language icon.svg

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original German article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including German , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from German. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

1. Chi-Chi Igbo ✗ Fail, as the sources are dead, and info is different in German article.
2. Christine Neubauer ✓ Pass

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the German article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.

If you can help, please {{ping}} me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! From you bud over at PNT ;-)   Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great idea. I will try to look into it in my spare time. Lectonar (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I send a few more? Mathglot (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead, but I can not promise I get to it right away. Btw, your last long comment at User talk:Henia Perlman was fabulous. I hope it amounts to something. Lectonar (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed something unusual in my watchlist - I'm wondering if you meant to do this, or was that meant to go here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol...it is late here...and I did not mean to protect the RfP page. Thank you for watching :). Lectonar (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And @Zzuuzz: fixed it. Thanks a million, both of you. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice I'm already on your talk page :) I didn't want to hassle you -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is shipshape. Thanks again. Lectonar (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you were involved in the debate over infobox ideology in the article Conservative Party of Canada. The page is currently locked because of an edit war, and no attempt has been made on the talk page to resolve this. I would to thus invite you to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Conservative_Party_of_Canada#Ideology so the page can be unlocked and constructive editing can continue.--Jay942942 (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay942942: Thank you, but I only fully protected the page after a request at WP:RFP, to further a discussion on the talk-page. Weighing in there would make me involved. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lectonar. You recently declined to semi-protect Attila (miniseries) on the grounds that the problem "Seems to have died down". For the record, the problem is continuing, apparently coming from a dynamic IP address. Please reconsider whether semi-protection might be appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The disruption is not heavy enough to warrant semi-protection. I have pending-changes protected for 1 month, which will prevent the IP-edits from going "live" unless accepted. Lectonar (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lectonar, I need a help from your side. The article Palaruvi Express is facing persistent and stiff vandalism from an IP. I've seen that you protected the article some days back. But that got expired, I believe. The troubles came back now. So please protect the article.

Thanks and regards, Arunvrparavur (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected for another week. Lectonar (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Long time.
The user you recently interacted with, has a sever problem with English fluency. Most of his edit summaries, comments, replies, and userpage content are extremely likely to be copied from somewhere else. I am very surprised about how he manages the language barrier. As he is a good-faith hardworking editor, I have watchlisted his page since my discussion with Neil, just in case if he runs in some sort of trouble. From my experience on wiki, I have realised an editor can work proficiently in anti-vandal work without fluency in English, but it gets difficult in other fields of wiki. Especially when it comes to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, or where PCR is required. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up; I was aware of some problems, but not that they are that grave. I will keep that in mind. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:-) —usernamekiran(talk) 09:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Here is a little incident again. Nothing serious though. Like I said previously, copy-paste; including responses and edit summaries. See you around. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 11:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just messaged 'the other guy' about it, so I'm just gon copy-paste the message: "Hey, I'm just letting you know that I've reverted your edits and instead mentioned that Stargard Szczecinski is now called Stargard. You can't say that her birth place is Stargard because it's not, it's not what it was called at the time she was born, and It's not what appears on her birth certificate." I don't understand why you would call my edits childish and say I do edit warrings. Each time I revert something I message the author of the reverted edit with explanation. ArturSik (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did say it seems childish, not that you or your edits are. And edit warring is not about being right, but just reverting back and forth; anybody is free to just walk away. As I said, both of you need more competence, and less ownership. I will not touch this article again, but be aware that even good articles may become former good articles. And what is happening over there is just paving the way for that: the kind of behaviour by all involved will make the article deteriorate so much that it might loose the good article status. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reverting is the last thing I want but if people change correct informations to incorrocted it leaves me with no other choice. I can leave a note explaining why it is this way and not the other and ask for not changing this but there's nothing else that I can do. I am the person who contributed to this article becoming GA and I cannot let people destroy it, and don't get me wrong I'm not saying others can't touch it, I'm just always there to double check if what they did is correct and when it comes to her birth place I dealt with this before and a lot of people get it wrong. As I said I always message the person who's edits I revert but sometimes they ignore what I say and begin edit wars. That's one of the reasons I've requested protection for this page. ArturSik (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The case rests. I really do not care. Lectonar (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough ArturSik (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me a good reason why new editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page? Jsnsnsnsnsnsn (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The pleasure is all mine. Lectonar (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lectonar. Would you mind explaining in a bit more detail why you decided to decline protecting the Sam Pepper article? As I said in my request, I am aware that the page isn't edited extremely frequently, but these [12] [13] [14] [15] are obviously vandalism and BLP violations and they can be found at the top of the revision history. There's no shortage of problematic revisions once you look deeper either. WP:PCPP says

Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate

So what rate of editing would justify protection in your view? To me, the BLP violations lead me to believe the page should be protected. I would appreciate some insight on your end. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 14:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of all of that, but: Wikipedia should stay the encyclopedia that everyone can edit, not: the encyclopedia where your edits are reviewed before going "live"; to quote a bit more from protection policy "....Pending changes may be used to protect articles against: persistent vandalism, violations of the biographies of living persons policy and copyright violations...". Carly Fiorina presidential campaign, 2016 was an article I pending-changes protected, e.g....this had about 2 or 3 vadalism edits per day for some time before protection. much also depends on how one reads "persistent"; policy is more or less mum on that account. In very olden (Wikipedia-)times I would have said: just watchlist and revert. In consequnce, I have watchlisted the article. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation; I appreciate it. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 15:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. In addition to User:Ravensfire's reverts within the last couple days, I also noted that they had to reverse other edits just this month. I therefore chose to protect the page, taking in concern User:Ravensfire's comments. Feel free to drop the protection down if you don't think it's warranted. Academic Challenger (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

Hi,

I found your name in Wikipedia:Translators_available#German-to-English. I recently translated User:Degeno/Canton of Mutterstadt, using Google translate (carefully sentence by sentence, sometime clause by clause, cleaning up and resolving issues as best I could), and I'd appreciate it if you could double-check it to the point where I might be able to remove the "rough translation" banner. I lined up the original German sentences with my translations using Template:Clarify, which I hope will make that easier, but the text still follows de:Kanton Mutterstadt closely if that's better.

Thanks! - Degeno (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

Sawubona, Ngidinga usizo. Lesi yisikhathi sokuqala ngisebenzisa amakhompyutha ngakho angikwazi ukuhlela ama-athikili kule webhusayithi. Ngaphezu kwalokho, angikaze ngiyazi ukuthi i-website isho ukuthini.Ngako-ke ngisimungulu uma kuziwa kuma-computer naku-intanethi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss3412 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been brought to my notice that you have deleted my Wiki page, "Chunky Zucchini", for being an "ATP (attack page)". However, the page contains a clear notice that it was uploaded with consent of Chunky Zucchini, and that he is okay with the page being up and does not take offence. Please bring the page back up. Thank you.

PS: If the phone number is too offensive (even though Chunky thought it was fine), I will remove it at your request.

PS 2: It appears the page has also been protected, but I shall note here that I would not have recreated the page without permission from the deleter of said page (Lectonar (you)) anyway.

PS 3: It also appears that the page might've been taken down for an unsourced BLP, in which case I will gladly remove the biography section.

Maybe you can remember me from the discussion we had at the time about the Luang Por Dhammajayo article. I was wondering what your thoughts were on the Warakagoda Sri Gnanarathana Thero article and the edit-warring that is going on. Nobody really does anything about it, because nobody knows a thing about the subject, myself included, but it is a lot of messy editing and reverts. Please let me know what you think could be done about it.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

Hi i am a real life independent polltican. and i am a hardcore socialist,- so i was wondering if i coud publish my concept trondisme wonces it has ofcourse bean written and is finnished and is grammerly corrected,- i am asking yu as a moderater cause im afraid the page will get deleted i want to share my concept whit the world but im just a normal worker so yea =/ i dont know about eny other way to publish it to the world then on here,- i know wikipedia is a community services thats why i asked about it first,- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red socialistdude (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

I see you recently accepted this unsourced addition to February 1. I was able to find a source supporting this addition and add it to February 1.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.

Please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

Hello, Lectonar. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "SahBabii".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

Hi, I’m writing to ask if you might be willing to take a look at the Articles for Deletion page for Jesse Waugh. The vote already took place based on the article’s current sources, but certain people seem to be determined to get it deleted. Thanks either way. 81.44.32.50 (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]