I rarely check the email associated with this account so do leave a message here if you've sent me an email or I probably won't see it for a long time.

{{You've got mail}} Max Weber83 (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Hello, I only use this account now :) I'm sorry, I just want to help, but it's hard finding 100% reliable sources. Thank you for the help, that's fine. Did I do it the right way this way? Archives: User talk:Nil Einne/Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3[reply]

hey

I know you linked to two services, but they don't work. I don't use tor. can't you just upload the images - if you can see them - to imgur? this takes like 18 seconds from start to pasting the image here. thanks. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't upload the images partially because of copyright reasons even if it will probably fall under fair use (outside wikipedia I mean) but also because it seemed a good case of people helping themselves. But in any case, since the question is likely to remain closed, I don't see much point. As I indicated earlier, it may be more helpful if you work out why the images aren't working for you. They are working for at least one other participant, Tevildo. I've tested them on two different connections and they work. You may need to click on "I agree with terms, let me access the content" the first time you try to access the Tor proxy (or I guess every time if you don't save cookies). And since it's a proxy it does seem a little slow at times, but they seem to always work.

If your ISP has major problems, bear in mind I'm not sure I would use Imgur even if I were to upload, and I'm not sure it's resonable to expect people to use a specific image hosting service just because a person has such major problems unless they're specifically asking for your help. In that case, may be it's worth looking in to Tor, or some similar service to get around your ISP problems?

I guess it's possible your ISP is blocking just Tor proxies out of fear they will be used to access child pornography or something. If you're sure you don't have general internet connection problems but none of the Tor proxies seem to work at all, I can probably upload the image to some site for your personal use only. Here's another https://6lw4pg2wsy475d7q.tor2web.blutmagie.de/processed/fc7f14caa618b178c8a95028337076528a651b88b5dac4b98de125d6dd82d089 . One final one, a different service which has ads and has a different message ("I know what I'm doing") you need approve the first time https://6lw4pg2wsy475d7q. onion.cab/processed/fc7f14caa618b178c8a95028337076528a651b88b5dac4b98de125d6dd82d089 . Also because of the wikipedia blacklist on onion sites affects this proxy, I had to seperate the . and onion. If you can work out how to use Imgur, I'm sure you can work out how to fix the link.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nil. The final link (the one with 'i know what I'm doing') worked for me. The other ones simply don't - regardless of how many PC's you tried them on, etc :). I have no idea why you wrote three paragraphs above, but thanks for the last link, which is all I needed to see the image. Thanks. By the way, though it doesn't have any psychological affect on me, I do find the image rather disconcerting. I can certainly see how someone might be a bit freaked out by it, especially if they're in some kind of weird state of mind (it's night-time, they live alone, they're depressed, whatever.) I have no such thing and was in a cheerful mood but still found that image a bit off-putting. So while I doubt it has any effect on the brain, cognition, etc, I can certainly see it as an affective [sic, though chrome underlines this word] work of art. (to put it one way.) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like your posts, we've interacted before. now look, here I have to read like 800 words from you:

>Sluzzelin reverted your closure of my comment and have done the same. The OP can be as polite as they want in their question, the fact of the matter is their username translates to "French people are racist" not "Are French people racist" (which would be "Adalah orang Perancis perkauman?" or similar). Note I didn't comment on the OP's username or in any other way on the RD other than to provide a what I feel is a resonably accurate translation. Yes I did use the word "roughly", that's mostly because I'm concious of the fact words or phrases don't always have perfect translations, although in reality in this case I don't think it's particularly far off the mark. While I admit, my Malay is not as good as it once was (although I did check just to make sure I wasn't mistaken about the word perkauman) I'm perfectly willing to AGF when called for, but I do not see any other logical translation of this name and so there's nothing to AGF about. If you believe there's a far more innocous translation of their username, feel free to present it and I will apologise to the OP and to you. I did suggest on the OP's talk page they need to change their username ASAP or face a block, but that doesn't relate to the RD. The reality is, if the had called themselves "French people are racist", they likely would already be blocked and I did consider a straight UAA report which I do believe as justifiable in a case like this. I will AGF this wasn't intentional and that the OP wasn't aware that their username was a violation. As far as I'm concerned, people are free to respond to the OP if they wish, presuming the OP changes their username it can even stay a two way conversation. OTOH, if an editor is going to call themselves "French people are racist" they should expect people may not wish to respond or will respond differently. (At the very least, if an editor doesn't understand why such a username is offensive, that suggests answers may need to be tailored appropriately. If the editor realises it is offensive, but thinks it's an example of freedom of speech, they don't really understand the concept that well, and how it applies to somewhere like wikipedia.) Note in particular there's a big difference between saying, as 91 said, that in my experience "French people are extremely racist", which can be taken as expressing a general sentiment on society (whether accurate or excessively stereotypical or not) and also is in response to a specific question in an appropriate place, and going around with a username that says "French people are racist" which could be interpreted to mean all French people are racist (a highly bigoted statement), and also as a username so something which will be encountered wherever you edit. Nil Einne (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(please note that I'm also 91!!!) Okay, so I've read the above. It took me over a minute. It must have taken at least 10 minutes to write. What a complete waste of time. You're suggesting BLOCKING the OP for having a certain name? While you let Baseball Bugs blatantly troll (like, "Fuck you", "Shut your trap" etc). Slow down, get off of your witch hunt. You need to assume good faith, completely NOT go on a witchhunt when nobody other than you cares about the OP's name. Your response is completely inappropriate. You're wasting a TON of our time. And the fact that you posted it makes the reference desk a lot worse. Why would you even go on a witch hunt against an OP? Their question stands just fine. You do not need to go around blocking people.

Seriously You hae waaaaaaaaaaay better things to do than this. You're wasting minutes of our time. Why would you do this? Also, can you please do something about baseball bugs just blatantly trolling (just look at his history, no context is needed - every so many edits, he'll just put in some random crap.) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also. . . read OP's very carefully-worded, very-earnest and open-ended (not leading) question "1. How racist is French society?" which could have been answered by anyone with any reference. I gave one (and my experience), though I didn't in detail compare it with other cultures. Since I'm a white, male, European, obviously for me to notice and be bothered by shocking levels of racism by the French, the bar is very high. I gave a reference that indicates some of this. Others could have responded as well. There is absolutely nothing wrong with such a sociological question. It's totally obvious that OP is quite ignorant about our society, since he asks questions (2 and 3) that are really obvious. "2. Does freedom of speech include ... blasphemy" is totally obvious, in our society obviously it's absolutely no problem for anyone to say "there is no God" under any circumstances. it's just a non-issue. but in Islamist countries this can get you punished by the state itself. (Something all the other readers, including you, might not have realized.) This is why the OP asked. His third question about violent retaliation ("3. Does freedom of speech mean that victims of [...] blasphemy speech cannot retaliate [violently]?") is also obvious: yes, obviously, you cannot retaliate violently and against the laws of society even if someone claims your God does not exist. This is also completely obvious to us. (But it's not obvious to him, since he's young, and since his perspective as outlined earlier reads "Here we believe that such extreme racism, if not stopped by the goverment, will lead to violence, which is what happened in France".) For him violence is natural, he makes this quite clear. I find his questions very easy to parse and to answer, and feel your witch hunt given the HUGE amount of attention put into sharing his perspective and asking for an answer very carefully, is absolutely distracting and unwarranted. it has no place on wikipedia. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're quite mistaken if you think no one is going to care that the OP has a username "French people are racist".

Also, I can't block anyone as I'm not an admin. But I'm confident that if the OP becomes active again and doesn't ask for a rename, a report to WP:UAA will result in a block. As I said already, in reality the only reason the OP survived this long is precisely because most people didn't understand their username. An English username which says the same thing would likely have been quickly blocked the moment anyone noticed it. I know this because I've been around in enough places to know such usernames are routinely blocked.

Oh, and I don't see how providing a translation of the username the the OP specifically chose is "completely inappropriate". What is inappropriate is trying to hide this information which is likely to be of interest to participants for numerous reasons like I mentioned. In fact, you seem to be contradicting yourself if you're suggesting that no one will care, than you also say that that my response was inappropriate. If no one cares, than my response is irrelevant and doesn't need to be closed so urgently that you tried it 2 (or 3?) times.

As for BB, well I find them annoying at times, but blocking them is going to be far, far, far, far more difficult than getting someone with a username "French people are racist" blocked, I assure you. Unfortunately, as I've said to TRM and others before, the more we waste time on stuff which should be simple like providing a translation of the OPs offensive username, the less likely there's any hope to deal with such issues.

And yes, I do find this waste of time frustrating. I probably didn't need to write such a long response here or before, but I find it incredibly annoying, not to mention offensive when I'm accused of not AGF for simply reporting what an offensive non English username actually means (and giving the account with the violating username the chance to rename before they are blocked). While I did right most of my first response before I even noticed your second hatting, the fact you did so would seem to be good evidence of need to defend myself.

While BB may disagree, you are of course entitled to try and get our Wikipedia:Username policy changed. I think the chance you'll ever find any agreement to allow a username like "French people are racist" stand slim though. Remember, while there's a good chance the OP here may do little more on wikipedia, we're talking general principles here. Do you really think people are going to accept a large number of edit log enteries and signatures like "French people are racist", "Muslims are sexists" etc? (Will you at least accept a username like "Muslims are terrorists" & "Liberals are baby killers" aren't going to be acceptable?)

Note as I already said, I was solely responding to the OPs username and not the question. The OP can be as careful as they want in the question, ultimately they choose to call themselves "French people are racist". Let's remember all I actually did until you called upon me to respond further (and this was only to you), was inform other people of what the username actually said, and also warned the OP that if they didn't change their username ASAP, they will almost definitely be blocked until they changed their bigoted and therefore offensive and disruptive username. I specifically didn't comment on why the OP may have chosen such username.

You seem to be ignoring the actual issue of discussion which is the OPs username, and are insteading concentrating on the OP question, despite the fact I've said already, and I think my initial response was clear enough that it's not the issue. Remember the username was ultimately the OPs choice, not me or anyone else. If they didn't want to sent a message with the username, then they shouldn't have chosen it.

As I mentioned, even if they really didn't understand why their username would be offensive, this in itself is likely to provide additional information beyond that coming from the question. If they did understand but chose it anyway, that's another point of information. Intentionally or not, they may have partially masked it, by choosing a language they understood, but most people didn't. Either way they should still have been aware that someone could have come along at any time who understood the username. (If they really didn't think there was any possibility someone would understand it, that in itself says something as well.)

How people chose to deal with being made aware of the OPs username is up to them. Some may try to understand where the OP is coming from with such a username. Others may simply choose to ignore someone who chose such a username whatever the reason behind that. Yet others, like yourself, may feel it makes no different to them. That's fine but it's not up to you to decide that people shouldn't be aware that the OP has chosen an offensive username.

P.S. In any case, it looks like there's no need to speculate, BB has reported the OP to UAA. Even tho I doubt that OP is going to become active again, and I was thinking it better to hold off for a variety of reasons including giving the OP the chance to rename without a block, it's likely the OP will simply be blocked. Of course as with any simple username violation, the OP would be free to ask for a rename and be unblocked. Unless of course the OP has managed to convince people they are simply trolling. If that happens, you can't blame me for not AGF when it's others who are the ones harsher than me and put the OP in to the trolling rather than the unblock with username change cat.

P.P.S. The funny thing is you keep suggesting I'm not AGF when in reality as I hinted above, it's likely that others are going to be far less generous than me. E.g. they may assume it's no coincidence the OP was careful in their question to come across as trying to understamd, even though their username suggests they've already made up their mind but done so in a language not likely to be understood for a while. I've chosen not to go that far, and instead accept that there may be a number of reasons why the OP chose such a username. And as I said before, while my Malay may not be excellent, I'm confident that my grammar here is correct. And further, I'm confident in saying it would take someone with a very poor understanding of Malay grammar to not appreciate the difference between "Orang Perancis Adalah Perkauman" and "Adalah Orang Perancis Perkauman?", something that's not particularly likely for someone who can actually work out how to compose the sentence at all. In other words, whatever the reason, the OP said what they meant to say with their username.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I had a nagging feeling I was slightly wrong, and thinking and a bit of reading confirms it should probably be "Adakah Orang Perancis Perkauman?" not "Adalah Orang Perancis Perkauman?" (although the later isn't likely to be intepreted in any other way). Nil Einne (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just answering one part[edit]

You wrote:

>I think you're quite mistaken if you think no one is going to care that the OP has a username "French people are racist".

Yes, of course. Once you succeed in a pointless disruptive witch hunt and find something to waste people's time with they will care. (This required a translation.) If you enjoy insight and understanding, then you are insane, because you are creating an environment where you cannot get it. Look at all the rest of this pointless crap you've written above after this line. I'm not even going to read it. waste of my time and yours. Do you know how much more interesting stuff you could have discussed if you weren't disrupting?

Like, seirously "Do you think nobody is going to care what OP's name translates to if we successfully dig it up"? What's wrong with you. That is insane. It means you're a horrific person. The kind of person I would go out of my way to ever interact with. If that's what you want, that is fine. if you want insight, references, understanding, interesting knowledge, then don't work toward the opposite. I hope you will reflect and help build civility rather than antagonism. but I suspect you just enjoy wasting your time. I haven't read a word of the rest of your spiel above. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dig what up? As my user page says, I understand Malay to a moderate degree having had nearly the entirety of my primary and secondary education in Malay. I didn't dig anything up. I recognised what the name meant the moment I read it. Upon seeing this, I had a quick check to make sure I wasn't mistaken (as it was a serious accusation), then mentioned this on the RD and also suggested the OP change their name ASAP. I did expect if they didn't do something, it's likely they would be blocked, but I personally probably wouldn't have taken it further or commented any more on the issue, particularly if they didn't show up on the RD again under that username.

The simple fact is, offensive usernames in other languages are regularly blocked, not because anyone digs anything up, but because wikipedia is a community of people who speak many different languages. And therefore if someone can come up with an offensive username in some language, particularly if it's one they actually understand, there's a good chance someone else will similarly understand it, without needing to dig anything up. (Were it not for me, it's possible Crisco 1492 would have noticed that username, although I'm not sure since "perkauman" isn't the common term for racism in Indonesian AFAIK, Rasisme is.)

Oh, and one point you seem to be missing is that being part of a community means accepting the standards of the community. And in the case of wikipedia, that includes accepting that certain highly offensive usernames are unwelcome. Building civility includes rejecting such antagonist (intentionally or not) actions by others such as having such an absurdly offensive username, and asking them to change or leave. As I said to the OP, and to you above, I personally never suggested the OP wasn't welcome, simply that they had to change their username if they wanted to stick around, as it was highly offensive (and for related reasons I also pointed out this username on the RD).

And let's not forget the basic point here. That username was offensive even if many people don't understand it on en.wikipedia. Personally I don't really care that much, not because I don't find the name offensive, but more because just too stupid to worry about. But I can perfectly understand how some people won't feel the same, particularly French people or those with some sort of connection to them. If the OP is going to stick around with that username, there's no way you can ensure no such person sees the username. There are surely some French people who speak Malay, as well as people who speak Malay who have some sort of connection to French people, as well as simply people who don't see why they should tolerate such offensive nonsense (and that's entirely their right) who speak Malay. People should have to put up with offensive i.e. uncivil (intetionally or not) usernames just because you have this wacky idea AGF or civility means we aren't allow to point out people have such a username, as well as ask them to change it.

BTW, fact of the matter is, if BB hadn't noticed this and reported it to UAA, there's slight chance this would have flown under the radar any way. Even though BB's actions prevented that, your actions basically ensured even without BB this was unlikely to happen as you succeeded in drawing far, far greater attention to the issue than my simple comment, or BB's pointless reply ever would have by themselves. I'm perfectly fine with AGF that you genuinely thought you could help in some way, but it doesn't take much experience with the RD, or with the internet or even life in general to figure out what was likely to result.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For helping avert a potential tear-filled disaster! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 5 Shevat 5775 19:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you wrote (this is now quite high scrolled up so I'm replying to you directly):

I don't really understand what you're suggesting. Once the panel has been scratched, it's no longer a secret. So you can't transfer it or anything to a third party. You could require a new note for every transfer, but as I already mention that would be expensive, time consuming and fairly pointless considering the plenty of alternatives which would work better since you are after all relying on a centralised system, or at least some networked system. Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I mean you scratch it some place to both verify and transfer to a secure version, which still doesn't need much physical security. So here's how it would work. The ticket serial number (let's say EA9824397324) is like a currency serial number, public. The secret might not be a secret, you don't know where it's been, someone could have already copied and used it, by peeking through the scratch-off before you ever got it.

You connect via SSL to the central authority (or blockchain) and enter the serial number (printed visible) - and to your relief you see "Unused. use now?" with a button Submit that lets you transfer it to another serial number. You would like to make it go from being an insecure one, you don't know where it's been or who has it, it can disappear at any time, to a secure one. Now you have a roll of tickets that you KNOW haven't been scanned, you got them from the government, they're somewhat tamper-evident and have been in your possession, aren't worth scamming you personally over by surreptitiously scanning them or replacing them with compromised versions or whatever. So you scratch off the one it just said is so far unused, and under 'secret' you see '40954384845794987234' or whatever. So while the 'secret' (in the crypto sense) might be known by someone who had compromised it, if you type in a new serial number that you know has never been peaked through (and you don't know what's under the scratch-off either), then you don't know what will happen when you click submit after also typing hte secret 40954384845794987234 . Maybe a thief clicked submit first (after copying the 'secret' despite selling it to you as though retained as a secret), and you will get the message, "Sorry, this has already been transferred 0.7 seconds ago, to serial _________. This ticket is void.", Fuck. Maybe it's a totally fabricated ticket and it says "That is not the 'secret' for this serial number." That's the risk when the 'secret' could be compromised. But if you see "Success! Now transferred to serial _______ and the original _____ is now void" you're free to tear up the old ticket, and anyway nobody would accept it as anyone who enters just the serial (e.g. if you repaint over the 'secret' part or reprint that serial number) can see that it's without value.

So, here we have a way of taking an untrusted non-secret and moving it to an actual secret. The only requirements are an SSL connection, centralized authority, and very little by way of physical security. Cryptographically (the sense in which I mean) does this actually work? It creates a bearer instrument with much lower security requirements than cash has, since it's a measure of trust between phsyical security (like dollar bills, massive numbers of features) and no piece of paper at all. It can cost $0.02 to manufacture. And yes you may have to use one for every transaction, tough luck. In fact if people rely on it and trust the person who's been handling it, they might not need to a new transfer all the time though. Thoughts? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil Einne! I really appreciated your contributions to WP:RDS#causes of condom failure (particular given the poor quality responses it initial received), but I wondered if in your latest edit your meant to write "onerous" instead of "odorous". -- ToE 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it finally archived. I'm amazed that no one in the peanut gallery took a snipe at it. -- ToE 12:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, you're right and I've belatedly corrected it. Sorry for not responding earlier, I have a tendency to ignore the "orange box of doom" unless it looks absolutely essential, precisely because of the possibility of the "of doom" part applying (even if it's no longer such a clear orange box). In this case I also got a message from the OP which I was thinking of responding to. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 6Trillion was blocked for a username violation, but they were also clearly NOTHERE - I felt WoolSalesman was the same, given both their name and their edits. But I'm happy to unblock and AGF/ROPE. GiantSnowman 13:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before posting any warning on anyone's page, please, be advised to learn the problem nature you are trying to address. There were no copyright violation in the article. First, the magnumcrimen.org text, dated 2015, is a copy of the Wikipedia Magnum Crimen written in 2010. Since the time is not running backward and the Magnum Crimen is copyrighted by Wikipedia, there was no copyright violation on the Wikipedia side. Second, the two sentences taken earlier from the Oscar Neumann book review were correctly quoted and attributed to the author and put in the article. [[User: Timbouctou|Timbouctou] claimed several times that the whole Neumann's book review was verbatim copied into Magnum Crimen which falsehood is online provable and verifiable. The same explanation, more detailed and repeated, can be found on the Magnum Crimen talk page.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ok I have to warn you that edit warring by deleting my comments at ANI is pretty dumb.

Actually whats dumb is the way you've dealt with this. I could easily revert you again and report you to WP:AN/EW since you're a self confessed block evader so 3RR doesn't apply to me. (And anyway, since someone else reverted you, you broke 3RR anyway so I could report you without further action.) I won't bother since there's no point until someone actually deals with you. You've frankly been given a lot of latitude on the thread, but instead of taking the smart course and behaving resonably, you've instead chosen to do dumb shit which almost guarantees you're going to be ignored, regardless of whether anything you're saying has merit. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it sounds like you also need to learn to count. I only did 3 reverts, not 4. Nil Einne (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and although your warning had no influence, I didn't actually do anything to your comments since you warned me. I only replied to some of your slightly more resonable comments. Again, you need to pay more attention before throwing around accusations. Although I'm starting to think others are right and you're a troll. Even if you're not, it seems like I'm not going to help you appreciate the folly of you ways if you actually want to have an influence on wikipedia content. Either way, not much point be replying to you further. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted to see you endorse my style of archiving. Unfortunately you have not done it for a while so I decided to give you some help. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I nominated the 65th FIFA Congress and Sepp Blatter's reelection as president of FIFA for ITN, especially amid the controversy about the corruption at the moment. If you want you can take a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#65th_FIFA_Congress Lucky102 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit on AN ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You assumed good faith about the deletion from the Reference Desk. Good for you. It didn't look to me like a good-faith deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually wondering that as well and was thinking of putting a "(I hope)" or something similar but didn't bother in the end. The first deletion could have been completely unexpected since the mediawiki does seem to very occasionally do that if you get an edit conflict. Happening twice in a row seems fairly unlikely though. I was thinking there is a possibility the editor got an edit conflict and simply copied everything and pasted it, which would be wrong (well unless they were planning to fix it but I intervened before they managed to but I doubt that), but not an intentional deletion per se. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nil, SM pinged me so I answered, end of story. Beyond the point that I don't understand what you mean with your question, if you want to continue to argue the ref desk thread two days after it was archived, please unarchive it rather than expect me to continue within the archival. I see no point in that given Iblis has basically conceded the matter, and the removal policy is still in place. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you continued discussion in the archived thread without reopening it, so it was entirely reasonable for me to do so as well. Regardless of who pinged who, both of you had the option of either unarchiving it, or simply not responding. Since you both choose to instead simply continue the discussion in the archived thread, it's entirely resonable for others to likewise do so.

If you don't wish to respond further, that's entirely up to you, but the fact it's archived is no more relevant than it was when you previously chose to respond. The fact that it's been 2 days is also irrelevant. Nothing has significantly changed since then, and it's unresonable to expect people to follow the RD talk page with such regularity that they need to respond to unurgent matters in less than 2 days. Even more so when the discussion was closed before those 2 days.

To some extent SM as the person who first responded after the thread had been archived can be said to have greater responsibility to either unarchive the thread, or not respond when it was archived, but ultimately each person, including me, has to accept what they did and can't fault others for their decisions.

Anyway, the point you seem to be missing, is that there is no policy that we must always remove every question that contains anything that can be remotely construed as a request for medical advice. The wording you quoted makes this clear. It says we may remove it. Since you regularly provide English language advice at RDL, I'm going to assume I don't need to provide a dictionary to help you understand what 'may' means.

Nothing in the guideline you quoted says we must definitely removing everything which contains anything which can be remotely construed as a request for medical advice.

However what the guideline you quoted does effectively say is we will not provide medical diagnosis. Specifically "We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis". (Again, you yourself quoted this.) While some people intepret this to mean simply that nothing we say is medical diagnosis, the much more widely accepted definition is that it's not acceptable to provide anything which is basically medical diagnosis (even if you say it isn't).

Therefore when someone, like Count Iblis provides something which everyone else agrees is medical diagnosis, this is completely inappropriate and far worse than a question which can be construed as a request for medical advice but isn't really that clear. Count Iblis had the option of either not responding, removing the question or simply reinterating that we don't provide medical diagnosis. I would have supported any three of these options. What was never an option was to provide medical diagnosis. And as I've already said several times, in a question which wasn't ever a clear cut request for such.

I don't understand why you bring up Count Iblis conceding the point. You response only came after this happened. It's not a new detail. So again, it's no more relevant now, than it was when you first responded.

If you're going to make claims unsupported by the actual guidelines, it's resonable for people to challenge them, and while you are free to ignore such challenges, you don't get to say you don't have to respond because it doesn't matter, when the reason you claim it doesn't matter already existed when you first made the claim.

P.S. The primary reason we do remove clear cut requests for medical diagnosis/advice, is not because such questions are super evil. But because long history has shown that leaving them be is a bad idea since someone will come along who will provide what most consider unacceptable medical diagnosis. While some such as SM believe that was should just get harsher the answers, IMO history has shown this doesn't work. Regardless however, one thing that is clear is that the bad answers which provide medical diagnosis which we aren't supposed to are the main problem. Not the genuine questions themselves, which ultimately are harmless of no one responds to them (or simply reinterate the point).

Trolling questions are another matter, but trolling is IMO a problem whether it's a request for medical advice or a question which would be entirely without the purview of the RD were it not for the fact it's trolling.

And I don't think it's clear that the question of concern was trolling. Even if it was, it seems fairly unlikely the OP could have predicted that someone would provide medical advice. (The question was a bit weird, but the most likely answers were not those containing medical advice. And if there was a trolling angle it was surely not based on the prediction that someone would provide medical advice and a constroversy would so erupt.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...on my recent unblock request. I promise I won't make you end up looking foolish. See you around the project. Useitorloseit (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Regarding your explanation (repeatedly) of your content deletion at the BLPN. Liz Read! Talk! 00:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing help in explaining Commons licensing and commons:Commons:OTRS to others.

Most appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully I said something useful to someone there. I probably won't be replying further, tend to write often long messages with a few replies then abandon the conversation to avoid getting in to long drawn out conversations. Nil Einne (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have been mentioned in relation to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Timothyhere#16_October_2015. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago you participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam. As the article has recently been recreated, and nominated again for deletion, you are invited to participate in the new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam (2nd nomination). —Psychonaut (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of editing one of your RD answers. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're right that was the intended word. Nil Einne (talk)

Please reply exactly on my talk page what you meant about this:

In some cases an ISP assign an IP in a stick fashions, and will keep it if you connect again so fast. In such cases, leaving the modem off for 24 or may be 48 hours may be enough to convince the ISP to give you a new IP.

Tell me the steps how you do it also on my talk page. Thank you! --74.130.133.1 (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

since I'm using a computer, for this ip to change, I have to disconnect my computer and shut it off for 24 hours or 48 hours? Please reply here and leave a talkback on my talkpage. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--74.130.133.1 (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply on my talk page. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Drake Bell Tweet you just reinstated lacked something very important: the photo supposedly verifying Bell's self-made claim about the song being in the top ten contained no dates, nothing verifiable to support what he was saying was true at the time. And, truth be told, anyone could have made that photo with a graphics program or photoshop. Do I think he did that? No. But that's not the point. Self-published, primary sources need to have solid evidence they are real and cannot make claims about oneself that statistics elsewhere can prove. Surely there is a real, secondary source out there that is verifiable? If not, the content needs to be removed from this BLP. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Salish Sea human foot discoveries page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contibutions on ANI. I have tried BLPN, ANI and Oversight on the BLP violations and Disruptive Editing but got nowhere. Have asked other admins for intervention. Guy is an admin and good at hand-waving and making many factually inaccurate statements. As far as I can see WP is very broken. The articles cited from "The Australian" are all misrepresented and multiple non-RS sources are used. But until a robust administrator is prepared to actually check the BLP violations will continue as Guy sees the article content as fine. (This is the second failure of WP to address BLP violations by "motivated" editors I've been a party to. The last involved editor was eventually banned as a DE sockpuppeteer.) Strangely, I have no intention of putting more time into a broken system. Stay safe. 124.171.192.238 (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Things are worse here than I thought. The above post was deleted by an admin. Apparently on the grounds that I am in Australia and Brian Martin is in Australia too. I tried asking for a way forward on ANI. Outcome {{https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=706761062#BLP_violations_ongoing}}.

Is "I reverted their cries for help on other users' talk pages. Abiding by the BLP is not optional, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)", acceptable administrator practise? It seems very strange. Not to mention the issue of someone attempting control and censorship of your talkpage. SmithBlue (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Air pollution in India page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, the thread wasn't about me or my "mistake". It was about a self-sycophantic editor and their attempt to make themselves out to be something they were not. It's just that you and someone else tried to hijack it into a thread about me. That's why I told you to move on. In the grand scheme of things, my "mistake" was very minor. -- Cassianto^Talk 06:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your efforts to rehabilitate the tilde vandal from Warsaw, but perhaps their latest talk page might be a more appropriate venue than mine. Tevildo (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on the ref desk re: sexism. My current approach is that if looks like sexism, smells like sexism, it probably is sexism, and If the day ever comes when sexist comments in online fora always get noted as sexist, I may change my approach. I too thought briefly about what the actual state of affairs may be, but then I quickly remembered that I don't really care what the stats say. This may seem odd, so let me explain:

I suspect you're familiar with this phenomenon: there's a certain breed of racist that just loves to talk about things like incarceration statistics in the USA, and use them as evidence that black people are more likely to be criminals. And if called on their racism, they respond "that's statistics, not racism: statistics can't be racist, and the facts don't lie." Now, I bet you know all the retorts to that, and I really didn't come hear to talk about racism, but only to point out that the actual share of men v.s. women that engage in binge watching has nothing to do with whether that IP was making sexist comments - his comments were sexist, plain and simple. I've been trying to refrain (a bit) from challenging bad behavior on the internet; it's tiring and depressing. But in this case I felt warranted, and I thought you might appreciate an explanation of why. Cheers, and keep up the good work, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the OP's comment is worded in very sexist manner. Personally I rarely challenge such comments since I've found it often doesn't work well even on the RD let alone internet in general, as it sounds like you've found also. But I'm not going to complain about someone like you who does so.

My main point which I perhaps didn't convey very well was that the OP's comment was offensive, and dumb to boot. But it wasn't as dumb as I originally thought it may be. When I first read it before your reply, I was wondering if the OP's comment was completely wrong i.e. males and females binge watch equally or males binge watch even more. However the first/only statisic I found (I didn't look that hard) suggested there was a small bias. So I decided to leave it be. When I saw your comment, I wanted to offer support but also felt I should point out the very limited/poor statistics I found did suggest a very small bias. However as I belatedly attempted to clarify, even if true this bias is too small to justify the OP's wording.

I'm familiar with the phenomenon you refer to. Actually that bigoted troll from Canada liked to do that in the past. Although nowadays they seem to be mostly doing anti semitic stuff (but I don't look except when I come across their stuff).

Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tracking down the bug that makes mobile questions go to the top. But what to do about it? I'm thinking that Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/howtoask needs to be changed - for example, to change the button from an "inputbox" (which, honestly, is a tag I've never seen before) to an ordinary HTML link with some fancy CSS styling to make it look roughly the same. I'm thinking something like Ready? Ask a new question that simply uses FULLPAGENAME. But is there a reason not to do this I should know about? Wnt (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nil. My newest computer has a broken keyboard, and the older one (2009) has no good licensed image maker, even though I actually made a Gadsen Flag for pay for a Tea Party website quite a few years back. They didn't ask for a rainbow though.

The girls on the street drew one (a rainbow), and my dad hung his Old Glory though. It's nice things have changed so much since I came out 34 years ago. 'Preciate the help. μηδείς (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your post on my talkpage. I'll quickley sum it up:

1. . You can believe me if you so choose.
2. I'm not going to create an account again until I feel that I've shown that I've improved, which will take some time
3. if you choose to hold my past against me, that's not on me.

I didn't mention this, but if what I'm doing is so bad by coming back and admitting mistakes, then why not take it to an/i? Even though my "soc master' is dead since I cannot remember any of my passwords and I'm not creating another account yet. Come on, take me to an/i if I'm that bad still. Let them make a determination. I wouldn't though because you'd be wasting their time for nothing. so how about let's make peace and move on. thanks. 199.101.62.73 (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

my request[edit]

I've made my case, and now I've deleted my talk page. Please do not contact me again and remove me from your list for now. And I meant it when I said I only want a Mancunian blocking me if it absolutely must be done, which it shouldn't. Last time I checked, Malaysia is a few thousand miles away from Manchester, though Malaysians I've met are cool people, love you guys, i had an amazing stay there.

Anyway please leave me alone for now, and let me figure thigns out on where I'm going to go. thanks.

Eric Ramus

199.101.62.73 (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will add it to my watchlist. Although according to this 2012 AfD the footballer doesn't merit an article either, unless something has changed since 2012? --McGeddon (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I initially wondered about notability (didn't know of the previous AFD) due to the limited info. However I saw they were in Albanian Superliga so decided maybe they met some subject specific guidelines. (I don't follow sports related articles much, just saw this at ANI.) Looking at the AFD, it seems there was dispute over whether the Albanian Superliga was fully professional but it sounds like that is settled Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 12#Dubious Fully-Pro Leagues & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 6#Albanian Superliga so I guess it meets WP:NFOOTBALL. (The clubs before 2014 are also currently not in the Superliga but I guess one of them was at the time since Superliga was mentioned in the AFD.) I've got to wonder why it still doesn't meet GNG after all this time, but possibly there aren't enough people interested in Albanian football and able to read Albanian I guess. Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "Meanwhile, there's another newish RD regular who I assume I'm not the first person to notice appears to be a reincarnation of an indefed editor." You aren't. Check WP:SPI. --Jayron32 01:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, sad to see even they could't stay on track. (Although I guess I'm not surprised, since I first noticed them when they complained about a grammar error on my part but it seemed to be a lone case so I let it be.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, FYI. I found something interesting. Read this post here and this page here, the first sentence. --Jayron32 19:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never would have dreamt, as I lay badly wounded in Russia that I would ever dance again. Yes, life really is wonderful. --TranquilPalast (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for answering my question on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk! --Aabicus (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BB's comments demonstrate his never ending need to interject in matters he is completely unfamiliar with. Not only is he unhelpful with respect to the questions, he is disruptive, throwing the thread off tract from a solution, and onto utter non-sense diversions. These escapades should be boxed if not entirely removed. 207.87.181.170 (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the correct term is "hatted", not boxed. You can learn the appropriate code and do it yourself, you don't need to be an admin to hat things, do you? Can't find the page that contains the tags and how to use them, though? Eliyohub (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realize the implications of indenting your answer to my question (which I much appreciate, you clearly did your research). It's simply that your answer was "running into mine", which made things look unclear, and my response was to indent your answer - sorry for causing grief. In future such situations, would it be acceptable as per wikipedia convention for me to insert a line break between the two responses instead, to make things clearer to read? Eliyohub (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you always wrong? About EveryThing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fancy nancy schmanzy (talk • contribs) 07:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, if you say so, account I'm pretty sure I've never interacted with before in my life .... Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. Not seeing anything definitive in just the history, except Athena-like birth fully formed at the RDs as soon as the account is created. There's a few socks that fit that pattern. If you have any specific diffs that we can compare, either start a new SPI or drop me a note on my talk page and I will look into it in more detail. --Jayron32 21:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your final comments at this thread. I was out of town while it archived. Many thanks and Happy Spring Festival. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it was useful! And Kong Hee Fatt Choy to you too. Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeking argument, I'm fed up with wikipedia's bullshit bias. I used to only use wikipedia for math and basic information, so never saw the huge bias it has. You banning my thread just proved me point, any onlooker will see that, thank you. Money is tight (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing the possibility of a WP:NOTHERE block in the near future. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So talking about things contradicting materialism is disruptive editing and cause for a ban. Is it because you can't swallow my replies and want to ban me for revenge? Seriously, I now understand when people complained about the community on wikipedia. Money is tight (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about things supporting or contradicting materialism or anything else in places where it isn't appropriate is disruptive editing. The RD is a place to ask for requests for references not to spread your views in support or against materialism (or anything else). Some lenience is given to both question askers and respondents to mention their views in the context of asking or responding to questions, but there are limits. If your primary purpose of your responses is to spread your views, then yes it's unwelcome whether it's supporting or contradicting materialism or anything else. Especially when you are the question asker and seem to be just trying to spread your opinions rather than seeking references. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is true we have a tremendous bias to facts and reliably sourced opinion here on wikipedia. Sorry if that is news to you. And yes, I have no problem if an onlooker sees we have a bias towards facts and reliably sourced opinion. And with the particular case of the RD, against arguments disguised as questions regardless of whether people think they should have Freedom of speech on a private website. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm NOT disguising some dogmatic trolling attempt as a question. I called out Ian for attacking me on the bias of wikipedia. Now I admit, I'm getting pretty worked up here due to past edit wars, I add something and it gets reverted because the source "isn't good enough". Many other people have complained about the editing community on here too. I've never had much issue in the past with wikipedia because the only technical articles I read are related to math, and in math everyone can check the facts so you can't be biased. I'm not here to argue with you about this bias thing, I don't care about this, but I'm very offended when you suggested to ban on the ref desk question. Money is tight (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page near death experience is better now than before, it's a good example of what I meant by bias. When I first read it I had the strong impression that research into veridical perception (seeing and hearing things very clearly during cardiac arrest) has completely failed. But reading in a lot of other places has taught me the huge bias, at least in that article. But now it's better, they've shown a more positive side to this research. (I didn't edit it btw). Money is tight (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry if my remark about HuffPo struck a wrong note. It was meant playfully and not as a serious objection. Unfortunately things don't always translate well online, and I apologize unreservedly for any offense that I have caused. I feel especially bad about it because you're one of the good guys. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This post [1] makes unsubstantiated false allegations about my editing. I've done none of the things you state as fact. Please retract and review my moves to mainspace [2] before making such allegations. If you have a concern with a specific page, let's talk about it. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent has already pointed out the BLPvios to you which as I said in an earlier post I have reviewed. While Iridescent wasn't quite correct in that the articles did have working sources to official sites, neither of them had any working inline references supporting any claim made in the article. If you haven't gotten that what you did is a serious BLP problem by now, I'm even more convinced you need to be sanctioned. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And to be clear, if you still think that BLP only concerns itself with negative content then this is a problem. It's true unsource negative content is a bigger concern than simple content, but that doesn't mean it's okay from a BLP standpoint to have unsourced content concerning living persons, BLP makes it clear is isn't especially when the material is contentious (which to be clear, is very different from negative). I'm not sure if any of the material in the examples highlighted was contentious, but it's clear from a BLP viewpoint that they shouldn't have been moved when there was absolutely no working inline refs, and the only working external links or third party source in both of them was an official page. Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. One thing I did do was point out in response to Irisdecent and Lugnuts what I noted in my comment namely that both articles did have links to official pages. It's possible this would have changed how others !voted, I'm not sure. You could have easily explained this in response yourself, unfortunately you seemed to just argue with Lugnuts and ask for a retraction rather than simply pointing out that they both had a single, working external link to an official page. If it turns out you are sanctioned but would not have been sanctioned if this was known (which we'll probably never know), that's unfortunate. In my case at least, I've already admitted I did not notice this at first, and it did affect how I felt about the situation but ultimately not enough to change my mind about the need for sanction. IMO this does illustrate why it's far more important to try an explain why you think a statement is wrong or misleading rather than simply say it is, hopefully you consider this and adjust how you approach things in the future. I'd particularly note that "As far as I know" isn't very confident when there were 2 specific examples highlighted. And for clarification, I'm not necessarily saying you were wrong to ask for a retraction in that case or to say the party was wrong, simply that it's more important to explain why you felt so so it's easier for the party you're talking to, and everyone else to get an idea what the dispute is about. Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was not watching your talkpage and did not see above post. Thank-you for the thoughtful response. Per your recent comment at ANi... The MfD in question was initiated by me so if he read it before closing he knew that. While checking all of my contributions and editing 42 pages I edited or created first in just one day, Godsy CSD'd the page I already MfD'd. After it was deleted he went back to my MfD and closed it. That volated WP:NACINV and WP:BADNAC as he was obviously expressing an opinion with the CSD and "involved". Now, I've CSD'd pages someone else MfD'd (outside of hounding, that's ok) but I'm wise enough to not close discussions I'm involved in for a number of good reasons. He is rules obsessed right until the rules are read against his behaviour. This is also not a new problem. He lost his RfAdminship 6 months back largely because of his harrassment of me, as pointed out by other editors. I'd quit editing largely because of his antics, and only came back when another editor emailed me shocked he had the guts to do an RfA after how he treated me.

The MfD close, though improper, is not a big deal to me except as it formed part of an entire day where he did almost nothing except hound me. I did not bring it to ANi. It does show the double standard though. Every move I make is alleged to be a violation of some policy I don't undrstand yet every move he makes is justified by selective reading of some policy. It is almost comical if it was not so disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and on BLP - I get BLP policy. There was nothing remotely contentious and nothing that could not be easily verified on either page, and with at least one link they were BLPPROD proof. I tend to batch my tasks which means I'll sort crap from usable material in AfC, occasionally accepting a useful page. You can't edit a page during acceptance very easily. Than, when on the computer not the phone (too hard to edit), I'll go and improve the pages I accepted as needed. I've found there is an army of good editors who tag and improve refs and sort and categorize better than I do, while there are very few editors processing drafts like I do. Also, I've taken to doing my article editing in main space after the moves because my cleanup activity makes my contributions graph look very weird with lots of edits outside mainspace. I leave tons of notifications on talk/user/draft pages so a little balance is needed. Legacypac (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciation for your recent contributions to the Ref Desks, especially in describing the practice of info searching and noting usage considerations incl. copyvio. These are not only WP issues! This manifestly boosts the signal:noise ratio and improves the quality of the RDs for all concerned. Keep up the good work! Deborahjay (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That should be chiseled into the walls around here.

A fellow snipophobe, Anmccaff (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:GorillaWarfare#Concerns about altered images and other questionable image uploads. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nil Einne. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit seems unnecessarily bitey (and rather unlike your normal RD behaviour, if I may say so). Matt Deres (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't undo my policy based closes again. [3] Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will not undo policy based closed. I will undo silly closes like that which are not based on policy. If you continue such nonsense, don't be surprised if you are blocked. I suggest you check out the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed? to realise how lacking in consensus your actions are. Of course the fact that you are now at the 3RR limit, but no one else has even broken 1RR should also tell you that. It's silly anyway. If the RDs are closed then fine. If the RDs aren't closed then some reform may or may not happen, but whatever reform happens it makes no sense that the reform will be for RD to serve no purpose i.e. there's nothing welcome there that isn't better somewhere else, but that seems to be what you are trying to require. In other words, if you take part in the above discussion but find it isn't going you way, you can't then try to get your way by using the back door of making nothing actually welcome on the RD. Incidentally, I seemed to remember your name and I had an idea from what. A quick check at ANI confirmed by memory. AFAICT, you've already been topic banned once, at least in part (IMO) because you thought you were allowed to unilaterally impose you view of what policy and practice should be. While yes, as I think I myself said before, we were way too lenient on Godsy early on, this doesn't mean you weren't deserving of the topic ban. Please don't try the communities patience again by acting as if you are unilaterally allowed to impose your POV of what policies and guidelines mean, and how they should be enforced. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nil Einne. I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks.—usernamekiran(talk) 17:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Thanksgiving
	A little early, but still... Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness. If you don't celebrate, pass this on to someone who does! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

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

Hi, i consider useful and helpful adding democratic to distinguish the coup attempt. It is a situation where one party claims the other illegitimate, therefore adding democratic elections adds to clarity for the reader. I see several people changing this, so i could be wrong. Also its not a very big change adding the singe "democratic" word. thank you ItsNotmyname (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not normally necessary to qualify that elections are democratic in simple encyclopaedic mentions. If there were concerns over the legitimacy of the elections, that should generally be discussed where appropriate, although bearing in mind this is an article on the person, this would normally be kept to a minimum anyway. While I was being a bit facetious, I was also being serious. For many of us, when people insist on tagging something as democratic we're reminded of communist countries or others who are anything but democratic who insist on tagging everything as democratic. It may be approriate when giving a speech or writing an essay to mention how "after the democratic elections, protestors whatever" but that's a bit of a different case. And even then, it will generally be much more meaningful if further information is provided instead of simply a label. For example "independent elections observers from the EU/whatever call them free and fair". Note however that is not something normally appropriate in wikipedia. Such information is often extraneous, and should be covered in the article on the elections. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand that. In the same line of arguments from above, in an attempt to clarify and distinguish democratic processes from the coup, there was the statement of EU and NATO officials after the event, with support for i quote: democratic processes. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/27/europe/macedonia-parliament-violence/index.html The event was an attack to the democracy, that is why I consider it important. But I understand, and given its a small difference, that as you say could make more confusion (communism) and it is not very related to the person.

What do you think of the political views of the protesters on the page? Should their views be on the personal page? I'm referring to "According to the protesters the new parliament majority "did not follow the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament" and was in essence a coup against the Macedonian state.[5]" Also it is referenced by what it seems to be a blog. ItsNotmyname (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made a redirect for Jefferson Davis Park to Jefferson Davis Park, Washington which is great, but I was wondering if it would be a bit confusing as the camp site where Jefferson Davis was captured is also often referred to as Jefferson Davis Park by locals in Georgia[Jefferson Davis Memorial Historic Site]. Are you sure this will not be confusing? Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Jefferson Davis Park#Redirect query Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why you did this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I got an EC while modifying my comment and didn't want to spend a long time fixing it. I could have used ins/del and signed, but I personally find it more confusing when the comment has been modified in this way after someone replied to it. And it looked a bit too complicated to try and recover the important parts and make them in a separate reply. I hope you don't mind. Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. No problem. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil Einne, I left a reply to your comment in the Cal Poly talk page. Thank you for your take on this dispute. --Chlorineer (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think if we name that section "surname or patronymic" that's a good solution. What do you reckon? Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that. Although I'd note their is a distinction in usage between surnames and patronyms. A person is generally referred to by their surname in formal usage e.g. Jörg Vogel would generally be referred to as Dr Vogel or Vogel. This is often not the case for a patronym where the person is often referred to by their given name, this is generally the case in both Malaysian English and Malay. E.g. Mahathir Mohamad or Mahathir not Dr Mohamad or Mohamad. (This usage isn't always followed outside Malaysia although it's normally encouraged for our articles per the relevant MOS.) So personally I would suggest patronyms should be distinguished i.e. put in a separate list from surnames but as said, I won't object to their inclusion in a list for both patronyms and surnames. I had a look and it seems this is one area our articles don't handle well. Of the 5 or so examples, I looked at, only Muhammad (name)#Surname does anything. All the others put patronyms in with surnames so it does seem what you are doing is quite common. Unfortunately this is one area still not well written in our guidelines. Although we do have the Template:Malay names, it seems even one of the MOS which deals with this Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Malaysia-related articles is dormant. (Although Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Singapore-related articles is still active.) I apologise if my actions came across as harsh, you're clearly doing a good job, it's just that confusing Malay patronyms with surnames is one of my pet peeves. (Although still not enough that I'm willing to try and deal with the mess that currently exists in our various articles, so feel free to handle Azman however you feel best.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much for taking the time to explain all this, I had no idea.

I didn't think you were being harsh as I always assume good faith, I was just a bit confused at first, but now that you've explained all this it makes perfect sense.

I absolutely agree we should have some kind of way to address this problem and then be as consistent as we possibly can. Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also I moved Khairul Azman Mohamed as I'm fairly sure given name is Khairul Azman. Mohamed is his patronym. I should mention the other examples I looked at were Ismail (name), Razak, Ibrahim (name), Ja'far, all of them as mentioned just put the person under surname. All of them include people from Malaysia, and I think in most cases if you follow through to the article, many of them do have the template Template:Malay name which says it's not a family name so things are a bit of a mess. I think I'll follow your lead and add patronym to the subject although as said, I do feel long term it would make sense to separate patronyms from surnames. However with no direct support from this from any MOS or discussion, a mass change may cause controversy. I just looked at Abd al-Rahman and it's a little more complicated as a compound name but because of the number it also lists by country so doesn't distinguish between given name and surname. Since very few places still use patronyms like this, as even many from Arab countries have generally started to use something like a surname, and many others which still used patronyms adopted surnames/family names sometime in the early 20th century or earlier, it's not something which gets a lot of attention. Nil Einne (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've adjusted the subheadings in those examples above to Surname or patronymic. I'm fairly sure there are a bunch of others, but I'm lazy to dig them up at the moment. Nil Einne (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a load of nonsense. Quit edit warring. Geogene (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, I'm not new to the internet or Wikipedia. I'm sorry for indenting for you. I had gotten the impression we were ignoring Count Iblis' off-target post and shunting it to the bottom, so when your reply appeared below it I misunderstood. Anyway, I see from people's posts to your talk page that you are an irascible curmudgeon like me. Keep up the good fight. Abductive (reasoning) 00:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do that not sure whether or not to do that per the ani discussions and the talk over at meta. Thanks Edaham (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for putting you to that trouble, I should have looked more closely at IPs. Thanks again. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is one of the smartest people that I can remember. Please be nice to him. Limited Brain Cells (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you've got a short memory. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously neither you nor he/she are happy about your exchanges. I extend a welcome to the dialog on my Talk page. DroneB (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That user VXFC has been banned for almost 7 1/2 years now. Do you happen to know what got him banned in the first place? Was it incorrect information, or was it belligerence? (Or maybe both?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know, since I think Vote X only started to hang out in the RD a while after they were blocked. I may have looked into it briefly at one stage but I don't remember that well what I found. I do know that they seem to have fairly unorthodox views on various issues relating calendars and time including intercalation, leap seconds and time zones. And they seem to continue to push their issues even when there is no support, sometimes with misrepresenting what other people or maybe sources have say. So I'm not that surprised that they somehow got themselves blocked. The ban discussion is here [4] and LTA is here Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change although they mostly only tell you what they've been doing after socks. Then again, the block log [5] suggests that maybe socking was what got them blocked initially, so perhaps it was simply using IPs and/or accounts to try and force their way when people began to ignore them or to bolster their level of support. Nil Einne (talk)

Holy obsessions, Batman! Still doing the exact same stuff that got him banned. A hopeless case, it would seem. Thanks for the info. P.S. His "tells" are obvious. Maybe he doesn't know that, or maybe he doesn't care. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should have taken it to my talk page, but anyway... The original closer's conduct was not a topic of discussion, and the only reason Swarm mentioned it was because David had; had David not there would have been no need to. And David Just. Got. Warned. about canvassing, when the original report had included discussion of the slightly-greyer area of cherry-picking a large number of editors on one's own side when required to notify those on the other side (see the long, off-topic discussion here in which a bunch of editors whose stance towards me is neutral-to-negative and whose stance towards David is neutral-to-positive were pinged with the extremely dubious rationale that they were loosely involved in a discussion that was only kinda-sorta peripherally related to the topic of discussion -- the owner of the talk page in question seemed confused as fuck as a result).

If the notification requirement covered editors whom the OP would want to notify then it would need to be a requirement.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very strange that Hijiri88 is so eager to get me indeffed for failing to notify [6], yet here he has failed to notify me or Beeblebrox when he was gossiping behind our backs. The same goes for these two comments ([7][8]) at the RfC in question, where he also failed to notify me that he was accusing me of incivility. The diffs he provided at the RfC had absolutely nothing to do with the RfC. The second diff was from 1.5 years ago. But I'm apparently the problem. I consider it to be WP:HOUNDING, and I again politely request Hijiri to stop. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not eager to get you indeffed for failing to notify; I think your kind of IDHT normal results in an indef. And there's a reason I said "and elsewhere". This is the kind of IDHT I'm talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On your question about [9]: citations sometimes provide multiple URLs, for instance both PMC and arXiv. Per Help:Citation_Style_1#Registration_or_subscription_required, "Links inserted with |url= are expected to be free to read by default" and "Links inserted by identifiers such as |doi= are not expected to offer a free full text by default. If they do, editors can use |doi-access=free".

That citation did not specify the DOI access level, so adding an URL is an improvement in that it signals to the users that the publication is in fact open access. Moreover, the Zenodo record is useful because it states the copyright status more precisely.

Adding an URL and a doi-access parameter do not exclude each other, but I agree it would be nice if OAbot (or another bot) also maintained citations (or at least the citations it edits) to improve such information in them. This could be proposed at Help talk:Citation Style 1, I think. Nemo 17:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemo bis: You seem to have missed the key point. if the publication was open access on the DOI why didn't you simply add "|doi-access=free" when you found it it was open access when you manually checked? Why did you instead add a questionable source? (Note that the problem is not simply over the questionable copyright status of Zenodo content, but also whether it's possible content there has been modified.) Even if you allege both a questionable source URL, and the original source free DOI were better, you still failed to add doi-access free.

I'm presuming from your response that it's not that the DOI wasn't open access in Italy or wherever you were checking from, so you couldn't tell from your manual check. (If you can't check because you're accessing from a institutional internet connection so it's not clear whether you have something due to your institutional access or because it's free, I'm not certain what you can do. But you really should have came up with a solution, perhaps with the help of the community, before going on a mass spree. I don't see the point of mass wasting time manually checking stuff when you're ability to check is so seriously flawed. I mean checking each one of those must take an average of at least 5 minutes or probably more considering the need to check the copyright status, if the document was modified, in some cases who uploaded it, etc. If there were 100 added this means you spent 500 minutes!)

I don't really understand your final comment. As I understand it, per the FAQ OAbot does attempt to mark DOIs that are free when it recognises them, and also does not add URL parameters when they are marked as free (already or by the bot when it recognises the DOI is free). As I said in my ANI comment, I assume the reason it didn't do so here is because it wasn't able to recognise the DOI was free because whoever made the DOI didn't comply with common guidelines like those by Google.

This is unfortunate, but it should not have mattered since you manually checked as I think you have to do since the tool is naturally imperfect otherwise we would just automatically run it on every page. So you were able to recognise far better than a bot could, that the DOI was free and could have simply marked it yourself. As I said, you could have done so whether or not you also decided to override the bot and add a URL parameter when the DOI was free; as is after all one of the points of a manual check, to recognise stuff the bot is unable to. By your own admission, this would be an advantage since people might not otherwise recognise it was free and they therefore may have accessed it from a questionable source unnecessarily.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well you seem to bring a new idea to my mind that I never thought of. If you Google websites/articles, people only write articles on how to "pick-up" girls and not how to attract women. By that I mean articles on how to approach women, and not on how to "get approached" by women. I was thinking people didn't write such articles because the idea never occurred to them, or it wasn't possible. However, you seem to bring to the idea where people would be annoyed by that concept. Isn't this like spreading atheism to a theism society? By that I mean, if I Google "how to get approached by women" Google responds no such entries. I feel like I am the 1st person in the world to come up with this concept. Just like a 1st atheist in the world coming up in a world full of theists. So as a kid growing up and surrounded by guys who go "Let's find ways of being the 1st to talk to girls?" I just sit my head back and think the reverse. Unfortunately I don't think the world is ready for such a concept, probably never will be.

Like everywhere, there are also loopholes. So in my 1st msg deletion, I got "Wikipedia is not in the business of helping sociopaths ..." So it's like a loophole, that sort of allows insulting in delete msgs. My problems with City-Data and Reddit actually is generally not on asking women questions because there is no section for that, but talking about gangs. And I think it has to do with the fact that people there are generally White. In the U.S., I live in a lot of Hispanic neighborhoods, and therefore know a lot about Hispanic gangs. So what is the loophole: when you post a new thread, the mod closes the thread stating the rules. But the loophole is a mod can just mysteriously close a thread without stating anything. So in a Puerto Rico island section, I start a thread "What's the largest gang in Puerto Rico?" and after 2 replies the thread is mysteriously closed. In Reddit, when I give out gang information, the threads get sanctioned off. So my speculation is White people don't like the idea of talk about gangs, much like theists don't like the discussion of atheism. And the whole concept of picking-up or attracting women is probably less offensive to ask to Hispanic and Black people - more offensive to people that grew up in a pre-arranged marriages society. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

This was the original question,[10] and I don't think it really had any responses, so deleting it is fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My friend lives in Glenfield,_New_Zealand. Do you know where she can find an express mail post office? Thank you. 50.68.237.196 (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest option for your friend is probably to visit the NZ Post shop in the Glenfield Mall to send it. As I mentioned before, if speed matters, make sure sends it via International Express Courier and not International Courier since even with Canada Post resuming operations there's some backlog to clear. I expect staff will tell her about the expected delays once she says where she wants to send it to anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ban evading[edit]

Hi, im not evading a ban, i was banned for ban evasion, but at that time i wasnt actually banned. My ban had expired. I would appreciate you not being retarded and looking at the actual log and use those critical thinking and reading comprehension skills you claim to posses, otherwise tell me how long my "ban" is and i will do more time, i dont care. You cant hide the truth forever,the truth always comes to light. And even if its after my death, 100 years from now people will be reading this archived conversation thinking "can you believe how stupid that mother fucker is? They literally would rather believe ginger in the rear of a horse was more reliable than a heavily documented importation bill in early america." And youll have to live with that, or atleast you decendants will if you ever have any. Flex that internetz powerz, but at the end of the day, you cant truly ban me, and you're the one who will look foolish in years to come. But as i said, if you still choose to claim im ban evadin, give me a wait time and i will wait.

You were community banned per this [11] discussion and your account was indefinitely blocked so you are evading a ban and even if you weren't you would be evading a block. If you feel the ban was improper, you're welcome to appeal it. Until and unless you successfully appeal it, you remain banned and any editing on your part if ban evasion.

If you choose to accept your are banned and want to appeal in the future, WP:Standard offer suggests a minimum of 6 months before an appeal with absolutely no ban evasion. This means you need to stop editing anywhere on the English wikipedia, with any IP or any account be it talk pages, articles or other pages. Yes even my talk page. Since even discounting this edit to my talk page, you evaded your ban with this IP 6 months will start from now if you stop now.

Note when appealing you also need to convince the community that you will able to edit without causing significant problems, especially the problems that got you into trouble in the first place. While I can't speak for the community I will say I've never see anyone who insists that they are definitely right or super smart of whatever and everyone else is completely wrong or an idiot be successful in an appeal. Recognising why the community saw your behaviour as a problem, and how you can avoid it in the future is generally the most basic second step to a successful appeal. (First being no evasion for at least 6 months.)

Note that I have no involvement in your disputes, and have no real knowledge of them. But even if there was no ban evasion, I would assume that you're wrong. Again it's my experience that I can safely assume anyone who insists on how right and smart they are and how everyone else is wrong an an idiot, is in fact the one who is completely wrong and not worth listening to. Most people who are right are able to let the sources speak for themselves.

BTW, since you retain talk page access on your original account, you can edit your original account talk page although you should do so by logging back into your account and can only edit your talk page to appeal your ban. If for some reason you can't or don't want to log back in to your original account, take a ready of WP:UNBAN for other ways to appeal. It will probably also be acceptable to edit your talk page to seek clarification within reason, if you're still confused about aspects of your ban. Although I don't really see what confusion there is. As I said, you are banned end of story and any editing except to appeal your ban on your account talk page is ban evasion. If you think the ban was unfair in any way, you need to appeal it not evade it. Telling people who unfair the ban was, or how smart or right you are or how wrong or dumb everyone else is, is not likely to be seen as an acceptable use of your talk page so I suggest you minimise that.

Note I am cross posting this to your original account talk page since it's the only place you're allowed to edit. I won't report you for editing my talk page provided you don't do something stupid, but I will report you if you continue to evade your ban elsewhere. But others may not be so generous, so I suggest you refrain from evading your ban by editing my talk page. In any case, it doesn't seem there is anything more for you to say. I'm not interested in hearing details of your dispute nor in why you feel your ban was improper so there's little point posting them.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...for your comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I barely read what you wrote. As I said in my edit summary, I don't give a damn. As I've told you, edit from your account if you want people to give you the time of day. As long as you continue your ridiculous socking, FkpCascais automatically 'wins'. Maybe you know they will 'win' even if you don't sock because they're right and completely wrong and that's why you're behaving so poorly. I don't know and don't care. I've engaged with socks and other problems editors when I believed it would have some benefit, as I engaged with you and you may see I've done so here on my page and in the talk pages of those who have commented here on occasion. As far as I recall, I've never told anyone to leave me alone specifically (although it goes without saying i want the editor who keeps attacking my page to leave me alone). But I'm telling you now to leave me alone. It's not because I'm particularly bothered about anything you're saying. It's mostly because I truly don't give a damn and I also feel it's the only possible way to get through to you what I've already told you. You need to stop socking if you want there to be any chance you will be taken seriously or for this to be resolved in your favour. I don't give a damn about foolish arguments you try to make that it's not socking because someone edited without logging in accidentally. Editing the way you are intentionally not logging in when you have an account, to engage in discussions internal to wikipedia, is clearly inappropriate as I've told you before. From what you've said, it's likely to be seen that you're evading scrutiny as well. If you aren't Asdisis and instead an editor in good standing then edit from your account. If you are Asdisis or you're some other editor who is not in good standing then stop editing point blank. Either way if I see you editing from an IP (or for that matter some other account that clearly isn't your main account) on my page again, I will revert and ignore. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Nardog (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil Einne

I hope to find you here. I shall also post on my own page.

Thanks. Yes, this appears to be an error on my part. MrX made a similar point in reply, so I have not returned to the Talk page. It was not my intention to ignore the ban, and I would like to remove my comment, but as you say, removing it might be a further breach. I hope not. Thanks again. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda off-topic for the ANI thread, so bringing it here, but can you give an example? I've mentioned JoshuSasori a bunch (because recent activity by his socks or apparent socks, and at least one meatpuppet) and a couple of editors who accused me of "hounding" them because they showed a poor understanding of either copyright or verifiability or NOR or some such and I went through their edits to verify that it was a problem, because I've recently been accused of hounding by a few editors who didn't understand copyright or verifiability or NOR or some such and needed to explain that no, I know what I'm talking about, and they are walking a very thin line by arguing with me that, for instance, copy-pasting a short paragraph of text is not copyright violation is a pretty quick way to a block.

But I obviously can't explain my activity in context if you just make a generic comment about me talking about unnamed editors.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one example [12]. From what I can tell, none of those 3 editors were alternative medicine practitioners whatever alleged promotion they were engaged in. Also, it looks like all 3 are technically still allowed to edit since none of them are subject to active blocks AFAICT, although they've all long retired. Then there's these [13] [14] [15] (and a bunch of others in that thread) [16] [17] [18]. Note that I am not saying you should never mention people involved in historic disputes or cases, I myself have done it and others do it, but you should take care when doing so and especially make sure it's relevant enough to be useful. Continually bringing up random people, especially those you've had significant disputes over, may not be helpful. (Notably if the case is probably unfamiliar to most participants of whatever discussion, and is sufficiently different from what is being discussion, it's often not helpful.)

Even if the other editor is site banned or indefed, you continually bringing them up may give rise to them feeling they're being unfairly maligned. If there is a siteban and probably for an indef, the community feels they have been a significantly problem, but the editor often still doesn't agree and it's generally better for us of these editors aren't offered encouragement to hang around by the perceived need to defend themselves or simply to read how unfair people are being to them. Even if the editor is still hanging around when they shouldn't it doesn't necessarily mean bringing them up all the time is helpful, it actually could easily have the opposite of the desired effect as the editor hangs around in part because they kept bringing brought up. Obviously in sock discussions about them, it is necessary to bring them up, but otherwise not so much. This is why in some ways it's actually more problematic to bring up such editors, whereas an editor who isn't indefed or site ban can reply if they feel your characterisation of them is unfair, and editor who is can't.

This is particularly the case when you've had significant disputes in the past since it means that there's a reasonable chance anything you say is going to be interpreted more poorly then if it was coming from someone they don't know, let alone someone they view positively. You yourself are obviously not neutral either, so your view of the situation may not be how a neutral third party would describe it. While we can understand how frustrated you may feel when you feel you've been hounded or treated unfairly, remember our primary interest is in what makes wikipedia better. And it goes both ways too, even if the editor is now indefed or site banned, it doesn't mean that they were always completely in the wrong so we may still feel sympathy for them. While the sympathy is significantly lessened when they hang around socking, that's more of a case of 'I don't care so much about your feelings given your atrocious behaviour' then 'they never had legitimate grievances' and as I said before ultimately feelings aside, we also want what's best for wikipedia. (For editors able to edit, especially active editors, the flipside is that while they are able to respond so it's fairer, it can lead to lengthy offsides about what you said. And there's still the fact that people shouldn't have to choose between allowing something they consider inaccurate to stand without challenge, or getting drawn into a offtopic discussion.)

I mean even stuff like this [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] (as I said before, a bunch in this thread) [24] [25] [26] should be done with care since the fact that the people aren't named doesn't mean there's no issue. Heck even when the people are a direct example [27] [28] [29] [30] (I include this because while the start seems clearly relevant, the latter part less so) lit doesn't mean you always have to discuss or name them, with the obvious exception when it's important (e.g. to help others understand the extent of the problem or for sock consideration). Remember after all that you yourself were unhappy about being named in the title of the ANI thread.

I want to be clear that I'm not saying any of these particular examples shouldn't have happened, although I did filter out obvious cases like [31] [32], I was fairly inclusive of what I did include and don't know the details about most of them. But do remember as well, even if none of them was really wrong, it may be the totality of the number of times this happens is unnecessary and unhelpful. As an observation, while the COIN example I remembered off hand and the 2 Catflap examples I found by searching, all the rest were found simply by looking at your contribs to the wikipedia name space over the past 2 months in noticeboards or elsewhere it seemed it may happen (I excluded AE/arbcom).

BTW, the main reason I began to notice these was because of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#Requesting rev deletion of inappropriate image addition by IP Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#I'm being stalked (maybe trolled) -- anyone know if there's anything that can be done? or more particularly the resulting kerfuffle Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive304#Use of ticket system by site-banned user to get warning about abuse of email removed?. Looking at the case again, the actual mention was actually not so bad but I did get the feeling from you email removal request that you didn't seem to appreciate that just because you're allowed to mention someone doesn't mean you should and from then, I began to noticed how many times you seem to mention someone when it was of limited relevance. I didn't keep a record of them since I was never intending to bring it up, but when looking at the case, it struck me that F+K's observation seemed to be related to what I'd seen.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I screwed up in coping the subject above. Nil Einne (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Du hast Recht".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you've indicated that a contribution by a recent IP address is our old friend WickWack again. I'm not seeing the tells or markers, can you perhaps present some clear evidence that it is them? If it is, I'll block the IP and clean up the mess, but since I am not seeing the same things you are, I just need some clarification about what makes it so obvious. Thanks! --Jayron32 14:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may recall Wickwack stated they were a engineer of some sort and often talked about technical (especially electronics or electrical) or physics related issues (e.g. [33] [34] [35])

There has been someone operating from the Western Australian ISPs who has been asking for help for translations or finding non English frequently old science journal or technical documents in similar fields for quite a few years e.g. [36] [37] [38] [39] Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 November 17#Meaning of Japanese characters Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 March 9#Japanese control knob legends Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2014 March 1#Alloy with electrical resistivity sharply increasing over a certain temperature.

I was under impression there was a clearer link to Wickwack etc, i.e. they asked similar questions with the classical signed posts, but actually I couldn't find anything. Although I did find these interesting, [40] [41] [42], since they seem to me to be clearly the same editor, and the science ones seem to be likely Wickwack to my reading. (One obvious issue is that simply asking for help finding stuff or translations generally leaves a lot fewer telltales.)

I could be completely wrong, one reason why I've been away has been because I've been lazy to dig up evidence, and even now having done a brief look it was harder then I expected. Of course, any comments post topic ban may also have been deleted, and further their IP changed so much and among different ranges that finding linked posts is difficult. But I also don't think I've thought about Wickwack for quite a while, probably since I replied to that evolution thing on someone's talk page a few months back. When I read those questions, my first thought was 'this sounds like Wickwack but I must be wrong since they're American' but then re-read their first post and realised I misread the phrasing and then I checked their ISP and geolocation and decided it was even more likely. When some simple research found the answer to their question was probably Telegraphen- und Fernsprechtechnik, that sealed the deal really.

Still given the evidence isn't as strong as I had expected, if someone other than the IP (preferably not Wnt) wants to re-add the question, I'm fine with that. (Or maybe it's already been re-added, I haven't paid much attention.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. While fairly unrelated, the previous case I referred to above is this Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2018 July 28#Hearing: difference in sensitivity to harmonics and intermodulation. although I commented on it a month or more later elsewhere. I still believe the editor there is likely Wickwack, which is another reason I think they are still hanging around. While I was somewhat annoyed at the time, IIRC like here it's not that I was thinking 'this is clearly a sock' or anything of that sort. I got fairly suspicious from their responses that it sounded like Wickwack, and even more so when I then looked at their geolocation/ISP and then confirmed similar comments in the past. It is possible my mind has associated IPs like that with Wickwack so it's not just the responses, I can't say for sure Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I see the IP agrees the above poster is them [43], so if people agree with me that it sounds like Wickwack I guess that's also very strong evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, looking at your reasoning in this diff (you wrote "support", but didn't you mean to !vote oppose (support is for sanctioning Shrike, oppose is against sanctioning)? Icewhiz (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, thanks for pointing that out. I've corrected it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I do the same all the time myself (probably more often than you - I've had over a dozen AfDs where someone pinged me with an "eh, you !voted keep but argued delete" or the other way around). Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nil Einne. I understand the problem is that I took all these insults to heart and failed to structure a strategy to convince them. I am a professional man and not used to be treated like that. When I first started the ANI, I had no intention to ban Future.perf, just to give him a lesson about respecting others and make him remove his comments. (i was not aware of the WP:DROPTHESTICK). I feel however no regret about the site or any ban, this whole story gave me a good lesson about how nasty wikipedia world is behind the scenes, how cyberbullying goes away without because its done by a friend, groups of people gather like hyenas to attack another editor. A different person in my case and without strength could had suicide thoughts. I have no intention to spend a single more minute and plan to ban wikipedia from my house and workplace. - Stevepeterson (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider FPAS a friend, I've seen them around before, but have limited real interaction. Nor anyone else you've named in the discussion. As for "give him a lesson about respecting others", I think the obvious question is why it was so hard for you to respect others? Let's not forget how long it took you to acknowledge it was seriously wrong for you to modify your posts which had been replied to without mentioning it and where your modification per you later admission, was in part because of what that reply actually said. You then later canvassed and attacked other editors in a language besides English, and where the language used was apparently designed to be hard to understand for people who didn't speak that language. How is either showing respect for others? (I won't even get in to the fact you seem to keep implying that everyone involved are friends, or that we are causing people to have suicidal thoughts.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nil Einne, It worked. Could you just take a quick look at it when you have some time, as I've never done this before, and double-check it? Thank you again. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NE. I think you signed with five tildes instead of four here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Mega Millions lottery winner of 1.5 billion. Not a big deal but I thought you might want to fix it. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 08:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hello I am responding to your comments about me editing from Canada. At the village pump, I posted the following, and I hope you can address it. here it oges: Alright listen up, and listen real ultra super good. Anything prior to June of 2018 is not me, if itis a Canadian-based account. thisis Cuddlyable3 all over again. While I was in the UK, I was accused of being a user called Cuddlyable3, they did some checks and guess what, negative. Why do I get the feeling this is the same crap different country? As for my name, I was named for my grandfather. I want these gross accusations either explained or retracted immediately. While I would love to be able to, I am not sending Wikipedia my birth cirtificates and immigration papers to prove that I am a Yemen-born UK immigrent who came to Canada in June 2018. I shouldn't have to go to such lengths to prove who I am. also let's for a moment say I was any of these Canadian users that I some how hid for ages, this page describes why you shouldn't always make wild claims as it's rather hurtful. I am genuinely hurt by these accusations because all I want is to be a good Wikipedian. No matter whether I am editing from the UK or here or even on the road when I go to Africa next week, I want to be a good Wikipedian without being accused of bull crap like this. Sorry for the language, but am I not entitled to be a bit annoyed when i have to go through this accusation crap all over again? First I was cuddlyable3, now I'm comet egypt. There had better be a really good explanation for this because otherwise you guys will have not only shut out a possible good editor from Wikipedia, but you also will have driven him away forever. Just some food for thought. 199.101.61.34 (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC) 199.101.61.34 (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was a way that I could like contact you via phone, so you and I could discuss this and so you can actually hear my voice to hear I am not CXanadian. 199.101.61.34 (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I forwarded your e-mail to the OS team without comment (I had trouble making out the content of the screen shot). I was told it wasn't suppressible. You did the right thing, though, to send it to someone, although it would have been perfectly fine for you to send it to the OS team yourself. On an unrelated topic, have you ever heard of archiving? --Bbb23 (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Nil Einne: I have replied to your response on my talk page. Could you respond by any chance? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For your effort and patience trying to help new users I here by award you this Guidance Barnstar. You are a credit to Wikipedia. - Samf4u (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look I know I was in a heated argument with you the other day. But I have a serious situation of someone impersonating me. I need to know this but can you see the IP addresses users use? I provided mine here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OrbitalEnd48401#Comments_by_other_users

Is there a bureaucrat I can contact? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First have you read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims? It's linked in the SPI page and I strongly suggest you do since it sounds like you haven't managed to either stay calm or not take it personally. Only WP:checkusers can see what IP you use and there are very strict limitations on when they can do so. One possible outcome of the case you showed above is a checkuser will feel there is sufficient grounds for them to do so. You do not have to tell them your IPs, in fact I strongly suggest you consider the privacy implications of revealing your IP. It makes no difference to the checkusers whether you have revealed your IP, and they will not comment on whether you revelation is accurate. The checkusers will use IP address information and other information to decide how likely it is you are connected to the other accounts. Based on what they've found, they, or someone else will use that information along with any behavioural information to decide if you have violated our WP:SOCK policies. As indicated earlier, the best thing you can do is really to try and relax. There's no point posting 5 times to the SPI page. Note also some of your posts are in the wrong section, they should be in the "Comments by other users" section only. And note that there is no need to have another email to sign up for an account, and in fact with systems like Gmail it's trivial to generate an address that will be considered a different email address but will forward to your many account. Also, sorry to say, but it's fairly unlikely anyone is going to listen to evidence from your tutors or college mates. And I've seen plenty of people sockpuppet in sillier ways and in sillier circumstances so I don't think "I would be silly to do this" is really going to help. If there is some impersonation/joe jobbing going on, it's quite likely this will be uncovered without you having to say much. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sh*t! I forgot about VPN oh fu*k!!!! they can use my IP OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the IP evidence will help me, thank bloody god. Sorry I overpanicked. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment relating to what I said earlier, from a quick look at the case I can see why there are concerns about Andrew the astonaut from behavioural evidence. If you were able to put aside your feelings, maybe you would see it too. Therefore the case seems to be a reasonable one opened in good faith, and it's extremely unlikely anyone will be blocked over opening it so asking for that to happen is not likely to help anything. If someone is trying to impersonate you, the Andrew the astonaut account will likely be blocked. If it can be linked to any specific editor, they will be blocked too, but unfortunately it's unlikely a linkage will be possible. Having said that, while there's no magic, no editor should assume they haven't screwed up in a number of ways and so checkusers will see a connection. In other words, if by chance you have used an alternative account, I suggest you declare it now no matter how you tried to hide the connection. If for privacy reasons you don't want to make it public, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims outlines how you can do so privately. Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OrbitalEnd4801 please don't block evade on my talk page. I will copy your message to your talk page and reply there. I probably won't reply anymore after leaving a single message on your talk page, but definitely won't reply if you continue to block evade. Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume that this was a careless error. Please don't do this again. --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it clearly wasn't vandalism either. False accusations of vandalism are of course personal attacks but I'll let it go because I also got heated over the dispute recently. BTW, I've already politely told you to stay away from my talk page, there's absolutely no reason to come here when there are already two seperate discussions on the issue, and absolutely no one supports your view there is a BLP issue which is the reason you keep claiming for removal. Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at some of your other edits and considering my concerns over them, I withdraw my request. You're welcome to post on my talk page subject to the limitations for all editors posting to other editor talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	A big thanks for your great technical advice and patience with noobs! RetroVector (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that while I agree that T&S failed in their duty in not providing a simple contact on their page, it doesn't seem that surprising that someone found a way to to contact doesn't make much sense. For starters, while researching this answer I found the meta page on office actions Meta:Office actions. From what I can tell, since 2017 it has had a link to the procedures page [44] [45]. Since 2017 Meta:Office actions/Procedures [46] has said to contact ca@wikimedia.org for (non child protection/DMCA) foundation global bans, later with the addition of partial bans [47]. The history here on en wikipedia is almost similar, Wikipedia:Office actions had the link to the procedures page [48] [49] until it was removed sometime in the recent flurry of edits. The Wikipedia:Office actions/procedures likewise since 2017 has had the ca email for asking for global bans since 2017 although it never had it for partial bans since it was not updated [50] [51]. There is no particular reason to think whoever contacted the WMF was specifically asking for a partial ban.

Frankly, while not excused the lack of contact info on the trust and safety page, if I was concerned about someone and was looking for someone to contact in the WMF, I suspect I'm more likely to come to the pages on office actions than the pages on the trust and safety team.

But anyway, there are also many other ways. For example, you seemed to dismiss suggestions to contact the WMF in general. I'm not sure why. Anyone with concerns especially those less familiar with wikipedia would most likely just find some generic WMF contact and use that. I mean people do it all the time elsewhere, there's no reason to think wikipedia would be different. Heck on the WP:RD and article talk pages and elsewhere, it's hardly uncommon someone will say they want to contact, or think they are contacting some company who's article they were reading. (Although to be clear, this doesn't have to mean it was someone inexperienced. It's also easily possible someone experienced who felt the community would not respond what they felt was appropriately may contact the WMF if they feel it's something important and the WMF should act. If the person is like me, they would probably spend ages finding the right place to contact if needed. I suspect most people will just use a generic contact and explain who they want to contact and/or what it is about.)

Another example, if you look at the user page for many users globally banned by the WMF, it has a notice saying the user is banned and to contact ca@wikimedia.org with any questions. It seems entirely reasonable anyone who came across such a message would use the same email if they wanted to contact the WMF to ask about the process or to ask for it for someone they had concerns over.

Another case, anyone active on wikipedia in the administrative boards, or for that matter arbcom should be well aware of the rash of compromised accounts. (I mean heck, one of the issues which seems to have been a concern to T&S arose from issues surrounding compromised accounts. I know from memory at least some were asked to contact trust and safety to recover their accounts. Admittedly a search for trustandsafety@wikimedia.org only finds 2 although I wonder if some deleted the message after they recovered access. Anyway anyone seeing such a message may not know it was a suitable place to contact if they had concerns over harassment. But it's possible some would just assume from the name it was. Others may have heard of it, or maybe more likely when seeing the mention of trust and safety something they'd never heard of before, they'd go looking and find out what it was about. It's also possible some were told to contact trust and safety and provided the email ca@wikimedia.org. (If the message didn't mention what this email was for, ca@wikimedia.org finds one more in relation to compromised although it doesn't mention it's trust and safety soI think most would just assume it's solely for compromised accounts and so wouldn't look further.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Yes this is fairly old, but I hate it when my comments are misunderstood and it's archived so I cannot respond in situ. For clarity about my comment here Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 5#Reaction to Fram's initial response on Commons dated 10:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC), I think you might have misunderstood what I'm saying. Swarm's reply clearly refers to the L editor 3 times in their post that you responded to that I responded to. 2 times the full username, one time just part of it. Out of fairness to User:Swarm, I think we must assume they at least checked out the L editor's user page and talk page before bringing them up so prominently. The message you referred to on the talk page was extremely prominent and extremely hard to miss. Therefore the fairest assumption for Swarm is that they already read the message on the talk. Anything else would speak very poorly of Swarm. My comment was in no way reference to anyone else the L editor may or may not have a connection to. IIRC I didn't even understand why people kept bringing that other editor up at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What are you talking about? Speak very poorly of me? What on earth are you implying? And what does it matter whether I looked at her user page? What difference does that make? And why are you self-censoring? Her account's been vanished. And people have been openly discussing her this whole time. And what do you mean I "brought her up so prominently"? You seem to suggest that I went digging through Fram's contribs and singled out Laura somehow and then dumped her on that page, but no, Fram mentioned her in his damn statement, with an apparent implication being that Laura was some pissed off user who held a grudge and stalked Fram out of revenge, even though she had already secured an IBAN and was not being harassed. Either there was no victim, and Laura was a bad actor, or there was a legitimate victim, and Laura had nothing to do with it. My primary intent was to ping her so she could join the conversation, presumably to deny stalking Fram or having anything to do with it. I don't see how looking at her talk page would make any difference in my basic response to the situation. I'm not sure why my comment would be particularly notable at all. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This is possible but I believe by now it is irrelevant - we know now way more that we knew a month ago, LH has vanished, the case went to ArbCom, and we understand that the charges likely went way beyond just LH - making the whole discussion historical.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If this has anything to do with a concern that I was attempting to bring up whatever it was that was going around off-wiki about Laura, know that that is not the case. I genuinely don't know what happened off-wiki. Never saw anything, never tried to look into it, never even heard specifics. Don't even know what site was being referred to. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because you previously wrote on the topic, I think you may be interested in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bischoff and Rosenbauer, 1988 - Liquid-vapor relations.pdf. Nemo 07:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[52]

By the way, I did suggest that the article's owners split up my changes for review. [53] That suggestion was met with silence, of course. EEng 08:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your response and will carefully consider what you say. Excuse me where I was abrasive, my apology is that I regarded the admin action as one of several that allowed improvement of the article, better than the circumstances that were effectively locking any improvements and drowning out thoughtful comments. However, I glimpse the points you are making in your reply to the community, and will personally reflect on that when I look at it again. Best regards ~ cygnis insignis 07:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was remembered that you previously stressed the importance of adding doi-access=free to citations when the publication is gold OA. This is impractical to do manually, as there are some 200k articles involved, but there is a proposal to do it automatically: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/OAbot_3. High quality data is available from Unpaywall nowadays, making the task trivial. Nemo 07:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as someone who took part in the original discussion, could you advise please? Nemo 09:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No content was merged. I only redirected the content because the content either failed verification or was unsourced or was poorly sourced. No explanation was given for keeping the unsourced or failed verification content in the article. There is falsehoods masquerading as facts because there is a citation at the end of the sentence for content that fails verification. It was odd so many sentences failed verification. What do you think the article would look like if all the unsourced or failed verification content was removed? What can or should be done if no editor is allowed to remove unsourced or failed verification content? If editors simply followed verifiability policy the article would not contain much content. Is there a reason verifiability policy should not be followed for this article? QuackGuru (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for that misunderstanding and have struck out that portion of my comment. As for the other stuff well the fact that some of the info failed verification doesn't mean the article itself is a hoax. The concept and general idea is clearly real hence why there was a section in another article you could redirect to. As I said even in my earliest comment, if the article was a real hoax, you needed to get it deleted in some way whether PROD, CSD or AFD. A hoax cannot be allowed to stay in main space lest someone reverts to it by accident or intention. As for the failed verification issue, this is complicated but at least one problem is your editing is not really helping matters. For example while technically you're right [54] that the source doesn't say "Pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes", it's not clear to me that it was the best course of action to tag it FV. But even if it was, it's not clear why the fact that the source only mentions pod mods resembling USB devices is justification for a redirecting let alone calling the article a hoax. I'm not particularly interested in discussing the failed verification issue further anyway. I suggest you take your concerns to the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss it on the talk page. I could wait over a month and the unsourced and failed verification content could still remain in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you read an editor claimed I merged some content. I told the editor I did not merge any content. Why would an editor want others to think I merged the content? I have been in disputes with many editors. There should be no problem with tagging FV content. Since when is tagging FV content disruptive? QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this comment. It is not about improving the article. How can I improve the article when this is happening? QuackGuru (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did comment at AN/I and no editor directly responded to my comment. I also commented on the talk page but others don't seem interested in directly responding to my concerns. What is the point for me to make more comments at the talk page or AN/I when others are not responding to my comments. The answer to the 5 letter question is probably "ashes". Editors seems to be more focused on me rather than trying to improve content about pod mods. QuackGuru (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of your comment and stand by my statement. If you think a single comment after ~3 days counts as "engage in this ANI" when you consistently post on my talk page within a few hours of my ANI comments and Andy Dingley was consistently (and IMO needlessly) asking you to respond all over the place, well all I can say is it's your funeral. As I implied at ANI, I think the way User:Andy Dingley is approaching this is not helping their case either so maybe you'll get lucky and get off this time. But it only takes someone to bring a better case and if you continue with your behaviour I wouldn't be surprised if you earn a block or other sanction. Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem arguments are not useful on article talk pages. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul "The Wall" (talk • contribs) 13:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul "The Wall": My comment was a logical response to an editor who needlessly attacked another and refused to engage in discussion simply because they didn't like the editor correctly pointing out our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarly sources have me on the fence. If that's all we got, then do you think it's still a valid choice for AFD, given the questioning about it I got in my topic ban appeal? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nil Einne. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Canti60 (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nil Einne. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! PATH SLOPU 13:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to say I understand your points on the ANI. I saw this editor as having a problem with WP rules and not with me directly. So in that case I brought it to the community. However I do not expect much..in my time here I have found it is a snarly place with a tendency to go sideways quickly. I do not want to keep repeating my points over and over on the ANI and wanted to say I understand yours. If it gets too much at ANI an admin will just close it in frustration. Cheers Lightburst (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My ANI was not thorough or complete. Turns out the editor was topic banned twice. After the AfD topic ban was lifted the editor was topic banned again for the same behavior - the latest topic ban was lifted September 2019. Lightburst (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big part of the problem. For a complaint to be successful you need to do your research. An ANI where you are asking us to topic ban someone while simultaneously telling us that us that maybe they already have the exact same topic ban is almost doomed to failure. You also need to make an effort to engage with someone and explain to them why their behaviour is a problem before opening an ANI because ANI is a place for intractable problems, not a place for minor ones. If an editor is having a problem with WP generally rather than you that's even more of a reason why you should try and engage with them since they're more likely to be willing to talk with you. (Whereas personal problems can be hard to resolve since the editor's are unhappy with each other.) BTW it should have been obvious that the editor was topic banned twice because that's exactly what said in this comment [55], that you indirectly linked to in your opening comment, "your previous topic ban on deletion process is now restored." Note that AFAICT, your corrected statement remains incorrect. There was never any topic ban that lasted 6 months. They were (indefinitely) topic banned with a minimum 6 months appeal period as I said at ANI. I'm not sure why this remains unclear to you. Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technicalities. Pointing out deficiencies in the report is relevant and I certainly wish I made my statement with greater care. The fact remains that this is a problematic editor. It is not for me to discuss with this person who repeatedly runs afoul and then apologizes. Nothing will come of it, but at least he stopped bludgeoning the AfD. If not for the spotlight he would have likely nominated this article a fourth time, like he did this one. He was quite proud of his deletions. Other editors have warned him also. Like on this AfD. Have a great weekend Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you happen to notice that after Quad11 moved that article, an account that had been dormant for four years just happened to return and add a lot of puffery? Smells like COI and copyright violation to me, but nobody seems to care what I think. Bitter Oil (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed that, it's why I asked Quad11 how they came across the article. It's such an obscure article that I decided to leave it despite being in a sorry state to reduce the chance Quad11 would understand my suspicion and tailor their answer accordingly but frankly the fact I was asking was likely enough. In any case Gadfium beat me to reverting the changes. Since Quad11 doesn't look like they are going to respond further anytime soon, I opened a thread on Alex Ferrari at WP:COIN. Frankly, I'm not sure if there is much that can be done Quad11's behaviour is fairly suspicious but I'm not sure if it's enough for a block. Still the cases mean it's easier to search for previous concerns. This looks to be the second time Olimila has added spammy content so maybe there is justification to block them but with 4 years between attempts and their attempts being so obvious and the fact that they are likely only interested in promoting Alex Ferrari, it's probably a minor concern. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted JKerman's edits because they said the complex was on fire. In fact, it is the new convention centre, which is under construction, that is on fire this afternoon. It's a block away across Hobson Street. Akld guy (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:AN#User:Frank_marine

Hello Nil Einne. You recently commented in a thread about this editor which began on 8 October. As you know, the original poster was hoping some admin action, but I held back on the grounds that the editor should get a final warning first, and be given a chance to address the problem. Taking the liberty to post here because I was trying to find either an admin or a long experienced editor who had posted in this thread to see what they think now. On 28 October User:OrgoneBox and User:Grandpallama drew attention to a copying-within-Wikipedia copyvio that requires attribution according to our policy. This took place on 24 October, which was after my final warning. So if you're still following the story, what do you think an appropriate action would be? When somebody just won't communicate it's not very appealing to consider further discussion, so a block ought to be considered. Thanks for any opinion, EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I may chime in, a (temporary) block is needed at this point, he's been disruptive, uncooperative & has quite the list of uploaded copyrighted images- FOX 52 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about that. I agree it's time for a block. I've said more in the relevant thread. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not harass me. If you find something wrong, just change it/delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsmith2014 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidsmith2014: First, I'm not trying to harass you. You appeared to claim that User:NEDOCHAN was the only editor who had a problem with your misuse of minor tags [56]. This was not correct as even evidenced from the ANI thread, but to make doubly sure you understood this, I approached you directly. And it is completely impossible for me to 'change or delete' your misuse of the minor tag. Also, while this is a collaborative project, this doesn't mean editors do not need to make a good faith effort to avoid causing problems or leaving unnecessary work for other. This includes not misusing the minor tag. But it also includes other stuff like using talk pages correctly such as posting new comments to the bottom of the talk page, and WP:signing your posts, both of which I can correct, but should not have to. I suggest you use the 'new section' option so your posts are made to the bottom of the talk page. While the talk page issues are more minor things, it's fair to bring them up with you, as while it's fine for new editors to make mistakes, they should be willing to learn. And it's difficult to talk to you when you accuse people of harassing you just because they brought up concerns about your editing. In fact precisely because this is a collaborative project, you should be willing to engage in discussion your edits rather than just expecting people to "change it" for you when there are problems, or complaining about harassment when they try to discuss your editing. To be clear, your misuse of the minor tag is not a small thing, and could lead to a block if you continue with that. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DavidSmith relax. No-one's trying to harrass you. It's a simple point. Just explain your edits and mark them as minor only when they are as according to the definition you have been sent several times. That's all. Blanking your talk page and accusing other editors of vandalism, harrassment and the like isn't necessary. Continue to edit and adapt as we all have to. All is fine, just stop checking the minor box and use summaries. Simple.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DavidSmith2014, one more thing. I suspect this has already been explained to you but in case it helps: The reason why correct use of the minor tag matters is because it has a specific intention and meaning on Wikipedia. Some editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing changes because when used correctly, they don't believe minor edits are something they need to worry about. This is explained in more detail at Help:Minor edit which I'm sure must have been linked to you before but I urge you to read if you haven't already and you're going to continue to use the minor edit tag. We all make mistakes and all of us were new at one time and didn't understand how things work around here, the important thing is to be willing to engage with others, and sometimes do a little reading. Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Here's an icon of gratitude for your wise, patient and selfless use of the administrative tools for the benefit of the whole community, thank you! Signimu (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXrayᗙ 08:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the long delay in reply, I've had jury duty, an endoscopy with so-so results, and thanksgiving with guests out of town, so Wikipedia (and banking and grocery shopping and a lot of other stuff I'm usually on top of) have been on the back burners for the last so many days. That being said, a timely reply is always appreciated, and in this case I have no excuse.

The problem is actually none of what you or the others wrote, if you look at the article and actually read it then you see several problems emerge. To begin with, their really isn't a credible assertion of notability in this article. WP:GNG states that "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. As an example, the page gives that "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that 'In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice' is plainly a trivial mention of that band." By that definition the, the souce

• Zug, Marcia A. (2016). Buying a Bride: An Engaging History of Mail-Order Matches. New York: New York University Press. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-8147-7181-5. Retrieved 2019-11-25.

disappears as it is, as shown in the citation, a one page mention in the book. Further down on the GNG page you'll find this line: "'Independent of the subject'" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." That poses a problem for the first reference given in the article, thats a story written in part by the subject, and therefore couldn't be considered in good faith to be independent of the subject since the two no doubt collaborated for the publishing. A taint source, as it were, which wouldn't be a problem for a notable actress, but in this case there were only three sources to work with. Now we are out two of those, so that just leaves the third source. This one comes from Elle magazine, but covers the subject material more broadly than a biography specific source. So that clears the article's mandate from biography that there be at least one source for a living person.

But that still leaves the article wanting. Ordinarily, the next step would be to start looking for more sources, but its seems that there are not a lot out there to work with. So the next logical step is to pin the article to go somewhere...except there's no evidence as to where it should go. WP:GNG states that "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Logically, then, that would be either to her husbands page or the music releases she's done...except that he doesn't have a page and there is no given link to anything the two have produced separately or together. Without source material to redirect and with the two of the article's sources presumable not in a position to hold the weight of the article as it were we now have an article that appears to be a collection of indiscriminate information, which bumps into WP:NOT, specifically "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". A look at WP:MUSIC for guidance on who should be considered notable enough for an article also fails to come to the article's rescue, neither Steve nor Lera meet any of the criteria listed for musicians. Similarly, a look at WP:BIO fails to provide any reprieve for the article as well, the first point clearly and explicitly states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" I punched wholes in two sources (which is to a point fine, since the same guideline states "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."), and while the third is independent enough to not necessarily get caught in that one source does not a bio article make.

When you scroll further down though, the article really starts to break apart. The WP:BIO policy states that for any biography the person is assumed notable if they can meet one of the following:

• The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
• The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.[8]
• The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

Lera can't do that - at least not according to the sources. That brings us to creative professionals, but again, there is nothing in the section to save the article. In her case, as a mail order bride, she could conceivable be classified a crime victim, but those criteria provide no assistance for the article either. That just leaves entertainer, but there's nothing there to save the article. More ominous, in the failing all criteria section, editors are reminded that notability is not inherited; to quote "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the pages Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are merely redirects to those articles."

Given this check, I deleted the article. The article's champion - the one who wanted it to stay - took this to deletion review, where the initial outcome was given as no consensus and therefore to remain deleted. When it came to light that no consensus meant restoring the article, an afd was opened, but none of the above was listed because no one though to come back for the rest of us. I've shown above why I think the article should have been deleted, citing WP:GNG, WP:NOT, WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and walking you through the rational because I deleted the article under CSD-A7, a speedy deletion criteria, which means I was the one responsible for looking into all of this in the first place. Would it not then make sense to invite me (and the others who were present at the deletion review) to review the original deleter's rational in an open and honest forum where to editors who disagree over a course of action could present their evidence to the community to find consensus among the members? After all the guy who looked into the deletion in the first place must have at least one good reason to red link the article, right? If, as our page on CONSENSUS states, "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal" and "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns" why intentionally refuse to reach out to those whose voiced opposition to the article's recreation? In lew of the statement further down that "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process" was I then wrong to bring this to ANI? As quoted from WP:AGF, "When disagreement occurs, try to do the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus." The afd was the perfect chance to do that...but no one came back for us. How then to assume good faith when nearly everyone who believed that the article should be either kept red linked or redirect were in my opinion intentionally kept in the dark about the afd?

Does this perhaps make more sense now, as to why I opened the thread (and came after Oakshade since he was the one who took up the cause of retaining the article)? Two people with differing opinions can find consensus if they work together, but if one takes unilateral action and never informs the other then I conjecture that there was no attempt to build consensus, only a low shot to keep an article that based on my own research - which I never got to present at afd - is in violation of maybe half a dozen policies at the moment and should rightly be deleted. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well NE. MarnetteD|Talk 20:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your lengthy response over at WP:AN about dealing with legal threats and content relating to them. I read it, and I appreciate the time and effort it must have taken to write a reponse like that. I plan on heeding your advice if I ever encounter a similar situation in the future. In addition, I'd like to thank you for modifying the content to reflect what sources actually say. Clovermoss (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil Einne, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at BLPN. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC

Hi Nil Einne,

I saw your edit here and thought I would address your comments:

Don't understand why the team structure needs to be removed just because the uncertainty over one driver. In fact the source seems to suggests Katsuta could be competing under a Toyota team B as well, so I don't know but I'm going by what Mclarenfan17 changed to.

The regulations state that a team may enter three cars to score manufacturer points. Hyundai have four crews, but have announced how it will work: two crews (Tanak/Jarveoja and Neuville/Gilsoul) will contest every round and the other two crews (Sordo/del Barrio and Loeb/Elena) will share one entry between them. All of this is detailed in the article.

Toyota, on the other hand, have announced five crews. However, they have not announced how it will work. They could run three points-scoring crews in one team and two in another, or they could run three-points scoring crews and the other two would not be nominated to score points, or they could enter five crews and nominate which three score points on a round-by-round basis.

This, to my mind, is a problem for two reasons:

1. Hyundai and Toyota are being presented the same way in the table—but where Hyundai have announced their team structure, Toyota have not. To present them the same way implies Toyota have set a team structure when the references clearly show they have not.
2. The actual consensus was to keep using the style of table used in previous years. This requires two tables: one for crews scoring manufacturer points, and one for crews who are not scoring those points. As Toyota have not announced who is scoring points and who is not, it's impossible to use the agreed-upon format as we don't know who goes into which table.

The consensus was formed after Toyota had named their three main crews (led by Ogier, Evans and Rovanpera) but before they announced the Latvala and Katsuta crews. It seems that an unrecognised assumption underpinned the consensus: that the format always fit the sources. We have never been in a situation where a team has announced more than three crews without announcing how those crews will score points. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, your version achieved absolutely zero of what you thought it achieved. As an uninvolved observer, I have zero idea that there is any uncertainty of who is scoring points from your version. I have zero idea that there is any uncertainty in the Toyota team structure other than that one driver who was listed as TBA for entrant. You cannot expect readers to be able to read your mind, so they have zero idea of why you did what you did. As I said on the article talk page and ANI,, you should use a combination of footnotes and reorganising to make clear any uncertainty of team structures and who will be scoring points, since your version completely failed to do any of that. And I see zero reason why this cannot be done, while preserving the team format as far as possible. Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, as I said on the article talk page, although you keep complaining about others not following sources, AFAICT, you are doing the same. There seems to be some uncertainty over whether Katsuta will actually race for Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT or whether they may race for another Toyota B team. (Similar to Red Bull/Torro Rosso in Formula 1 I suspect.) But your version indicated no such uncertainty. I followed you in not indicating such uncertainty since frankly I can't be bothered getting too involved, but as I indicated on the talk page, there are simple ways to indicate such an uncertainty whether keeping him under the Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT entrant or not, which would surely be better than just removing the team structure and expecting the reader to magically guess this means Katsuta may actually race for a different team. Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please take a look at InedibleHulk's talk page. Lets AGF and assume that InedibleHulk actually did not know that there was a thing called Gender tab in the preference that helped us to communicate without running into side battles of assumption of Gender. Since he wasn't aware may be he genuinely believed that everyone else just assumed the gender by their names. So there are reasons to forgive him. I can understand your anger for the way InedibleHulk responded. May be InedibleHulk's talk page was the better thread for letting him know that he was seriously off the line.

As for the collapsing, The thread is on his signature. He has already complied and updated his gender. I am not sure what you are going to achieve by continuing the discussion on his response on gender at ANI. Perhaps you want to point out the stupidity, but that has already been pointed out by others. You were late to that thread. Continually discussing it is no longer needed. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nil Einne. Didn't mean to suggest everyone and anyone should assume everyone else's gender. Just that Lepricavark, in my opinion, had grounds to safely assume mine. Now that you do, too, I'll just ask you stop calling me "they". Not a demand, do what you want. If you care, I only kind of liked the Incredible Hulk you assume I'm named for. "The Incredible" Hulk Hogan is my real inspiration. But yeah, given how Marvel made him change his nickname in 1984, and he only went mainstream as "The Immortal", I definitely don't think you should have known. Cartoonwise, Spider-Man was my hero. As an adult, I haven't seen any superhero movie since Iron Man 2; I know they're popular, but the ads just don't convince me it'd be worth the time. No offense to any MCU fans, cast or crew. Your choice is as valid as anyone's. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

And yeah, I feel your pain on the general collapsing of sidetracks around here. If it helps, people without Javascript see hatted stuff in highlight, not hidden. They know you're right. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I have seen and enjoyed the Dark Knight trilogy, I just don't consider Batman a superhero. Amazing crimefighter and true pioneer, of course, but still a bit "too human", you know? By the way, you can assume this is me. I'm just not signing because agents of Swarm are waiting for me to slip up. Sinebot, activate!

Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of watchers, yes I'm aware of {{Ds/aware}}. Not using it as I don't edit MOS much so there is a chance I will forget about the discretionary sanctions in 12 months. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming joyfully through the ANI discussions around MOS and The Drovers Wife, and just prior to me giving up the will to live entirely (lol), I noticed you had written "...and the proposed recipient isn't illegible for the discretionary sanctions process.... The context of that sentence led me to think you meant to say "...isn't eligible..." (and neither illegible nor ineligible), so maybe you'd like to check it, either way? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course. Thanks for alerting me, I've corrected it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Sorry about the WP:INDENT mess up. I'm usually quite sharp on that. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted your comment. There is a proper WP:CLOSECHALLENGE procedure if you wish an RfC reopened. However, it may be better to take your discussion to the article Talk page. 101.188.235.253 (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What RfC? I have not left any comments on any RfC for I think over a week or longer. The AN thread was clearly not an RfC but I guess you're not referring to that sicne the suggestion to take the discussion to the article talk page makes absolutely no sense since I was just pointing out the absurdity of the OP's comments and the discussion would in no way benefit anyone on the article. I could take it to the editor's talk page, but I'm not going to bother especially since it was the OP themselves who closed the thread. OP's can withdraw their complaint, but they don't get decide when discussion ends. Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles Koreangauteng (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: you brought up a great point. Beyond a reasonable doubt are not given in probation hearings. It's the preponderance of the evidence. I don't think other editor understands that, so they basically edited by adding all this.

I'd suggest reverting the edit and letting the t/p discuss it further.

"In 2016, San Francisco County Superior Court found Chahal guilty of violating his probation in September 2014 for beating another woman he was dating and sentenced him to a year in jail[66];

HennaSky (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

here. Sorry.-- Deepfriedokra 03:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You write an extensive 5-paragraph magnum opus and then conveniently close the discussion so that no one can reply with a misleading heading: "Collapsing per request of Maineartists who started this"? Really? Wow. Sad ... Maineartists (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input and advice. I have added three new sections to the bottom of the talk page as you suggested. Kindly review the case I made for each revision and let me know if you think I have addressed it properly.I know you guys have your hands full so I will be patient.

This is the most offensive section of the bio and if these revisions can be made, the bio will be much more accurate and less defamatory. We are getting some blow back from this para in particular that is affecting us IRL, so this is the section I'm most concerned about.

PS I think it is important to keep the user in question banned from the page. I will not engage with him any further; just hoping he is blocked permanently from editing the page as well as talk (as he has clearly indicated a vendetta with Chris and is emotionally involved). TIA ~ DrL (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to delete exactly the same sentences from this article that you did. That doesn't solve this whole situation, but it's a good start. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Flashing message to stop using wikipedia.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too concerned about not knowing where places in Australia are. Even the CIA gets it wrong. They put Dampier and Port Headland on this map of major cities for reasons known only to the CIA. Sydney is on the east coast 5 hours drive northeast of Canberra, which is inland. Newcastle is about 160km north of that. Australia, which according to YouTube does not exist, is very remote with empty oceans on 3 sides. There is rumour of a strange place to the east, full of white clouds, flightless birds and billions of sheep. They say the locals there like to do strange dances wearing weird garb called "jandals" and then sit on one of the sex chairs on their dick, eating fush and chups while drinking bottles of Kiwi blood that they keep in their chilly bins. Yes, it sounds too strange to be true. ;) Kia ora. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me more about why adding someone's real name to their Wikipedia article constitutes a BLP violation? 70.189.209.250 (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really recall what this is in reference to since the article it's about seems to have been deleted as you have no other contributions, but I did warn you on this IP. But I suggest you read BLP policy if you remain confused. Any unsourced or insufficient sourced claim about a living person, is a BLP violation. As WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPNAME explain, we only cover private details including alleged real names, if they have been sufficiently covered in reliable secondary sources. Real names sourced solely to court records, birth certificates, passports, trademark documents, and of course blogs or personal websites unconnected with the subject are never acceptable. Most people are primarily known by at least part of their name, so often it's an issue solely of a full name. But for anyone known primarily by a pseudonym, the same principle applies. If it's not well covered in reliable secondary sources, it should not be in the article. It should also not be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia except as necessary for discussions surrounding sourcing or inclusion. The fact that whoever you are referring to is I guess not even notable enough for an article is further sign of a problem with whatever you were doing. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at my contributions from around the time of the warning and do not believe the addition of "someone's real name" was even the primary problem. It seems likely you were adding allegations that someone was a "sex offender" and maybe other allegations of wrongdoing with insufficient sourcing. Either way, stop adding crap without sufficient sourcing. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been passing this book review around to explain the violence of the bureaucracy of Wikipedia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJiiYMNVkpw&feature=youtu.be Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience reg. the Brendan Eich INFOBOX discussion in BLP (linked) and please note the request for the way forward I have asked of you. 115.97.89.52 (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nil, thanks for the ping, and your comments on this talk page. I suspect we are not that far apart. The crucial issue to me is interpretation/misinterpretation of primary sources. Where that occurs, or is in danger of occurring, we need to see the text of the primary source, and not confine ourselves to competing glosses on them. Out of perhaps an excess of caution, I have not deleted the secondary sources reporting on, characterizing, or summarizing the Complaint; I have simply added cites to the Complaint itself to the relevant footnotes. Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to adding the source to the article in addition to secondary sources just in case readers may want to check it out. I'm not really opposed to using primary sources if there is confusion given competing claims or ambiguity in different sources but I still think it's rarely necessary, especially in a case like this. I find it unlikely if it's something that matters you can't find a direct quote in a secondary sources. If you really can't, there's a good chance you can reword it to remove the ambiguity while complying with both sources. Of course I don't object to simply ignoring a source when it's clearly wrong or misleading and going by sources which aren't. For example earlier I found our article used the term "preliminary autopsy" as some sources did (although none of the ones we used). While I couldn't find a source directly contradicting this, I simply reworded it to talk about preliminary results since I think it's clear from what all the sources say including the many of the ones talking about a preliminary autopsy that there's no plans for another autopsy by the ME which is what "preliminary autopsy" says to me. The issue was that these are only preliminary results as they're awaiting some more tests and probably review by someone before issuing the final report. (The family are planning their own autopsy, but that's a separate matter.) I'm also a fan of removing info which appears to be incorrect even if there is some secondary source support for that claim until we get more coverage which helps clarify the situation. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I am sorry if I am overstepping, but I noticed you are an administrator that frequently handles conflicts between users on the Noticeboard/Incidents page. I submitted a post nearly 24 hours ago on the board and have not received a response yet. I am hoping you or another administrator would be able to help me with regards to the incident. I do not want it to be overlooked as it is getting out of control. Thanks so much. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the question at Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive_1#Tou_Thao's_role_needs_to_be_clarified, more recent RS have said what it was. I don't have those sources handy, but, as I recall, they said it was a "restraint hobble". They said that, after getting it out, the cops decided not to use it. Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the ANI last month about the Graham Linehan article, you placed discretionary sanctions on myself, Bastun and Newimpartial. We are currently engaged in an RFC on the article's talk page, and Newimpartial has repeatedly violated the WP:PERSONALATTACKS rule against Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing with overt suggestions about our perceived political affiliations, likening our reasoning to the far-right [57] and calling it "Trump-ian "[58]. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lilipo, I did not call your reasoning "Trumpian". I said that your moving the goalposts when corrected for a factual error was "almost Trumpian". Likewise, I said that Crossroads' strategy of counting sources not using a specific label as though they opposed the use of that label was one I had previously only seen from editors engaged in whitewashing WP pages concerning the far-right. I have accused neither him nor you of holding far-right views or "political affiliations". I would, however, encourage Nil to review of the Graham Linehan Talk page, and welcome any ensuing feedback. Newimpartial (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also asked in the past that Newimpartial stop retaliating against me by WP:HOUNDING my editing. Immediately after responding to my comment here, Newimpartial apparently checked my user contributions in order to revert an edit I made on a page that they have never edited on before, Fred Sargeant [59] This is a tactic that Newimpartial has employed repeatedly when I challenge them or report abuse: they immediately go to my user contributions and begin an edit war with me on another page where they have never edited before. This hounding is against Wikipedia policy and I ask that they be stopped from continuing to do it. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following many pages in Project LGBT studies since long before you joined Wikipedia, Lilipo. In this case, I reverted your recent removal of sourced content on an IDONTLIKEIT basis, which you should not take personally, and invited you to discuss on Talk. Please see also WP:OWN. And please respect WP:NPA, since dealing with NPOV edits is not a "tactic" I employ, it is something all editors on WP are supposed to be doing. I'm not sure whether you've read WP:HOUND, but editing pages within one of my areas of interest is not that. Newimpartial (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have never edited that page before and went there immediately after I made a report here to an admin. You have done this before when I challenged you, and I ask again that you stop. This is bullying through WP:HOUND. As I stated on the Talk page, I removed the content because it is information from Medium, a blog that is banned on Wikipedia as an unreliable source. The second source used, the NY Daily News, does not say what the content says it does (that he "condemned trans women"). It has nothing to do with IDONTLIKE IT. Please stop retaliating against me by beginning new edit wars when I challenge you. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attacks and mischaracterizations of my activity on Wikipedia. I am no more likely to respond to POV edits on gender identity topics whether or not you are the editor making them. Ans the place to discuss appropriate paraphrase is the article Talk page, not here. Newimpartial (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, this will be my last comment here unless you reply to me, as we are in danger of turning this into a long and combative thread on your Talk page. I will only say that this has been an ongoing problem and follows the same pattern: Newimpartial employs bullying tactics like condescension and incivility and (incorrect) allusions to my political affiliations until I feel that I have no choice but to do something (like make this report to an admin). Immediately, Newimpartial shows up on a page where I am editing that they have never edited before and starts reverting my edits with claims that I made them bc of IDONTLIKEIT even though they are legitimate edits, and when I ask them to stop hounding, they profess that the timing is mere coincidence and then slide straight into DARVO, accusing me of personal attacks and aspersions in an effort to make it seem to admins that this is a two-sided fight and not simply bullying from them. I am beyond discouraged over the fact that this last tactic so frequently works for them. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This "pattern" that Lilipo describes (without diffs) is not something that has happened even once. The fact is that this editor makes changes and reverts to pages that I watch and introduces POV edits Lilipo's sense of NPOV is aligned with the POV of avowedly "gender critical" editors, most of whom engage in a drive-by but not Lilipo; their main contribution to WP has been a BLP of an early gay activist who is now best known for his anti-trans activism on Twitter. In Talk page discussions, Lilipo has repeatedly resorted to unfounded accusations and casting aspersions on other editors. Meanwhile, no evidence of bullying on my part has ever been provided - because there isn't any - just the usual insinuations. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said I wouldn't reply again, so I apologize for this and I will refrain from refuting all of Newimpartial's points. But I do want to point out that they are including my asking Wikiditm if they had a COI with Stonewall, the same issue that was taken to the ANI in May by Wikiditm (and which was decided in my favor: it was determined that the issue was merely a content dispute), apparently in an effort to get a different ruling from another admin. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out I'm not an admin so cannot have placed discretionary sanctions on anyone. I gave alerts to maybe all of you, which anyone can do, and is simply to let you know of the special requirements for those articles. If anyone feel there has been a violation requiring some sanction against an editor, I would suggest they open a thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. The alert I gave ensures that these people are aware of the requirements, and are eligible for discretionary sanctions if an uninvolved administrator feels they are justified. Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking a wikibreak for a few days. As I said at WP:AN, I find it completely disgusting that we're actually considering deleting the work of established Wikipedians just because some fuckhead paid editor later decided to get involved. We don't even do this for copyvios, where we revert to the version before the copyvio when we can. I have no idea why anyone would think we should go further with paid editing fuckery. I understand why undisclosed paid editing angers people, but punishing established Wikipedians by deleting their work because some paid editing later came along and added nonsense is not the way to go. Even if you want to "punish" the clients, remember we often don't know who the client is. Should we "punish" some poor sap just because their company or spouse or whatever once decided to pay a dodgy company for edits? We should also remember what we are here for, to create great encyclopaedia content. If some long term editor voluntarily spent their time and effort to create an article which was WP:Notable and otherwise complies with our policies and guidelines, why on earth are we harming the encyclopaedia by deleting that work just because some greedy fuckhead later decided to violate our ToU, getting paid without disclosure by some unknown party for their work when we could just revert, revdel if you want, the contributions of that fuckhead? Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hey dude, just wanted to start a discussion here about one thing you mentioned which is think tends to be unclear to many people not from the US.

you said: Murder is what I referred to as it's normally taken to mean a specific crime at least in many common law jurisdictions in the anglosphere.

i appreciate you assisting with clarfying the incident to others as i am unfortunately in a delema of whether to attempt to get US legal issues (how they are documented) or to just let them be.

the only thing i would like to add is that, the US does not really us common law for criminal matters. see our own Common law wiki. a few points:

1. "In 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), overruled earlier precedent,[129] and held "There is no federal general common law,"

2. in state law it states: "Thus, as noted above, the U.S. must be regarded as 50 separate systems of tort law, family law, property law, contract law, criminal law, and so on.[3] (In addition, the District of Columbia and the federal territories also have their own separate legal systems analogous to state legal systems, although they do not enjoy state sovereignty.)"

3. finally, criminal law states: ""The validity of common law crimes varies at the state level. Although most states have abolished common law crimes, some have enacted "reception" statutes recognizing common law crimes when no similar statutory crime exists."

in conclusion, murder falls under criminal law not common law. Stayfree76 (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stayfree76: I feel you're confused what I mean by common law. All criminal law in the US comes under a common law system, except in Louisiana, since that's the legal system used in those jurisdictions as compared to Civil law (legal system) used in others. Hence why our article clearly says in the lead 'the United States (both the federal system and 49 of its 50 states), and Zimbabwe. Some of these countries have variants on common law systems. In these countries, common law is considered synonymous with case law.' While the US has adopted codification of all crimes, they still use the common law system with e.g. it's reliance on case law and precedent as an important part of the law. The fact there is no federal general common law doesn't mean the US doesn't mean the federal court system in the US doesn't use common law, it just means they mostly only interpret the statutes and the constitution, as the section the part you quoted came from makes clear. Try telling a lawyer that case law isn't particularly important in the federal court system and see how far you get..... I'd also note this discussion was concerning something which came under Minnesotan state law anyway. If you're still confused, I suggest you try re-reading those articles. I'd note that this is largely besides the point anyway, the greater point is that AFAIK despite their early split, the historic relationship and close connections means the crime of 'murder' still has similar definitions in general (despite some obvious strong differences e.g. relating to self defence and felony murder) in all jurisdictions in the US (including I believe Louisiana despite them not using common law), all jurisdictions in the UK (again I think this includes Scotland despite their differences), and most Commonwealth countries who still use a common law system strongly influenced by their historic connection the the UK (mostly influenced by the system used in England and Wales); and of course this also means that especially in those places (which also tend to be the places where English is used especially in their legal systems), the English word 'murder' carries those specifics connotations with a general clear distinction from manslaughter, both of which will normally be considered forms of homicide. While things aren't necessarily that different in many civil law jurisdictions when it comes to how various forms of homicide may be treated, the precise words and their meaning can vary a bit more especially since most of them don't use English. E.g. as I understand it, article 299 of the Greek penal code covers both murder and manslaughter, in different sections sure, but from what I understand, the terminology difference isn't as distinct as the murder vs manslaughter we use even if it's sometimes translated that way to try and reduce confusion [60] [61]. Likewise Murder in German law illustrates what seems to be a difference. (Notably "murderous intent" sounds quite different.) My ultimate point was to acknowledge there are places where things aren't so clear cut while also pointing out that despite that we should take great care with the use of the word 'murder' when it comes to living persons given the way the term is generally understood. (I didn't really touch on colloquial uses e.g. meat is murder, calling providers of legal abortions murderers, etc since I felt that was unnecessary.)  Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, as a probably final comment since I have no interest in getting into a great debate over matters in which I have only limited understanding, I'd suggest issues like Duty to retreat, Stand-your-ground law, Castle doctrine and Self-defense (United States) illustrate why it's foolish to overplay codification of the law in the US. While many states have codified a fair amount of stuff e.g. with stand your ground laws, not all have and the way and amount they have varies. And when they haven't, the case law tends to be very important in articulating what rights you have. Indeed while there tends to be key differences the limits of self-defence in (I think all) jurisdictions in the UK, and those in the US, not all of these have arisen from clear differences in the written law. Let's also not forget that a number of these are relatively recent e.g. I believe the number of "stand your ground" laws in the US passed in the past 25 years or so is fairly high yet the differences in self-defence in the UK and the US predated that, indeed our article mentions a 1877 court case where a duty to retreat was called "un-American". Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

tbh, i wasn't trying to debate you and think your level of care and analysis are well above what most people on Wikipedia do (especially in regards to me being reported on ANI. you were probably the only person that took the entire discussion into account), especially when the fate of someone else is at stake. But yea, case law is pretty big in the US, definitely. the main difference is that case law in the US excludes criminal matter (you wont see anyone getting arrested for some precedent set in 1970). for example, abortion was legalized through case law (roe v wade), but it was a person arguing they should be allowed to. with that being said, with things like murder, there is usually clear cut definitions including sentencing guidelines and the judge cannot deviate from that (though of course the state level laws decide a lot of that, eg capital punishment). the stand your ground law is precedent on what specific actions arent required before shooting someone, but not that the case wasn't a murder to begin with. (for example, using stand your grand when you broke into someones house they pointed a gun at you, then you shot them, will not go well for you.) anyways, thanks for being awesome. StayFree76 ^talk 16:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - A request edit from May 18, 2020, has still gone unanswered despite two notifications at the BLP Noticeboard. As you are the editor who unarchived one of these requests previously and you addressed the request edit from Dec 3, 2019, I wanted to ask if you would review the current request edit: [62]. Please note, I have a COI which I have disclosed in relation to this matter - which is why I am not editing it on my own. JZ at LW (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JZ at LW: sorry it's taken so long for someone to deal with this. I've done so now and left some comments including explaining some changes I made to your proposal. If you aren't happy with some of my changes let me know on the article talk page and I'll consider whether I feel any further change is justified. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I’ve tried to keep my latest article RFC as brief and neutral as possible. Could you tell me if this RFC is more like what you recommended on an earlier article? It has been over a decade since I properly did one, I’m very rusty. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.sherlock: sorry a little late but IMO the RfC wording was fine. I do agree with Redrose64 that the RfC wasn't really necessary. Especially since there were only 2 of you, it may have been better to try some other form of dispute resolution first. Or if you wanted to use a template but the ones you knew didn't seem to quite work, maybe ask at WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk on suggestions for templates that better fit the situation. BTW, I believe you already know this but WP:RFCEND allows you to end the RfC if there is a clear consensus. Assuming WWGB agrees with Redrose64's suggestion and you do, I'd suggest simply ending the RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil, thank you for keeping an eye on the WP:LEB satellite pages. Unfortunately I have been the sole curator of the page for more than a decade. I know every nook and I have blanked those pages that are not needed anymore. Please do not reinstate the previous versions until they are deleted. Regards. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow what a mess I made! I explained what happened on the ANI thread. Thanks for your good catch. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elie plus: These things happen I guess. It probably wouldn't have occurred to me to check for something like that myself even though I could work out what happened after the fact. (I see it is mentioned at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion but it is easy to miss if you aren't using a template only speedy criteria.) As you probably noticed, the 'to do list' has already been speedy deleted. I was hoping someone would deal with Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/Announcing and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/outreach but since no one has, feel free to nominate them for speedy deletion again. Since it's an author request one, I didn't re-add it myself as it would be clearer if it came to you. I'm fairly sure those pages aren't transcluded anywhere but if you use <noinclude>{{db-author|rationale=no need for it anymore}}</noinclude> I think this will avoid any problems even if they are. I can't personally imagine any real harm with always including the noinclude tags since I can't see a reason why the speedy request needs to be transcluded, but there could be something I'm missing about how these operate. Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your follow up. I will nominate them soon again but my priority now is to have Template:WikiProject Lebanon amended as per this sandbox draft. It has a red link after the deletion of the to-do list and I don't have authorization to edit this template eventhough I used to do it before. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elie plus: I can't help much with that although I do understand why the template is template editor protected. Templates tend to use complex formatting and it's easy for inexperienced editors to mess things up even when editing in good faith. And this template occurs in a lot of pages, so it's easy to mess up a lot of pages, as shown recently. Because of the way rights work, it's also not possible to allow you to directly edit only that template, therefore you will need to convince the community you can be trusted with the template editor right in general. I think showing you can make successful requests (i.e. making changes to the sandbox that are accepted) would help with that so you probably want to answer the questions on the talk page. If you're desperate to remove the red link, you could probably reduce your request to just remove the red link and then make a second request with your wider ranging changes afterwards. Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right on! Thanks for the tip. I think I'll RFC cos the discussion has stalled. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 18:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Over here you wrote that, "I see that thread is like 2 months old and..." and I just want to observe that actually the thread in question is only 3 days old. I don't want to send the discussion into more of a downward spiral than it already is in, but I thought I should perhaps offer that clarification anyhow, so I'm doing it here. jhawkinson (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That wasn't actually the thread I was referring to, but I see my comment was poorly worded so I've clarified it. Having looked into the other thread, I now see that part of my assumption was wrong, yet despite that my hunch was right. That ANI thread was stupid on both ends since it could have been avoided by one party just telling the other they wanted them to reciprocate instead of ignoring it and trying to send the message by continuing to ping. And by the other party either inquiring further or simply stopping the pings when it was apparent this was why the request to stop was being ignored. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah I should have looked into it further before commenting. When I first commented, I didn't really agree with User:Deepfriedokra since it looked to me at first like Justin had made multiple request for Sundayclose to stop but this had been ignored without any reason given why. Then when Justin had opened the ANI, suddenly Sundayclose had mentioned 'I'm still pinging you because you're still pinging me'. So I was fairly sympathetic to Justin. Then I saw that Justin had asked about this 2 months ago and I thought, wait a minute, is this something that's been going on for months? Is that what Sundayclose meant when they said "You told me to stop pinging you, so I stopped. Then you started pinging me again." they stopped for a 1 month or 2 and then only did it again when Justin started to ping them? If that's what happened, Justin has handled this very poorly too. Even if they had no clue why Sundayclose suddenly started pinging them again, they should have asked rather than bringing this to ANI. (I did actually look at Sundayclose's talk page for a request from Justin up to about 2 months ago but for some reason didn't look at that thread.) Turns out (I assume) I was wrong about that point but right on the general idea of the followup, and Deepfriedokra was right from the beginning. This was a dumb ANI and both of them are the cause. Nil Einne (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All your Ali express links are broken for me. Elizium23 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should have made this clearer in my reply but they should work if you copy the links and remove the space. It's not possible to include correct AliExpress links because of the blocklist. (I assume because of vendors spamming although I've often wondered if it was really that bad compared to e.g. Ebay or it was partly a bias against AliExpress since it's not used much by Americans or British for that matter.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reply to clarify. For simplicity, if you want to open a lot or URLs, I provided this Pastebin [63] which is a search and replace. You can copy the output in any edit window and show preview and all the URLs should work. (You don't have to worry about accidentally submitting since you'll be blocked by the blocklist.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just noticed that on your userpage the Babel userboxes weren't like they usually are. If you want them in a box instead, try this:

{{Userboxtop|[[Wikipedia:Babel]]}} {{User en}} {{col-end}}

It will look like this:

Wikipedia:Babel en This user is a native speaker of the English language.

If not, sorry for bothering you. Have a great day! Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dswitz10734: thanks, I've adjusted them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I request your help with Christine Fang. You seem to know something about the policies of WP:BLP.

Years ago, Fang was followed by the FBI for fundraising with the Chinese community and fraternizing with politicians. The FBI didn't make a case, and when rumors circulated in 2015 she left the country. Scandalous details were leaked a few days ago to Axios, with a sensational conclusion spies are aggressively attacking the US. It became newsworthy for the embarrassment to politicians "linked" to her (Eric Swalwell). This biography page is just a readout of the Axios article. None of the usual biographical details are known, but the top line factually says she was an "intelligence operative for the Chinese Ministry of State Security". Other editors have dismissed my calls to follow WP:BLP and seem determined to emphasize all the circumstantial evidence to persuade readers she really was a spy. Thanks for your assistance. Travelmite (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil Einne! Thanks for all your help and participation at BLPN. I mostly find your reasoning sound and your arguments well thought and clearly stated. Many times you have even changed my mind on an issue. Thanks again for all your comments, and I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! I don't know if you celebrate Christmas on your side of the globe, so if not simply take that as a gesture of good will, or insert your holiday of choice. I wish the coming year to bring you much happiness and joy. Zaereth (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this edit, followed by this edit? Perhaps I may not be "up on all the technology" but as a man of IT for 30 years, this sounds precisely like B as in B, S as in S. I reported the username to WP:UAA where it was deemed not in violation. I am not sure what to do other than calling the guy out, to see if he flees. I also want to revert him silently per WP:DENY but if he's being honest, then I'm the fool. Your opinion, good sir? Elizium23 (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: The editor has now been blocked as a sock so I think we have the answer. I removed the remaining answer, even if it was useful this is justified under WP:DENY and WP:BRV. There's actually a regular IP sock who's answers and comments are often removed for this reason even though most of the time would be fine if not posted by a banned editor. (Not this editor. Actually I recognise the name vaguely probably from ANI or something but am not sure if they bother the RD much, but I don't really deal with that much anymore.) My understanding of machine learning is very limited. And although I've sometimes written some basic Python and script (mostly PowerShell or Autohotkey), my understanding of coding fundamentals is also fairly limited. When I first skimmed the machine learning thing yesterday, it sounded okay although was surprised that 150 iterations would achieve anything useful. Now that you highlight them both and I read them more carefully, they do sort of sound like something that would come from some TV show with a lot of fancy words that is utter nonsense although your assessment is likely far more useful than mine. About the username, yeah it would be a major red flag to me, although I can sort of understand an admin feeling it's not enough to justify a username block. Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You had participated in the 30-day RfC of Sherdog.com's reliability at RSN here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#Sherdog.com and in the end it was closed to be used only for some basic fight information in the absence of reliable sources such as ESPN, on a case by case basis and with that fact that additional considerations apply on top of it (option 2 or 3).

But some editors (NEDOCHAN, Cassiopeia, Squared.Circle.Boxing, and a couple more) who voted for the reliability of Sherdog.com in the RfC, still enforce the usage of Sherdog.com as the most trusted source on MMA-related pages and go edit-wars for it. They are like a small organized gang of editors that have taken anyting MMA-related hostage on the Wikipedia and act like owners of the whole site. It would be nice if you could help with the enforcement of the result and consensus that were reached there since you helped reaching the consensus in the RfC. Thanks in advance.78.190.164.254 (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are especially active on pages Conor_McGregor, Tony Ferguson and Dan Henderson, trying to enforce the usage of Sherdog.com as the source over reliable sources such as ESPN, Fox, UFC.78.190.164.254 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC outcome does suggest ESPN and probably Fox should be preferred over Sherdog which in any case should be used on a case by case basis. If you feel editors aren't respecting the outcome, and talk page discussion hasn't resolved this, try seeking wider help. You could probably open another discussion, either on WP:BLP/N or WP:RS/N asking for help and pointing to the previous RfC. I'd suggest you focus on one or two examples where there is conflict between ESPN and Sherdog and the info Sherdog is featured in our article instead of that from ESPN. Unfortunately MMA is one of those problem areas which also is of limited interest to many people who aren't fans, so it can be difficult to find people willing to get involved. Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd that a new editor should have such a comprehensive take. Almost as if it's the same editor who started the malicious RFC and was banned for manipulating it.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nil, I have to say that giving advice as to how to cause more disruption to a banned user is very odd. I mean I know about AGF but is it really feasible that this IP is a new editor? NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is one of the most disruptive I have ever come across. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lordpermaximum&action=edit&redlink=1NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NEDOCHAN: I never said anything about the editor being new. If the editor isn't evading a block or ban, or otherwise violating WP:Sock (e.g. hiding a connection with an account for illegitimate reasons) they are welcome to participate. There remains no requirement to register an account to contribute to Wikipedia. I do not think anything I said, risks WP:BEANS, especially if the IP is a long term sock since they likely already know everything I said. I'm very confused who's socking and for what purpose since the Conor McGregor talk page seems to feature someone socking who is opposed to the RfC outcome. But the best solution is to ignore any socks as best possible while respecting the outcome of the RfC. If anyone feels the RfC was so tainted by socks that the result is in question, they are welcome to open a new RfC, but until that happens, the RfC should be respected. IIRC, most participants opposed to the use of Sherdog were long term Wikipedia editors not socks, so I'm doubtful the result would be any different without socks. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI is ongoing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lordpermaximum Edit history here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.190.164.254 NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nil. With regard to the subject's notability, I was not saying he is ONLY notable for the arrest and the porn career - only that the overwhelming majority of the coverage in reliable sources is about those two things. Yes, he had an article in 2017, but if you look at the history, the article was very sparse until 2020. Meanwhile, the body of the article contains a lot of info about the arrest, and the porn career, and there are plenty of sources about both, but I didn't think that it was necessary to include all of them, like a laundry list. I could do so if needed. It is my understanding that the lead should include a short summary of the detailed info in the body, and not skip over things that are significant. More than half the article is about those two things, so I think they should be mentioned in the lead. Wes sideman (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bachelor_in_Paradise_(American_season_3)&diff=1004436350&oldid=1004402112

This has gone way behind casual vandalism at this point. Wes sideman (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nil, I'm not sure why you'd consider me having expressed genuine regret (not an apology!) that an editor is feeling vexed about whatever as having any sort of Non-apology apology pretense, because I don't do that. Just letting you know that I took offense to you intimating it being otherwise. El_C 21:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nil. It looks like I owe you a heartfelt apology, which I offer to you without reservations. I just realized that I didn't pick up on you citing Awoma's invocation of Non-apology apology. Sorry, again, for my failing in this matter. Hopefully, you'd have read this after my apology. Best regards, El_C 23:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I think you understand now, sorry for any confusion. I normally say something like "Without commenting on your characterisation of El C's comments as a non-apology apology" but neglected to this time. (I'd also normally indent at Awoma instead of you. Not sure why I didn't here, it may have been an accident or because of how long it was.) I actually agree with you that even putting aside the unfair sexism claim, Awoma claiming your comments were a non-apology apology was unfair. But actually this time as often the case I didn't really think about it much until now as I was mostly focusing on the other issue. I found it odd when I read that thread where Awoma claimed it was a sexist trope since I wasn't aware a non-apology apology was particularly associated with sexism. I mean sure it's used in response to excuse sexism but it's also is excuse racism and other bigotry but also just in general for stuff unrelated to bigotry. Since Awoma used the redirect as part of their explanation/defence, I thought this meant the article would explain the connection, but it didn't seem to. To my mind, this means their defence didn't make any sense. They were claiming the redirect proved they were right except the article said nothing about sexism or it being a sexist trope, so I felt it worth pointing this out. Mostly as an aside, when doing so I had another problem. Recognising maybe our articles could be incomplete or wrong, when I mention 'our article doesn't actually support what you seem to be suggesting it does or should' I normally give a sofixit comment i.e. something like, "if you feel it's wrong, you're welcome to find sources and correct it". (Probably in part because I hang out a lot at the Reference Desk, this is very far from the first time that I've encountered someone linking to some article of ours to support some statement when it doesn't seem to support it in any way.) But this didn't really work here since even after the block had ended, that would seem to fall squarely under their topic ban. But most of my wordings addressing this came across to me as mocking or gravedancing so I settled on just saying well hopefully someone will fix it if it's wrong. (It only just occurred to me that it's somewhat difficult for them to say anything in response, well other than "I was wrong", given that it's likely to violate their topic ban but meh, I still think it was worth pointing out their defence of the redirect doesn't make any sense since non-apology apology says nothing about sexism.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always, for sharing your perspective, Nil. I don't really know what to say about this. The whole thing is just super-weird to me. Maybe I should sympathize less, since obviously when I did so here, it clearly wasn't taken to have been in good faith (and then some!). Anyway, yeah, upon advise at UTRS, I've unblocked Awoma (some of my thoughts about all of this can be found on my talk page, if you're interested). The whole thing still doesn't sit right with me, but whatever. It's just that, if I admin imposes, say, an WP:ARBPIA sanction and the sanctioned editor accuses me of using "Zionist racist tropes" or "Palestinian terrorist tropes" or whatever due to something innocuous I said, then I think that, if warnings to that effect remain unheeded, I'm entitled to apply additional sanctions, despite it being directed toward me. Not sure why it should be any different in the ARBGG topic area, or any DS/GS topic areas, for that matter.

But, okay, it is what it is. If I run into similar challenges again by acting upon post-AE sanctions abuse, then I'll definitely seek guidance from the Committee about whether this is out of step from otherwise DS enforcement as well as admin conduct, in general. Outside of that, I'm happy to move on from this. But I'm still left scratching my head about what a bizarre episode this was... P.S. Just as a minor point of clarification, I'd note that I, myself, do not view as a topic ban violation a discussion pertaining to the topic area (as relating to said sanctions) by the sanctioned user on their own talk page immediately after said sanctions have been imposed. After that, though, it's appeals only, as far as I'm concerned. El_C 16:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't read the comment until today after it was excised. Funny how calming a weekend can be around here. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil Einne. I'm not sure if you're aware of the current community consultation around Discretionary Sanctions but as someone who has participated in DS related activities recently I'd like to invite you to participate. You have the opportunity to participate at whatever level you wish; there are questions that are higher level (theoreticaly) in scope as well as opportunities to give feedback about specific areas of DS. The consultation will run through April 25th and I hope you'll participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the closing tag on the science reference desk. For some reason, I've never been able to figure out why mine weren't working. Now I know to put it on another line! --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

So you're trying to block me now? After completely failing to a) how to respond to the fact that the WikiLeaks link matches third party sources, and b) no information anywhere from third party sources has information that contradicts the WikiLeaks source? Block me, destroy me... whatever.

I never thought I'd meet such an authoritarian approach here on Wiki. You refuse to discuss the source at hand and you do everything in you're power to 1) break up the discussion we have, 2) make edits that completely destroys my trust with you and 3) formulate absurd accusations.

I could probably say sorry, but you don't seem to comprehend the way you act is absolutely terrible. YOu seem to want an apology from me, but don't understand I have has much right as you to get one. --Ruling party (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruling party: I informed you on your talk page that I will ask for you to be blocked if you kept adding BLP violations. I don't give a damn about apologies. It will benefit no one, since it's not me that you've harmed. It's all the living persons who you keep adding information about without sufficient sourcing. Asking you to apologise to them is just dumb. All I want is for you to stop adding BLP violations. You claim I refuse to discuss the issue, yet I have explained my concerns both on BLPN and RSN, and on your talk page. I've tried to work with you, explaining how you could try and source the information. You've however offered no coherent explanation as to why you keep adding back information when there are major questions, and as shown from the RSN and BLPN discussions, not simply from me, about the Wikileaks cable. The lack of contradictory information is not an argument supported by our policies or guidelines, as I've already told you. As I've explained, if there is consensus for the cable being reliable, then the information can be added back. I'll even do it myself. Note that I only asked for a partial block from two articles or at worse a partial block from all articles. You will still be free to participate in the BLPN and RSN discussions, and on the article talk pages. You will also be unblocked once you agree to stop adding information about living persons lacking a reliable source. That's all you need to do. Stop adding BLP violations. Once you stop that, you're very welcome to contribute here. As you're interested in an area we cover poorly, many editors including me would very like you to continue to edit here. All you need to do is to follow our policies and guidelines which includes not adding information about living persons when you lack a reliable source and keeping the information out when there are reasonable concerns about the reliability of the source while discussion is ongoing. Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbest thing I have ever heard: "It's all the living persons who you keep adding information about without sufficient sourcing".. The Laotian communists are probably laughing their heads of wondering (or pissed of) that their terms in the LPRP Central Committee is not included.

But here ... THis is a scanned book by the Organization Commission of the LPRP published by someone on Facebook... Again everything points in the opposite direction of you're position.

https://www.facebook.com/Soubanh-Bank-MOF-laos-119590454816035/photos/a.199629176812162.40166.119590454816035/199634926811587

1st Central Committee 161

2nd CC 167-169

3rd CC 225-228

4th CC 248-252

5th CC 265-270

6th CC 298-301

7th CC 318-320

8th CC 338-342

--Ruling party (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be in the opposite direction of my position since I've never claimed the information was wrong. All I've said is we lacked a reliable source. I'm unsure what that book is about since I do not speak Laotian. I also do not know what the "Organization Commission of the LPRP" is. However, if it's a from a reputable publisher, was written by a reputable author, or is from the party itself then it would likely be an acceptable source. As we've been telling you all this time, it is fine to use Laotian sources, and fine to use offline sources. If you've found an offline Laotian source which supports the information that's a great thing! Thanks for your hard work!! To be clear, as I said before, it doesn't make any of us wrong. All we've been saying all this time is that the wikileaks cable is not an acceptable source. Therefore the information needs to stay out as long as it's the only source or until and unless it's found to be reliable. If you have found another source which is reliable, which supports the information, that means the information can be added back using that source. To be clear any information added back will need to be supported by that book. (Transliterations and stuff don't need to be since WP:CALC applies.) Anything which is only sourced to wikileaks will need to stay out. IMO it will be find to keep Wikileaks in as an English source even if it's not an RS but others may disagree but that isn't particularly important anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruling party: IT seems like LPRP stands for Lao People's Revolutionary Party which suggests it's an official party document so it's likely a WP:Primary. While I normally dislike the use of such sources on BLPs, as I said a few days ago IMO it will be acceptable to use it as a source for simple like membership of the party's central committee. Assuming it supports the information, it's great that you found this, it's what we've been looking for all along. Make sure to source the book not Facebook, since it may very well be a WP:Copyvio Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't understand that is impossible for me to reference it since I a) can't copy the title b) I can't write Laotian and c) therefore can't translate the title of the book.

The Organization Commission of the Central Committee of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party deals with the party leadership personnel policy. See Organisation Commission of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party. --Ruling party (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand Laotian, we will need someone who does to help us verify the book confirms the information. Since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Laos is pretty much dead, as you know, we need to go elsewhere. I looked at Category:User lo and Juidzi seems to be the most hopefully so I'll reach out to them. I also found บุญพฤทธิ์_ทวนทัย and maybe ThatWikipediaEditor and who were active semi recently. There's also แอนเดอร์สัน and Henry Flower but given they are only lo-2 I'm not sure they can help. If this doesn't work, it may be useful to look at other wikimedia projects such as the Lao Wikipedia. Unfortunately, until we are able to find someone who is able to actually read the document, or find a reliable source which some editor is able to read, the information will need to stay out. I understand it's frustrating but for good reason that's simply how things work here. As I said at ANI, if it turns out consensus supports the cable on wikileaks, then we can also use it. Although to my read, consensus is trending in the other direction, you could change that if you have a good argument backed by our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But can we use the Facebook link as a reference until we can translate the book? --Ruling party (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For showing patience and giving helpful advice to new users I give you this barnstar. Keep up the good work. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...this,[64] should we make an effort to weed out all of that IP's postings? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could but the other contribution that was most related to their previous problematic behaviour (question about insurance) already had several good faith replies so I couldn't be bothered dealing with it. Their other contributions that I saw seemed less related to the problem area. This doesn't mean it's okay for them to edit, but it would probably be better to block them rather than just reverting contributions. Since they're WMF banned now I emailed them to see if they wanted to do anything. None of their contribution seem to cross the line that I assume is the reason why the WMF got involved but I also assume the WMF doesn't want them simply ignoring the ban. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. We can leave it be, for the time being. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Sunshine!
		Hello Nil Einne! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy first day of summer, Nil Einne!! Interstellarity (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity: Thanks! I live in New Zealand so it isn't the first day of summer but I like the spirit of the message. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, check out the ice crystals I sent you to mark the winter spirit. Interstellarity (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 03:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil Einne, editors can enable a date-and-time format that includes seconds in their preferences, tab "Appearance". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(I had originally sent this as a comment with a ping, but I have removed it again; this makes it easy for you to modify your message if/as you like, as noone has replied yet. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Funnily enough I found this out independently although your comment was still how I worked out how to see seconds. I'd already logged out at the time, however it suddenly occurred to me the counting diff thing was silly since it seemed unlikely the server stores time stamps to minute precision. So the better option is there might be a way to get a more complete time stamp (perhaps even Unix time or whatever) at least via the API if no other way. While trying to confirm this I found Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves which mentions the seconds thing. Logging in I found and quickly read your message which as said was still quite helpful. I wanted to check if I had missed some seven second overlap and got lost finding the date format option so had to check out your post to work out where it was. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no worries, and thank you for updating the statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(and I just checked at mw:Manual:Timestamp, it's actually rounded to seconds. Which is somehow reasonable in my opinion, as there is replication between multiple database servers behind the scenes, and caching in front of the servers, a huge infrastructure... I've definitely seen at least one user submitting an edit one second after my block due to a race condition. So focusing on seconds too much is already questionable; going into the milliseconds would be a kind of self-deception.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've effectively called me silly on the ANI "White supremacist" thread let me point out to you that the "deadline" you referenced was something cooked up by EEng. So you support making threats on Wikipedia? Dynasteria (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, your unfounded accusations of paid editing are personal attacks. Personally, I find your accusation against me so dumb that I don't care. However if you keep at it, someone is eventually going to block you. So if you want to keep editing here, you need to stop. Note that this is not a threat to block you. As I've told you at least once, I do not have the ability to block you, anymore than I have the ability to delete images.

I'd also note that while I don't care enough about the personal attack to pursue it further, I do care about BLP. Your comments so far IMO are okay but getting close to BLP violations. They don't quite cross it yet, but if you do cross the BLP line again, I will ask for you to be blocked. Again this is not a threat to personally block you. Indeed, as much as I care about BLP, even if I had the ability I'd incredibly unlikely I'd block you since I'm clearly WP:INVOLVED and in the unlikely event I felt it severe enough to block you rather than just report you to ANI, I'd open a thread on ANI immediately after I blocked you so my actions could be reviewed.

BTW, you are the writer of an article about the conflict between Chloe Melas and Morgan Freeman so you have a COI about anything related to the conflict between Chloe Melas and Morgan Freeman, whoever writes the content. In fact, while you are not mentioned by name in the text you reverted, it relates to a blog written by you as you must know, so you are re-introducing text which is directly about an article you wrote. By the same token Chloe Melas and Morgan Freeman have a COI about the whole conflict whoever wrote the content whether here on Wikipedia, or the external content we are linking to. In the same fashion if I really was employeed by CNN, I would have a COI about pretty much anything related to CNN, no matter if I'd never even heard of the people at CNN involved.

To be clear, in all cases the conflict would arise even when the editor is simply reverting an edit. Indeed the conflict would arise even when reverting vandalism, although reverting clear-cut vandalism is one instance when it's acceptable to directly edit despite having a conflict of interest. That's how conflicts of interest work. You're a journalist, you should not need this explained to you.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems you and others believe can jump on my talk page to threaten me and trying to gaslight me with impunity, then I wrote you directly here, that you and others will not succeed now or anytime.

Damn. I was already trying to sleep but wikibullies like you Nil Einne trying to fool not me but those people believing Wikipedia is in some way a dependable source of information, seems never rest.

':

To be clear, your unfounded accusations of paid editing are personal attacks. Personally, I find your accusation against me so dumb that I don't care. However if you keep at it, someone is eventually going to block you. So if you want to keep editing here, you need to stop. Note that this is not a threat to block you. As I've told you at least once, I do not have the ability to block you, anymore than I have the ability to delete images.'

---

To be clear, it´s the conduct of those like you that put the suspicion on you

As I wrote to Fences the possibility of a block, even a permanent ban is contemplated. Because as I wrote to Jimmy Wales, during my research I saw too much corruption here to believe that the image sold to most of the Media it´s the truth.

Why to stay here to be pushed by bullies like you to write and accept what you impose as "truth?" So if that´s happens, it will be in my terms:

If I´m being kicked out from here it would be like I was kicked out from Wikimania15 for attempting to ask Wales on paid editing. So, it was JW who had something to hide and to be ashamed of, not me. Same with you and your kind here about silence me using any excuse. Remember:I RECORD EVERYTHING.

LOL. So you had zero interest in erasing the photo that proved that El Mundo supported my POV when you falsely said it was the opposite? Hard to believe.

---

I'd also note that while I don't care enough about the personal attack to pursue it further, I do care about BLP. Your comments so far IMO are okay but getting close to BLP violations. They don't quite cross it yet, but if you do cross the BLP line again, I will ask for you to be blocked. Again this is not a threat to personally block you. Indeed, as much as I care about BLP, even if I had the ability I'd incredibly unlikely I'd block you since I'm clearly WP:INVOLVED and in the unlikely event I felt it severe enough to block you rather than just report you to ANI, I'd open a thread on ANI immediately after I blocked you so my actions could be reviewed.

---

Well, you can pretend to be generous, but as I proved before it will be no easy for you to gaslighting me.

Change your ways and be precise, my guy. You can argue at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard using exact words where are "the BLP line" you claim to know so precisely, instead of using it as other of your veiled threats.

---

BTW, you are the writer of an article about the conflict between Chloe Melas and Morgan Freeman so you have a COI about anything related to the conflict between Chloe Melas and Morgan Freeman, whoever writes the content. In fact, while you are not mentioned by name in the text you reverted, it relates to a blog written by you as you must know, so you are re-introducing text which is directly about an article you wrote. By the same token Chloe Melas and Morgan Freeman have a COI about the whole conflict whoever wrote the content whether here on Wikipedia, or the external content we are linking to.

---

More fake COI bs. As it was stated for the beginning, Wikipedia editing has been done to favor Chloe Melas. Why then don't put again the information on her privileged upbringing, that it was erased to favor her against Freeman at the time? That´s a fact, and the bs done against me it´s just part of that. I wrote a piece that it has never been refuted, denied, debunked, sued, rebutted... but I suffered repression like an anonymous attack promoted by CNN spokeswoman, Mariana Pinango. So, it´s absolutely irrelevant my position on that, because the piece exposing CNN-Melas fabrication now exists beyond me and it was widespread, and shared by many

If you erase any reference of that you´re disguising censorship under a fake COI concern.

---

In the same fashion if I really was employeed by CNN, I would have a COI about pretty much anything related to CNN, no matter if I'd never even heard of the people at CNN involved.

To be clear, in all cases the conflict would arise even when the editor is simply reverting an edit. Indeed the conflict would arise even when reverting vandalism, although reverting clear-cut vandalism is one instance when it's acceptable to directly edit despite having a conflict of interest. That's how conflicts of interest work. You're a journalist, you should not need this explained to you.

---

Again, trying to gaslighting me will not work.I published a paper on COI, but I will need to write another one to show in detail why you´re lying and trying to disguise the censorship to favor Melas. https://www.academia.edu/10329106/El_conflicto_de_inter%C3%A9s_o_el_surrealismo_sin_poes%C3%ADa_de_la_vida_p%C3%BAblica_mexicana

If you are or not in the CNN payroll, your hiding behind a pseudonym make it impossible to check it that, as any other COI you could have. In some sense, like the famous Essjay controversy, you can claim to be an expert on how COI works, when in fact CNN pays you.

A pseudonymed user like you should not need to be explained that, by definition, you´re not accountable, so you can edit in the sense that the one paying you wants you do it.

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Tomoo Terada (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada[reply]

Your WT:AC/N response of 21:42, 19 August 2021 was edited by another editor. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 01:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: Thanks for letting me know I reverted the change. I guess User:Only in death added quotes to the wrong message when replying and didn't notice. Nil Einne (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I, myself, thought the User is probably unfamiliar with how a talk page comment is quoted, nor about WP:TALK. A-ok. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 01:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no, it was entirely I just put quote marks in the wrong place by accident and didnt notice. Was editing from mobile at the time. Apologies Nil Einne. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was initially surprised that you did that. Then I saw that you had the same quote with quotation marks in your reply and figured that you were intending to add quotation marks to your reply probably either because you didn't at first then changed your mind or because you did but then it looked like you didn't as you were looking at the original message rather than my reply. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of how much editors on Wikipedia are given free range to second guess and attack everything I say. I am also tired of never being able to defend my views. I will admit that my languae of "bigot" and "hate speech" maybe got too heated, however I am very frustrated that every time I try to improve discussion about The Church of Jesus Chist of Latter-day Saints all such attempts are halted. I am still seething from the dleetion of the articles on Michael U. Teh and Benjamin de Hoyos and dozens of other general authorities that I created. I am very frustrated. It seems no one ever listens to me or allows me to make any contributions to Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Testing Nil Einne public devices (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what Discretionary Sanction mean? Why I am being sanctioned? What are the consequences of the sanction? Marcelus (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil Einne! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 21:28, Tuesday, October 12, 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nil Einne! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 22:05, Tuesday, October 12, 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nil Einne! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 22:56, Tuesday, October 12, 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I am letting editors know who participated in the recent discussions that decided whether the Killing of David Amess should be called "killing, murder, or assassination", about a new Wikipedia essay being proposed for a new guideline. The essay, Wikipedia:Assassination, explains how the common definition of "assassination" does not determine an article's title. Only reliable sources can determine whether it is murder/killing or assassination. Since you participated in those recent discussions, I wanted to drop a message to you about this new proposal. If you want to leave your opinion about it, you can do so in this discussion. Have a good day and keep up the good editing! Elijahandskip (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A hearty meow for your patience at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Brookings_Institution.

Drmies (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil! I just wanted to stop by and thank you for all you do here at Wikipedia, and especially for all your help at BLPN. Your help in this most important area is very much appreciated. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, a really good Saturday, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Armduino (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nil Einne! The sweet 11-year-old pooch now wakes me up in the middle of every night, and I end up browsing Wikipedia groggy-eyed, and saw that absurd ANI thread. When I went back and re-read That Darn Crap, I realized it could have come across as unsupportive, and I hope you realize that was not my intent :) I tend to review and realize such matters when I'm caffeinated! I was intending to compare the absurdity of an ANI thread over crap to an ANI thread over darn. I kind of regret when these threads are closed before the BOOMERANG flies. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I've moved on, from that meta vote topic. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem then. It just was very unsure from me from what you said in the discussion whether you understood there was zero difference in where the vote was happening etc between the UCoC vote and arbcom etc votes. While it was possible you were avoiding arbcom votes for similar reasons, I noticed that you had sometimes asked questions etc and also seem to be aware of what voting in SecurePoll was like, indeed you even confusingly complained that it had changed from 3 circles when it hadn't (some other elections do use STV) and also suggested it had changed while you were away from 2013-2014 when it hadn't (it changed in 2009 and has been the same ever since, the previous system in 2008 was using normal en.wikipedia pages but didn't involve circles etc). While the norms of what scrutineers do and how they're chosen etc may have changed, the software itself has been similar since 2009 (there has been development but it has always had the same connection to en.wikipedia). If I had to guess from what you said, perhaps you're under some misapprehension that the change of secure poll appearing on en.wikipedia.org to now appearing on vote.wikimedia.org which I think happened in 2014 makes a difference to where you're voting but it doesn't. The WMF's internal organisation of their servers and domains may have changed, but ultimately it's always been WMF servers under their control not our control, and the nature of modern hosting probably means there's always a chance you're going to use the same servers or different ones wherever you go even on en. Indeed for a long time, I think since at least as long, any logins even those which you may think are en.wikipedia.org must go through login.wikimedia.org AFAIK. Trying to avoid this is impossible, it breaks the login since it's just how it works now. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying on the Joseph Lapado article talk page regarding additional edits to it. I have added my two cents there and would appreciate your review and constructive discussion on that talk page to possibly further edit the article. Have a nice day.2600:1700:7610:41E0:395C:1E6D:BCA1:377B (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a while looking into your suspicion and agree with it. Blocked and tagged. Thanks very much for bringing this to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things almost got a little heated, you are indeed correct and I must apologize to you. Do accept my apology Nil. I would be contacting the other party involved to have a meaningful conversation. Celestina007 (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as you point out here, that poisoned pastries won't “help Russian soldiers see civilians as civilians”. In addition, I find it lacking humanity (sense #1). Do you see any chance for outsiders such as us to do anything about it, other than stepping on soapboxes, talking to people that have nothing to do with it? I have frequent contact with Ukrainian refugees, but only briefly with each, and my language skills aren't up to the challenge of explaining that; let alone that it's doubtful whether any of them could do anything about it. ◅ Sebastian 13:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work at Gerald Ward (biker), I was rather daunted by the details. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response to me. It helped me finally get some much needed rest. I appreciate that you cared, truly. Looking back, I'm surprised how strongly everything affected me. But I understand it to an extent. I felt like I was at war with myself in regards to what to think and what to support and being sleep-deprived certainly didn't help. It made me feel helpless, honestly. I didn't sleep much for two days straight. I hated feeling like that. Actually being able to sleep helped clear my mind, but I think I'm going to avoid commenting there in the future if that can be the result. I'm definitely stopping at this point. There's no need to wilingly put myself through that kind of distress and you're right that I don't owe Wikipedia anything. Clovermoss (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't ping you since I don't want to re-alert you to this, but if you do read this I do hope you are or were able to put mostly or completely put it aside and continue to sleep well etc. To a minor extent I understand since I was also unsure how about what to do with that thread although it was only something I occasionally thought about rather than something I cared a lot about. But there are other things which I do care more about, as evidenced by my comment below which can cause distress at times. However in most cases, while these may bother me for a time, I've mostly been able to put these aside. I think maybe it was two times now, when I've found something got too distressing I actually completely stepped away for a while. To be more exact, I logged out from all my devices. I did still sometimes check out areas of interest, but I resisted the urge to log back in or edit. I feel this worked for me, perhaps it or some alternative (possibly not visiting Wikipedia at all) will work for you). In the end, I hope to make Wikipedia better but if I fail to, I know it will survive without me. In some rare cases, perhaps I would have fixed something or changed something or whatever that made Wikipedia better when no one else did or at least did for a long time which is unfortunate but when I think about it, I'm sure the number of these cases is very small and it would also apply to other areas of life. And so while I should try to make things better when I can, I should never forget about myself and I should be satisfied with putting in a decent effort when it isn't causing me excessive distress or stress. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I have been getting much better sleep since then. For the most part I've put it behind me, even if it does kind of bother me still. Not to the extent it was, though. I think part of the reason it affected me so strongly is that I'm going through some stressful things in real life too, but thankfully that situation for the most part has been getting better lately too. I think the whole moral conflict thing making me feel helpless when I already felt helpless in other areas in my life... just spiralled into something worse. In regards to participating at ANI, I'm really inexperienced with what goes on there, and choosing that thread of all things probably wasn't the best idea. In general, though, I don't think getting involved in things that cause me unnessecary stress is a good idea. So I'll likely avoid ANI in the future unless it's strictly nessecary. Clovermoss (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ni Einne, pls read the ANI and the article history prior sending me the BLP DR alert, for I am NOT the one who reverted the info. Pls read and check first.00:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Cassiopeia talk 00:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassiopeia: as I said at ANI, I was aware of this at the time. It's irrelevant because you falsely accused an editor of vandalism when they were dealing with a BLP violation, and at no stage through this whole process have you shown any recognition that the OP was correctly dealing with a BLP violation. If you're going to continue to boast how you're an expert on MMA articles a large percentage of which deal with living people, you need to learn to identify BLP violations and deal with them. They're far more serious than some dumb ranking update. And any editor with basic knowledge of BLP should be recognising such BLP violations and dealing with them urgency rather than worrying so much about a ranking update. This doesn't mean that it wasn't fine to revert the ranking update but you should have also been monitoring the article for reintroduction of the BLP violation. And while it was fine to talk to the editor about their likely accidental reversion of your ranking update, it should not have been in the form of a false vandalism accusation. Instead, simply talking to them, something like

Hey thank you greatly for identifying that BLP violation. It's unfortunate it wasn't noticed and dealt with before, we'll try to do better. But just to let you know, you accidentally reverted my update ranking update. Perhaps you edited an old version or used the undo button. Do take care to only do these things if you're absolutely sure it's what you want to do as they will remove potentially helpful updates. If you just want to remove a problem, make sure you just edit the latest version rather than using the undo button or editing an older version.

That would have been a great way to both teach the OP while recognising the great work they did but it isn't what you did, instead you falsely accused them of vandalism while ignoring the BLP violation they were correcting. You then went to ANI to once again ignore the far more serious issue of an actual BLP violation that the OP was dealing with and instead defend your inappropriate actions. Repeating for one final time, this is not the sort of behaviour which is acceptable for an experienced editor, especially not for an experienced editor who says they deal with a lot of MMA articles i.e. a lot of articles involving living persons. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge) Hi Nil Einne, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than add fuel to my OP, I should point out that the subject was highly notable before the switch. Doug butler (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Sunshine!
		Hello Nil Einne! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy first day of summer (or winter) wherever you live. Interstellarity (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't want to get into it either... but here I am. I suspect it's a position shared by others, but just your simple comment is appreciated. — HTGS (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no allegation (of any substance whatsoever) of paid editing. There was an allegation of conflict of interest on the part of a supporter (of a politician with a huge supporter base).

Your personal feelings about paid editing, as strong as they are, do not trump WP:BLP, do not permit the making of completely evidence-free serious allegations about a WP:BLP, and do not exempt Wikipedia from compliance with defamation law. There is no amount of deep feeling about the concept of paid editing that justifies simply making up a completely unsubstantiated claim that a public figure engaged in it and then inserting that claim into their article.

A false allegation was made about a WP:BLP and that false allegation ended up in the newspapers on the basis that Wikipedia made the false claim. That's indefensible by any reasonable measure. It is, however, far from the first time hardcore anything-goes attitudes among some Wikipedia editors have crashed into the realities of WP:BLP issues.

That you would try to threaten someone for insisting upon the removal of a plainly unsubstantiated allegation whose publication on Wikipedia made a national newspaper is phenomenally inappropriate and a sign that perhaps you need to take a step back from related issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tagging, in context, carries such an obvious implication that it was paid editing that it was picked up by a national newspaper. Me pointing out that the Wikipedia allegation that was repeated in the media was completely false is not "telling the media that they're right" in any rational universe. You said on my talk page: "Even if there was paid editing, it's quite likely we'll never know who did it and will never know." That's your words, not mine, about the evidence for the allegation. Making claims about public figures with such a plainly reckless attitude to whether they're true is a recipe for harm to innocent public figures, media scandal about the veracity of Wikipedia, legal action, or all three. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper directly cited Wikipedia's tagging. No one has ever made an allegation with any evidence whatsoever that paid editing, of any sort, by anyone, took place on that article, and the idea that the newspaper might have invented the allegation of their own accord without the placing of the false tag that they directly cited is fanciful and displays a fundamental disregard for the consequences of reckless editing of BLP articles.

You should not be tagging articles of public figures when you have not one shred of evidence that there has been paid editing at all, let alone whether the subject had anything to do it. Regardless of what some Wikipedians tell themselves, reasonable people outside a tiny subsection of Wikipedia's editor base would a) assume that there is at least some evidence for the claim of paid editing in the first place, and b) as implying that the subject had something to do with it - and in this case, a national newspaper felt that the implication was so obvious they felt comfortable publishing it (on the basis of Wikipedia's claim alone) in a country with some of the strictest defamation laws in the world.

When the "evidence" is just that the article was written by a professed supporter of a politician with a large and enthusiastic supporter base (which could apply to basically every politician article on Wikipedia), it simply amounts to baselessly smearing a living person - and as today demonstrated, those baseless smears lead to real and legitimate harm to innocent people and institutional risk to Wikipedia itself. This false media coverage was a completely predictable outcome, as would be the logical potential follow-ons of article subjects publicly lashing Wikipedia's accuracy and/or lawsuits. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Loginnigol. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Loginnigol that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner.

What on earth are you're talking about? You have not provided any information what I did and where. I have zero idea what point you are trying to make and hereby give you a warning not to get involved in personal attacks. —Loginnigol 08:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Loginnigol: I was referring to this edit [65] of yours. I intentionally did not link to it before since I did not wish to draw attention to it as it's not really possible to do so without revealing the name and the specific case does not matter. I was hoping you would take on board the warning and correct your edit going forward.

I will not apologise for my message. As I mentioned, you were already made aware how strictly we take editing on gender related disputes with the alert you were given 1 month ago. While you were not technically aware we apply the same standards to BLPs, you were informed of this in 2019 so should really have been aware of that as well. In any case, I've now given you the necessary alert so you are aware. And so it should be obvious that what you were doing covers two areas where we need editors to take extra care which you did not do.

Even if you were not aware of the community consensus on former names of transgender and non binary living persons, the specific issue of the former name you were trying to add in the edit I highlighted was already discussed on the article talk page before your change. Your edit summary also indicated you were aware that there was controversy over the inclusion of the name.

Despite all that, you made a serious BLP violation by including the name in violation of clear community consensus on the issue. Given that, it was reasonable for me to give you a a clear warning not to repeat that shit again. As I said, the specific article does not matter. If you violate WP:DEADNAME on any article on the English Wikipedia again and I see it, I will be taking you to WP:ARE and asking for sanction whatever nonsense you want to claim about me "personal attack"ing you.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 00:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Lost (TV series and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Lost (TV series until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment you made[66], I went to inspect the article of Juan Carlos Girauta one of the people complaining about Wikipedia's bias. A more than a third of the the text in his article consists about some outrageous coments he has made... The resulting coverage can not be considered neutral. I proceeded to add a non-neutral tag on the page.. and look the kind response I got [67]. Honestly the editing atmosphere on Spanish and Chilean political issues is getting toxic. It would be of great aid to have more editors involving and warning people of personal attacks. Dentren | ^Talk 07:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect AC/DC adapter and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 9 § AC/DC adapter until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. fgnievinski (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If your intention with this comment was to chill discussion, you succeeded. There was no evidence whatsoever that any involved editors [would] refuse to accept the consensus, either there or on the article Talk page. Wouldn't it have been sufficient to, you know, assume good faith on the part of experienced editors in good standing? And no, you do not need to answer that. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JoJo Anthrax: Actually there was strong evidence an editor was refusing to accept consensus [68]. Editors behaving inappropriately on BLPs is simply unacceptable, especially experienced editors who come to BLPN and suggest that is their intention. I am not going to assume good faith with such an editor, and you should not either. If you're not willing to accept that, then you probably shouldn't edit BLPs either, and at least don't try get in the way with editors dealing with inappropriate edits relating to living persons. Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have also complained about someone else simply reminding their fellow editors not to make the very common mistaken even among experienced editors of cherry picking when looking for sources. If you're not willing to accept even such simply reminders, this strongly reenforces my view that you too probably aren't well suited to edit BLPs. BLPs are of course, articles where we must make sure we get things right and frankly it is far more important we do so, especially in the case of fairly low profile individuals, than it is we worry about the feelings of random editors who can't accept simple reminders or criticism. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That link reveals a rather strong opinion, no doubt about it, but absolutely no intention to violate any Wikipedia policy. And as for you probably shouldn't edit BLPs either, and at least don't try get in the way, thank you for clearly defining your interpretation of WP:5P4. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping cult leader in the infobox when there was clear existing consensus it was in violation of BLP is unacceptable. The editor gave absolutely zero indication they accepted existing consensus was clearly against them and therefore what they were arguing for and which they had edit warred to keep into the article (possibly before the consensus had developed but which now had developed), would have to go until they convinced the community of their view it somehow did not violate BLP. And yes, if you're not willing to accept that violating BLP is completely and utterly unacceptable no matter how much you may dislike the subject or whatever your personal opinions of them and their work, then yes, you can fuck off from BLPs too. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you bring up 5P4, yet you were the one who came to my talk page to effectively accuse me of trying to chill discuss when it was surely clear my only intention was to stop any inappropriate editing in mainspace and indeed discussion continued by others after my comment. And also after my comment you were complaining about, I engaged in discussion on the talk page explaining areas where editors were going wrong. And you also accused another editor who simply reminded editors not to make a very common mistake that even experienced editors often make, in a discussion where such a reminder was highly relevant, of being "pedantic". Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that after I visited the talk page, I saw at least one comment on the article talk page concerning a living person from an editor (not you) that seems in itself problematic. I feel it best to simply ignore this comment but in reality it's a comment that never should have happened and there is no reason why I shouldn't remind the editor not to do that shit again other than that I can't be bothered dealing with it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I would add that you keep bringing up experienced editors and I agree with you that seems to describe pretty much everyone involved with the likely exception of whoever initially complained on the other editor's talk page. Yet any experienced editor should know that I can say whatever the fuck I want, it's not going to magically result in an editor being blocked or topic banned unless they indeed behave inappropriately and I convince an admin, or the community of this. Indeed if I warn editors inappropriately, the effect of this will be to cause problems for me not for anyone else. It is only inexperienced edits who are likely to be intimidated by threats without merit. Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is John Gaeta. I very much am grateful for the volunteers that removed the hate speech and threats from my page. I was relieved to see a lock put on editing .. but now I see that that lock may have been removed which I am VERY woroed about. It should stay in place, for a long time. If there is any way to reinstate it pls do. Yensiwtlad (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per your user page: you've got mail. Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, if someone starts adding LGBT-categories to that article, I will oppose it:[69] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the tag is <s>...</s> not <strike>...</strike> (which hasn't been valid HTML since the 1990s).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've been making that mistake probably since I first used that tag. Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nil Einne,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're mean, please stop, and give good criticism,. Yusuf Michael (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yusuf Michael: I'm not going to stop reverting unencylopaedic language. And I don't see how to be more constructive than saying that including the word mysterious is unnecessary for coverage of a real world event in an encyclopaedia. And it's especially a poor addition when the circumstances of the disappearance mean that it isn't even considered mysterious at this time. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well what about when i said vanished instead of dissapeared Yusuf Michael (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disappeared remains a far better description of what happened. Is there some reason you feel the wording must change? Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the late reply. I understand completely why you did what you did. 67.87.26.220 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, saw a few of your comments recently at ANI; just wanted to let you know about the edit conflict template. I like abbreviating it to ec like so:

Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just want to say thanks for jumping onto the Colleen Ballinger talk page. I've found the discussion very frustrating and discouraging as a new editor! Was seriously questioning my ability to appraise certain issues after regularly being met with dismissal from a seemingly united front of experienced Wikipedians. You've echoed some of my opinions on those issues, which is validating, but really, your general call for impersonal editing is very nice to see :) Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Thank you Nil Einne! Despressso (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Testing reply tool Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Testing test Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Testing [[Meow]] test Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Testing Meow test Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Laura and I work for Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields, a baron, businessperson, and former British politician. The page about her was recently tagged for COI and advert issues due to some poor edits made years ago. I posted here regarding my desire to address the substance of the tags with a re-write or heavy trims, to remove the promotional content. I was hoping you might be willing to chime in on the proposed trims and/or the suggestion for a rewrite. Let me know. Best regards.~~~~ LauTad89 (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to share this diff[70] with you from a few years back when I staked out exactly the sort of position you're talking about, to reassure you about my thinking. Somehow, I think the way I formed my opinion at the Rebekah Jones ANI discussion led you to believe I endorse punitive blocks, or was advocating for some sort of blanket action against COI accounts. There's a good chance that's because I wrote very briefly and quickly, and I wasn't as precise as I usually try to be with my comments on the noticeboards, so I apologize for that. I've always highly respected your opinion there, and so while I know you and I might not see eye-to-eye on all the details around a topic like this, I was bothered that you might walk away from that conversation believing I was really pushing for something ugly on Wikipedia. I suspect that, on the broad strokes, you and I are probably in agreement. It's clear my comment(s) got you worked up, and I didn't mean what you have taken me to have meant, but I think it was my fault for not being clearer. Grandpallama (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil Einne :) I'm looking to interview people here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nil Einne, I am not sure if the notification on the talk article got through to you. But if it did not, then this is to let you know your vote there for the lead proposal would really help move the conversation forward. [71] If you did receive the notification, then sorry if this message badgers you but I feel like I have to take this measure of directly notifying you. The discussion has dragged on for more time than anyone could have imagined it would, so I am doing my best to bring it to a conclusion HiFX (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nils Einne. I wasn't sure I understood you well at BLPN concerning the Mika Tosca page, and I wanted to clarify here. The OP, user Hadees, has only commented twice on the talk page in question. Both times were near the beginning of the current discussion, and it was to request an edit and (assuming good faith) to once clarify the request. The rest of the current conversation has been EC editors. Am I missing something? I agree that further participation on Hadees part would be both unhelpful and also not policy compliant. Thank you for leaving the contentious topics template. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	With many thanks
	Your presence in discussions of BLP policy is appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I sent a reply by the wikipedia email system. (I received your email but haven't properly set up my email system for replies since I made some changes so it was easier this way.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'll respond here but keep it vague then.

Just read it, while I didn't mention that article in my ARCA request it did show up during my background research. Everything else you said is reasonable.

I do find what you said in the last paragraph to be a bit of an odd choice while skimming the article. Couldn't see any immediate reason why that choice had been made on the talk page though, and I don't really want to go diving through the edit history to find out. It is a choice that's been made in a couple of other articles though, typically where use of that type of word is complicated for one reason or another. That doesn't seem to be the case here though and I don't think there'd be any objection to just rewriting it to fix that issue if you wanted to make the change yourself.

I've watchlisted the article now to keep an eye out for any ongoing issues :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]