User talk:Excirial/Archive 31

Excirial

	Userpage	Talk	Awards	E-Mail	Dashboard	Programs	Sandbox	Sketchbook	Blocknote

 

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Hello from CABurton

Manet Manet Manet Manet I have added to the Black Box Corporate Wiki page? I am an employee of the company and was trying to update the page with useful information for when someone comes here looking. As you can see from my email address I am a verified employee. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CABurton (talk • contribs) 18:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) @CABurton: there are two problems with this:

• Phrases like Black Box delivers high value products and services through its global presence and over 4,000 team members and With the largest footprint in the industry, Black Box offers clients an unmatched portfolio of IT communications and infrastructure solutions from the world’s leading manufacturers, to cite only a couple, are promotional and strictly prohibited on Wikipedia.
• As you are an employee of the company, you should put a note on your userpage and talkpage stating this, as it is a conflict of interest. You are allowed to edit Wikipedia, but you have to be very careful that you stay neutral.

—George8211 / T 20:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am pulling information directly from our website for this page which is general information. Yes it was written by marketing but it does not sell the materials. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_Systems — Preceding unsigned comment added by CABurton (talk • contribs) 20:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@CABurton: The added content is straight up advertising. To sum it up:

• Lines such as With the largest footprint in the industry, Black Box offers clients an unmatched portfolio of IT communications and infrastructure solutions from the world’s leading manufacturers. are plain marketing talk as opposed to neutral encyclopedic information. This type of content is present throughout the entire added text.
• Placing the companies website link throughout the entire page is considered spamming and thus not allowed.
• If you are copying information directly from your company website it is extremely likely this constitutes a Copyright violation. For legal reasons wikipedia can ONLY accept directly copied content if this content is licensed under CC-BY-SA / GDFL or a compatible license. Note that this case the information is promotional and therefor should not be copied irregardless of the license involved.

As George already mentioned: If you are directly related to a company you have a conflict of interest. While such a conflict of interest doesn't forbid editing a page outright it is in no case permitted to advertise your company - And i would hasten to add that the added content does just that. In addition, i would strongly suggest reading the FAQ for businesses as well. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Excirial, I couldn't find the content anywhere. But it's still WP:PROMO. —George8211 / T 20:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Excirial, I rved the most recent edits but could you look at this? —George8211 / T 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@George8211: Based on the article history i would suspect that the new account that suddenly showed up is either a sock or meatpuppet. Since the article history seems to indicate even more editing by the company itself i filed a SPI case for all the accounts involved. Aside from this i reverted the page a bit further to remove the additional promotional edits made. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Excirial,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello from 37.152.248.17

please re admit the changes i made to rifkinds page, they may have not been constructive as you deemed but they are factually correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.248.17 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

this edit is straight libel as opposed to being neutral and correct information. So no, there is no chance whatsoever that this edit should or will be reinstated. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello from Pradeepwb

Hi, would like to thank you for spotting and reversing vandalism edits done by "69.170.13.40" in Baba Hari Dass page and other entries. In my understanding those were definitely ill intended entries that had no place on that page(s). In my opinion that user should be blocked from editing; thanks. Pradeepwb 00:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeepwb (talk • contribs)

I think you are referring to 69.170.13.42 (talk · contribs)? The user behind this IP address may or may not be a different person now due the possibility that the IP Address was reassigned to another person. Either way the vandalism from that address has stopped so a block won't be needed for the moment. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Markc25 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hi excirial

Hi how've you been? This is paway. You like him don't you?--71.106.144.204 (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Rod Mc Kuen's Voice

According to the World Book Encyclopedic, it did mention that Rod ruined his vocal chords from shouting, and that his voice was very hoarse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDC5:6DC0:81B1:4A7A:D3DC:D191 (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello from George8211

Me again. Is it worth going through today's edits on Edinburgh Academy and Merchiston Castle School for socks/meat, or not worth the bother? —George8211 / T 21:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, Merchisuckpoo should probably be blocked as offensive username. —George8211 / T 21:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

User:MusikAnimal/spamublock

Made this today and saw you're also active at patrolling Special:AbuseFilter/499. Maybe you'll find this useful :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: It certainly is useful - and it is really practical that it includes support for a custom template as well. Normally i like to tag a page with a G11 template using Twinkle sans deleting it (To explain to the user the page was removed). After that i wait till it is done and reloads the page, then delete it, and then i head to the users talk page to use twinkle to block the user. Since it took me two lines and a set of comma's to merely explain the steps it down it pretty much equals: Too much clicking required.

I just gave it a whirl and it seems to do precisely what it advertises: Less clicking and waiting! I did make a small tweak over here though. I got two handy scripts running that list new users and new pages in the sidebar. I use both of those often but unfortunately they pretty much push the entire toolbox (And the link by this script) out of view. So, after some fiddling i moved the link to a tab instead. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah cactions is much better. I use Vector so it's far more accessible that way, actually! I think I might also create a custom template to add the G11 notice, but I'll leave it out of the core script just to keep things basic and open to customization. I can't find the template Twinkle uses, though... do you know what template that is?

I like how you source the original author's home of the scripts in your monobook.js, as opposed to using the gadget or what have you. Maybe you can source User:MusikAnimal/spamublock.js's original home too, now that I've changed it to use cactions? :) Thanks for the suggestions! — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I am now back to using your version of the script again - i only ever switch to person scripts is to make sure i don't cause minor trouble for other people when my own vast javascript knowledge doesn't seem to produce the result i want. On matters that i actually do have some clue about: I believe you are looking for this lovely template: {{Db-spam-notice}}?

Also, may i add a suggestion for the script? I tried cobble something together myself but my vast javascr.... wait, i just used that joke already. Ahem. What i was saying: Beyond filter 499 users sometimes create spam pages directly into the main article space. The effective result of this is the same: Page is deleted, user is blocked. Would it be possible to support this scenario as well in the script? I suppose it would be something akin to "If the page is in the main article space fetch the first contributor of the page, then delete and block that user the same way it is done now". I believe Twinkle uses something similar to determine which editor it should template if a page is send to CSD. It would sure be a great help for dealing with all the non userpage spammers out there. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha, no problem. I actually was thinking to expand to handle multiple scenarios, as I also run into {{uw-softerblock}} situations, which the same actions occur except it's a different template and block options. With your suggestion only the supported namespaces changed, so I believe this edit does the trick, but please confirm :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC) no no no no no, sorry that doesn't do it, do not attempt to use it — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so you're right I'll need to fetch the page creator and block that user. Definitely can be done. I'll modify the confirmation pop up to say the name of the user who will be blocked, just so we don't make any mistakes. Sorry for the confusion, for some reason I that just adding the new namespace would work. Thanks for the suggestion, and keep them coming if you have any others! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I have this done now. I tested deleting a mainspace page on testwiki and it deleted it as G11, blocked the page creator (me) and left me the template as it the script normally does. Let me know if you have any issues. The script does not yet tell you who the page creator is, so be sure to check the page history first.

I was going to take this a step further and turn it into a more comprehensive blocking script, but then I said to hell with it and now I'm trying to make the missing blocking module for Twinkle. No sense it designing and implementing my own interface when Twinkle has that much already done, and seemingly blocking is the only thing missing from it! Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I'll give it a whirl this evening - thanks! By the way, you may be interested in this script which was made by Animum (talk · contribs) as well. The script itself adds a dropdown containing the various blocking reasons, and each option expands into another menu containing various block durations. I have been using it for years now and it works wonders; it does lack the "Delete a page and then then block" option though. I suppose it might have some or might serve as a decent base for a twinkle module. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Reported James 123234 / Page: Tyler

Hi, since you were beating me to the reverts on Tyler, I figured I'd go ahead and knock out the ARV after he did another after your final warning. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked IP having just edited

So it says on [IP's talk page] that it has been blocked for three months, yet I just reverted a vandalism edit from them, have they been unblocked or is this some kind of evasion? Thanks, cnbr¹⁵ 12:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cnbr15: The block is actually from April last year (1 April 2014) so it has been expired for a while now. If it starts to generate another vandalism spree it can earn itself a new one though . Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks! I'll keep an eye on it to make sure it doesnt! cnbr¹⁵ 13:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello from IzzysGirl

I work in a school and when I came to Wikipedia to look up something, I get a message about "new messages". It was puzzling for a few minutes, being chastised for my "unconstructive" editing, which was compared to vandalism on pages like Nero, Goje and Mount Aso . . . pages to which I've never been . . . and being warned that I would be blocked from editing. I looked at the pages that were edited and was even more confused . . . then I realized I WASN'T LOGGED IN!!! Whew . . . I logged in . . . but the message still appeared. What do I need to do to separate myself from the students?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:170.235.207.25&redirect=no

Thanks!

IzzysGirl (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC) IzzisGirl

@IzzysGirl: Hi IzzysGirl,

A very late reply since i haven't been around for a while, so perhaps you already managed to evade the barrage of warnings on the IP's talk page. Based on your explanation i have an idea what might have happened at the time. After you log in into your account you are automatically redirected to the page you were visiting before you actually logged into your account. My gamble would be that you were looking at the talk page of user 170.235.207.25 at the time you were logged in. So after you logged in, you were redirected to the previous page you were looking at, which happened to be the userpage of the IP address. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding an edit "I" made

Hi there.

At 10:15 p.m., 4/11/15, I was viewing the Wikipedia page on the "Baldric" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldric) when I received a message from you claiming you had revised one of my edits at 20:10, 9/30/13 on the "History of Earth" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth). Now, while the revision seemed valid, I would be remiss if I did not tell you that I did not make the edit in question, have never edited that Wikipedia page, nor have I made any edit on any Wikipedia page, and do not have a Wikipedia account. While I have not been personally affected by your revision, or your massage informing me of it, it seems the culprit of this edit is still at large and has yet to suffer any scolding for his actions. I am concerned why you thought that I had made the edit edit, and that the actual vandal has gone unscathed. I'm sorry if this message seems in any way petty, tedious, or inconsequential.

I'm sure you'll figure this out, Adam

IP addresses, Wikipedia and you.

If you have no account on Wikipedia the Mediawiki software that runs Wikipedia will recognize you based on your IP Address as opposed to your username - this mechanism ensures that it is still possible to communicate with editors who are editing anonymously. There is one catch though. IP Addresses are assigned to you by your Internet Service Provider and based on the service provider they may be static or might be used to represent many people at the same time. As a result you might see a message that was intended for another user that user or had previously used the same address you were assigned. The orange "You have a new message!" bar displayed will be visible as long as the IP editor has not visited the talk page and looked at the message. In your case it seems that the then-owner of the IP address was warned but never looked at the warning, and no-one did so in the meantime (So when you visited Wikipedia, you were suddenly provided with a notification regarding a rather ancient message).

This issue is a frequent source of confusion so I've opted to create an image that explains the situation. (Click to enlarge). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle block

Hey Excirial! I see you have been less active as of late, and frankly, I don't like it. Get back to work! We're not paying you for nothin! :) Seriously though, when and if you do become active again soon, I was wondering if you'd be willing to help test the new Twinkle Block module. Let me know if you're interested! And hopefully you don't mind that I keep coming back to you about getting input for all of my scripts :) Hope all is well — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Definitely a lot better than the past couple of weeks. The seasonal flu usually passes with me sneezing twice but this one managed to knock me flat for a week and took another two to go away entirely. This also left with with a somewhat sizeable lit of "Things that should already have been done last week" that I've been busy clearing out. It might take another while before i'm back to full steam editing but i manage to find create gaps here and there for some quick editing, so at least there is some progress!

But enough about me making excuses for my lax behaviour on the job as of late! I'd definitely like to give a hand with testing the new block module for twinkle. If it works as well as EasyBlock and as conveniently as the spam user script i am one happy platypus. As said it might take a little while before i get some real results though as i am currently a still a busy bee instead of a platypus. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, your health comes first! Just so you know Twinkle block is sort of like a the protection module but for blocking. Full-featured, but it will require one or two more clicks to do some of the same operations EasyBlock does. However it gives you full control to set whatever options you need, and make all the templated blocks. I believe people may end up using the two scripts in tandem, as they sort of serve different needs. The spamublock functionality will eventually be merged in. Anyway, if you see any settings that you think should be set for the presets (e.g. block duration should be longer for this offense, etc etc), just let me know. Thanks and hope you feel better! — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess I should tell you how to install the test block module. Add the following to the *bottom* of your common.js (or monobook): importScript('User:MusikAnimal/Twinkle-block.js');. This is actually a hack of sorts. It will override your existing Twinkle warn module and add the block module after one second, which is the only way to do it until it gets merged into Twinkle's core script. The Block menu option should show on any user-related page, again after one second. Thanks again — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I added it, and i now see a lovely new tab with a lot of options. I didn't have spare time for an in depth test so i naturally ended up poking around it for an hour once i started (Ah, life's priorities!). There is a few things that i think might be worth mentioning:

• If you select a block template that does not allow a linked article or block rationale the respective fields for them are made inactive (grayed-out). I would suggest making them invisible instead to save some space and to prevent any initial confusion as to why they are not click able.
• I would suggest renaming the "Generic Block" preset to "Custom Block" and move it down somewhat. Since about every block template in existence is covered by the tool the need for a custom block should be fairly rare. If it is indeed intended to be a generic block i would suggest checking "Block account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used (hardblock)" by default for registered users and "Block account creation" for IP users as those will be user 99% of the time for a generic block. By the way, i love that the block template list is different for IP users and registered users. That really makes things easier.
• If you check or uncheck the option to leave a block template, all other entered settings are reset. I doubt that will be done often, but i did lose an edit summary or two during the tests i did.

Aside from those usability suggestions i am kind of stunned i cannot get the thing to malfunction as that is normally a skill i am quite proud of. Blocking works, reblocking works, omitting critical data is caught, adding garbage data to the duration field is detected and reported to the user, not checking any action generated an error, attempting to block yourself generated a notice, even IPv6 addresses are correctly detected as IP addresses and provide the user with the IP block options. By the way, you are aware that it is a time-honored tradition that new code should be buggy right?

But... after meticulous checking of the script i did find two errors that needed to be corrected and i have taken the liberty to do so myself as soon as i spotted them. See this revision for the changes i made. Seeing the complete lack of real problems i figured i might just as well make the Paedocypris i angled up sound like a grandiose catch for a second. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Haha thank you Excirial! This was very helpful. I'm a bit surprised you couldn't find bugs either, to be honest! That's why I come to you :) To be fair however I've had the Twinkle maintainer do several code reviews, but I don't think he did any actual hands-on testing. I'll have an update for you before too long. Best! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I updated the script last night with your recommendations. Feel free to give it another whirl and let me know if you think of anything else to improve :) Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello from 40.133.4.194

I am confused. I got a message from you saying that I had removed information from William Mason's page as well as Gustav Mahler's page even though I have never been to either of their pages. 40.133.4.194 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your level of activity has been reported

My dear Excirial, if you keep this up I will pass you, with this very edit! (assuming the count is current). Anywayz, you've been a great help to our lovely project, a longtime administrator who hath done her majesty very valuable service, and I hope you'll stick around. Yours is one of those names I have always looked for: thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to a research survey

Hello Excirial, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H

Here is the link to our Meta:Research page. Feel free to sign up if you want to know the results! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship

Wuqi333444 (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I miss you

We all miss you. Come back. Please? <puppy eyes /> (t) Josve05a (c) 23:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Template overflow at your Dashboard page

Dear User:Excirial. At Category_talk:Pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded we are trying to reduce the number of pages on overflow. That's the reason why I have noticed that your User:Excirial/Dashboard page is on overflow. This is due to the transclusion of User:Excirial/Dashboard/Content that itself transcludes {{admin dashboard}} that itself transcludes.... Perhaps should you consider to directly transclude {{admin dashboard/light}} into your user page (this template has the same functionality as {{admin dashboard}}), or take any other action to move your page below the template include size limit ? Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Merging Gamow–Teller transition article

Hi Excirial, Four years ago, you reviewed Gamow–Teller transition... I am preparing to merge Gamow–Teller transition with beta decay, since I view it to be redundant with the main article, and esoteric as its own article. Various notices have remained at the top of Gamow–Teller transition for lo these many years. I invite comments/objections/etc. None are expected, but here is a chance, given your earlier involvement. Bdushaw (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

A message from Elysiumgate

Hello I would like to recreate the page for AES International, which I believe you moved in 2013:

13:38, 11 February 2013 Excirial (talk | contribs) moved page User:Elysiumgate/sandbox to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Samuel Instone (Preferred location for AfC submissions)

I am new to Wikipedia and not sure how this works, but would very much like to try and publish this page again with new content. I believe I have to contact you first?

Many thanks Elysiumgate (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Elysiumgate (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Excirial. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Dear Excirial,

I would like to make you aware of an individual that operates under the alias Richard Gooi that has systematically denuded a properly cited and approved article to paint a negative picture of the subject matter John de Ruiter. I have appealed to this individual to use the talk feature to make changes or suggested changes in creating a balanced article but this individual has continued to systematically remove each approved citation with negative ones or none at all. I believe these actions amount to vandalism and have no other recourse but to suggest that this person's IP address be blocked. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planktonium (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Excirial

Pratyya ^(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2016. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2016 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2016 go well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Excirial,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Excirial.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Excirial. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

help please

hi excirial. sorry to have to ask. i have broken bones and cannot maintain my stuff for a few weeks. please could you kindly keep an eye on the articles i created. they are usually very quiet except William Swinden Barber which had a troll recently. also i have an article accepted for dyk, probably still on the nom page. i have many recent commoms uploads but i guess they'll be ok. thank you. Storye book (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

2600:1017:B419:A570:C9C3:402D:4E8A:9554

Please block user:2600:1017:B419:A570:C9C3:402D:4E8A:9554 for she is evading a block and continuing to blame others for her wrongdoings. 2600:1:9245:F7CD:C4B3:32E7:99CC:2E96 (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems like i managed to miss this one right before i logged of for the day, but User:Graeme Bartlet seems to have taken care of it in the meantime. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

A message from 174.27.123.24

Jalen Anthony Deandre Jaquille Rose... thats his name 174.27.123.24 (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism bot

Hello Excirial. I was reviewing recent changes and noticed contributions from these two IP addresses: 47.20.164.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 209.29.23.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- they appear to be the same operator. Do you know if this is part of a larger pattern which is documented somewhere, and is this a bot network working from open proxies? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yamaguchi先生: I've only returned yesterday after a long hiatus in editing, but i was wondering about the exact same thing. This pattern has been around the entire evening: IP editor replaces a letter trough an article at bot-like speeds with a 3 character edit summary. As soon at it is blocked another one will pop upa minute or two later using the same pattern. There seems to be no connection in network / ip range beween em. When i noticed the pattern i started recording the IP's and we're already over 15 in two hours (And i can't have been the only once finding there):

• 220.156.0.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 201.35.95.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 66.130.18.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 98.246.131.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.95.116.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.89.163.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 115.146.126.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 204.129.158.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 84.165.99.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 37.57.107.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 74.102.234.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 86.155.94.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 97.99.170.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 47.20.164.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 209.29.23.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 219.107.226.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 200.109.156.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Guess that all we can do is play whack-a-mole with these and simply block as soon as an editor is spotted. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your speedy reverts and user-blocks to fight vandalism! Loopy30 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Loopy30: Thank you! Generally taken it's better if i have nothing to do, but a budy evening every now and then doesn't hurt. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Fannie Ostrander

Thanks for that. Not sure the article's worth all the fuss - I think I can just barely support notability given that WorldCat lists some 20 titles in various libraries. So she was evidently prolific...and a lot of those books are still popping around on the antique market, apparently.

Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: From what i can tell its likely a bot that targets a random recently edited article and then keeps replacing content till blocked. O well, i suppose its easy to detect and broom out of the door each time it returns. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

A bot? Judas Priest, that's...I don't even see the point. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry

Need some guidance, if you have the time. After reading your helpful guidelines highlighted in green above, I have decided to proceed with my inquiry in a neutral vague fashion 'first' BEFORE filing a report with you in order to honor good faith and guarantee civility. This way if I'm wrong, no drama is provoked.

Anyhow...on with my inquiry.... A disruptive user who doesn't know when to quit was stalking some of us AND he was recently "indefinitely topic-banned from the WP:ARBAPDS topic area (post-1932 U.S. politics and closely related people)."

Nobody expected him to take it well, and sure enough a day later he went to THIS following article about America's nemesis Saddam Hussein [1] where he unilaterally reverted the edits of others (despite the evolving consensus against him).

However, in his defense, does this article qualify as part of that ban? Saddam Hussein, like Vladimir Putin, are certainly major topics of American politics and "closely related people" as far as American politics go. In fact, within the article itself is THIS line,"According to officials of the United States State Department, many human rights abuses in Saddam Hussein's Iraq were largely carried out..." So, this article certainly is embedded with American politics inside and out. And this editor is a long time editor very knowledgeable about politics, so there can be NO doubt he is aware of Saddam Hussein's politicized history in American politics (i.e.Saddam was installed by the American CIA to run Iraq and given his infamous stature during both Iraq Wars he remains a highly politically-charged figure in American politics, so it is impossible to seperate the politics of the page which are very much a part of this article, etc.)

The disruptive user was advised by the editors who topic-banned him focus on future articles that are as far removed from politics as possible (i.e. like fishing or videogames, etc.) So he's very aware of the stipulations of his punishment. An article about America's nemesis Saddam Hussein clearly is NOT what they meant, and he knows this. In fact, the edit in violation IMHO of his TBAN was based upon his political interpretation of information from mainstream journalism which he simply doesn't trust for that personal reason.(i.e. he's labeling information from mainstream journalists as OR).

Sounds straightforward enough, right?

BUT....I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about the innerworkings of wikipedia violation enforcement. Sooooo...I'm leaving out the username of the disruptive user 'for now' since, in his defense (and assuming good faith) IF I'm wrong THEN I do NOT want to unnecessarily provoke him, etc. However, if this IS a clear violation of the above stipulation, then of course I will proceed with my report/inquiry and follow through since the reason he was tbanned was his stubbornness in listening to admins in the first place. In which case, the consensus of admins who admonished him agreed that a time out for him to chill out and reflect on his behavior is probably in order in the event of future disruptions, etc.

Sorry for the longwindedness of this reply. Working and I had to rush this off in my short break. Excuse the sloppiness but gotta go!

Let me know what you think here and thank you for your time. I will follow up with a report if you think this warrants action :)

Whoof, I think i am really not the best person to turn to for this matter. My normal working area is cleaning up vandalism, spam and similar more obvious problems and on top of that i have only just returned this week from about 1.5 years of very low-volume article editing as an IP address. Due to that i am only just catching up with the changes in my own old working area, and anything beyond that - such as recent ARBCom cases and rulings - are still hazy until i manage to catch up with those as well.

Since this is a rather in-depth problem and seeing that ARBCOM generally doesn't come into the picture unless something complex escalated i fear my involvement hear is likely as effective as hiring a kindergartner to work as a scientist on the Manhattan Project. As a result i can probally only give the generic advice of going trough the usual dispute resolution steps to see what can be done that way. If you believe there is an ARBCOM ruling that imposes a topic ban that is being violated you may want to look for a third opinion from arbcom or another editor who has been actively involved in the case. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 00:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

A message from 2605:E000:3057:DA00:F015:6FAB:EBF8:3FC8

ITI-007. The reasons why the drug candidate did not pass the second phase three trial was discussed in my edit. I do not think that the page should be owned/operated/updated only by Intra-Cellular Therapies and instead should feature content from Independent Thinkers & Researchers. Again this page should not solely be dedicated to the pharmaceutical company. The only people that would say my edit wasn't constructive would be the people telling you it wasn't. I have been told from an IT consulting group that edits that are deleted are directed to be removed by Intra-Cellular. 2605:E000:3057:DA00:F015:6FAB:EBF8:3FC8 (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@2605:E000:3057:DA00:F015:6FAB:EBF8:3FC8: If i look at the pages history, there have been just 28 edits since the page was initially created on 19 May 2015. Virtually all of the pages content has been written by the origional writer who hasn't edited the page after it was initially published. I can't see any indication that Intra-Cellular Therapies has any form of ownership problem on this page sheerly because the page has barely been edited by anyone beyond minor changes and corrections. As for the newly added content there are several problems related to it. One issue is that it is entirely devoid of any reliable sources that back up the content that was written. Aside from the verifiability issue the added text is essentially origional research that is written in a non neutral tone.

For example, take these lines:

• Lumateperone is a drug that the schizophrenic community needs and wants to have
• They are the patients that appear to doctors after a ER visit or even picked up off the street from a bad part of town

The first line is more or less what i would expect to read in a sales brochure: "Buy product X, you always wanted and needed it". Note that i am not commenting whether or not people would actually want this drug, but rather on the fact that this is not a line one would expect in an encyclopedia. The second line is more or less the same issue: It makes a claim without any backup as to its truthfullness whatsoever. I could rewrite the statement to claim that "They are patients selected using an intricate system designed to ensure various population groups are fully represented to ensure an accurage and high quality trial of the medicine". Assuming we don't just end up reverting eachother over and over what could any reader even conclude? We pose two opposing statements and neither of us presents any evidence that a claim is correct.

Which brings me to a final issue: The content is kind of unrelated to Lumateperone and its clinical trials. After the first line we more or less leave the Lumateperone subject entirely and head what i would describe as a summary of shortcomings of medical trials in general and issues with present medicines that have equivalent functionality. Regardless of whether or not this is correct it is irrelevant in the current context. The subject of the article is Lumateperone so its content should be limited to that drugs general information, merits, shortcomings and so on. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 00:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Excirial. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— MusikAnimal ^talk 05:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

White Knoll High School

I'm adding edits to a page I consider very valueable to me and it's the white knoll high one and I put the truth on their and some one is trolling it for fun and I'm trying to keep it true can you please keep them from putting lies on it. Little ones can read what they write. Thx jasmine Clemsongirl262 (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Clemsongirl262: Fixing vandalism is something i always applaud, but you may want to refrain from inserting commentary such as "(Remember little kids read this at their schools and if you think it's funny to put what you put on here that isn't true about white knoll like say ur a wildcat then ur stupid js)" (diff) into the article when doing so. That text can also be read by anyone looking at the article, and adding such content to an article is pretty much a vandalism red flag when checking a recent diff. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Tom Garfinkel

I just accepted a pending change [2] at this article by User:Dolphins2020 but only afterwards noticed you had just removed edits made by User:ScottStone20 and User:ScottStone2020. Seems like a return as yet another account. — Neonorange (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Neonorange: Seems like that is yet another block evasion sockpuppet. Thanks for pointing that one out, it's been put back into the laundry now. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

A message from Martinus Kundla

G'day, thanks for reverting the Paddington Bear page. The changes to that page came from my school IP, and the changes to that site were not requested nor made by me. Martinus Kundla (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

School IP's have somewhat of a higher vandalism rate than usual IP's but that is more or less to be expected. Your own edits look just fine, so there should be no problem related to editing from the school IP.

A message from Addyianson

Addyianson (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC) The edit that you reverted, thanks, was an error. I was trying to rectify it too. Thanks a lot.

No problem! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Onecoin

Hello. Please see page history, the same user is still at it, replacing the entire (very well sourced) article with marketing material copied from a website (this time from onelife.eu). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I see you gave him a final warning for his copyright violations, so if he or she persists it will be a quick way to a block. (Though you might want to start with a level 3 warning over a 4im at once). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I gave him a level-4im since his edits were repeatedly made, and not only copyright violations but also vandalism (whitewashing a well sourced article by removing all content) and using Wikipedia for marketing and promotion... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Admiral Lord Nelson School

We've both been reverting vandalism to Admiral Lord Nelson School just now, but it looks like there's a lot of older badness left. Established 'a long time ago in a galaxy far far away' etc. I've not been editing long enough to know exactly how best to deal with it, but perhaps we need to revert to a much earlier version? Mortee (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mortee: Well spotted.

Looking at a diff from 19 November till today it seems nothing worth keeping was added in that time period, so i've gont ahead and restored that version. I also blocked one account and two IP's for their role in creating that mess and protected the page for three days. With some luck that will be enough for the vandals to lose interest. If not we can always do some more brooming i guess! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello my name is Mr Collier, I teach Computer Science at Admiral Lord Nelson school. I made this account to firstly thank you both for fixing the vandalism on our page and preventing any future vandalism that may have been done. Having reviewed the changes and the users account that was responsible for the changes we are fairly certain who the culprit is. Some of the edits have been done with a mobile and some have been done with an account. I was wondering if it would be possible for you to tell me the IP address of the account that was used to vandalize our schools page.

Kind regards and appreciation for your hard work. I hope this is the correct way to communicate with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrCollierALNS (talk • contribs) 12:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@MrCollierALNS: Good afternoon Mr Collier,

Leaving a message on a users talk page is indeed the perfect method to contact them - when a message is left on a user talk page the mediawiki software will warn that user they received a new message.

In regards to the underlying IP address of the TylerPafford6969 account I - unfortunately - have to mention that IP addresses utilized by accounts are considered private data which cannot be disclosed par the Wikimedia privacy policy. In case of abuse IP data can be checked by members of the CheckUser group but this data may not be publicly disclosed beyond statements that two separate accounts can be linked to each other; Under no circumstance is a checkuser allowed to state that a specific account can be tied to a specific IP address. I'm afraid I can therefore not offer much assistance with the identification of the suspected culprit in that matter. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response, the deputy head questioned my prime suspect and he confessed to creating that account and those modifications under that username and has been reprimanded and punished, doubly so since he used another students name. The other modifications IP addresses are coming from Cell towers around the Portsmouth area so these people will not be able to be caught unfortunately. Thankfully you two caught the mischief these reprobates were up too and put a stop to it.

Now that the wiki for ALNS is semi-protected, is there a way that we as a school can get control of it so that we are responsible for updating it? I have only used Wikipedia for research so i am unsure on the procedures for things like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrCollierALNS (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@MrCollierALNS: Requests to lock a page to a specific revision or to prevent editing outside a group of editors are somewhat common, but they would run contra to the basic Wikipedia principle that it is the "encyclopedia that everyone can edit". Page protections tend to be temporally measures to stem an influx of vandalism or to quell disputes between a group of editors, and they are rarely set to be permanent.

That said there is a plethora of countermeasures to prevent pages from being vandalized, born out of sheer necessity (As you may imagine being open to edit freely also attracts quite some less productive editors: At prime time there are 140+ edits every minute on Wikipedia, of which 10-12 are reverted as vandalism). There are preventative measures that catch likely vandalism from going trough before they are even saved. There is also some artificial intelligence at work that checks edits as soon as they are saved and beyond that there are the regular human editors who monitor edits in near-realtime using specialized software for that purpose. The vast majority of the unproductive edits is caught in minutes though unfortunately some of it slips trough (The 11 January vandalism on Admiral Lord Nelson School seems to have been missed for instance).

That said: If you wish to keep an eye an article without having to check it manually it is possible to watchlist the article, while subsequently enabling email notifications. The Admiral Lord Nelson School article receives few edits under regular circumstances, with just 9 edits in 2016, 4 edits in 2015 and 4 edits in 2014 (Thus this shouldn't prove to be too spammy). Alternatively articles can be monitored trough an RSS feed though this may be less convenient on articles with few edits. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, i will set up a wishlist and then email notifications like you suggested. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrCollierALNS (talk • contribs) 15:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A message from Sls123456789

The mayor of millport is no longer Icie Wriley the new Mayor is Stanley Alred. Also the town clerk is no longer lynette it is undecided at this point but she is no longer the clerk. Sls123456789 (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

And what, precisely, does that have to do with this edit where you added "Alexis Weathers" with the description "stupidest person here"? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A message from Vladimirrizov20

Hello. I made a mistake and I'm sad. Could I use sandbox for experiment? Vladi 21:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Vladimirrizov20: Sure. You can either use the general sandbox or create one for yourself Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

A message from IhaveEatenBananasbe4

Hello, I would like to inform you about the vandalism I committed, it was a dare. Peer pressure I think it is called, I will refrain from doing so next time IhaveEatenBananasbe4 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That would indeed be a good idea. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

A message from 204.115.126.98

204.115.126.98 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Jon Voight's Wikipedia, how is calling him a war hero constructive?

@204.115.126.98: You could have reverted the previous edit to restore the old nickname, or at least simply have removed the "War Hero" part. There is no excuse whatsoever for changing it to "scumbag". Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

A message from 76.27.193.104

Russian disinformation campaign is known to Americans: https://www.google.com/?q=Medvedev+prime+minister. Why are you asserting he is prime minister? Further evidence: https://www.google.com/?q=medvedev+breitbart. Additional evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dmitry_Medvedev&type=revision&diff=740064225&oldid=738109917

76.27.193.104 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@76.27.193.104: I'm asserting that the text "you're caught User:Materialscientist, give up. Love, America" has no place in the main article body of Dmitry Medvedev (Or any other article for that matter). Beyond that, "according to a simple google search" is not a reliable source. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Allan G. MacMaster's

Hi there. Trying to make edits to Allan G. MacMaster's page at the Member's request with an updated biography and links. Some information was replaced and referenced. Old information can be saved if necessary, but the new information either reflects an update (for example committees have changed) and the update also references newer stuff from the legislature with links. A newer photo will also be sent for this page.

Appreciate your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliticalKnowItAll (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@PoliticalKnowItAll: Initially I rolled back an edit on Allan MacMaster because it removed the infobox (99 out of 100 times this is either vandalism or unintentional, hence the revert). A rollback automatically restored the last revision that was not made by the editor whose edit was undone, hence the earlier edit also being cancelled out.

That said, having looked at the previous edit i can see multiple points of concern with that edit as well.

One issue is that the edit is clearly promotional in tone. For example:

• One of North America’s leading full service investment firms ("leading full service" is a weasel word)
• Allan believes investment in wellness is a key to reducing the cost of healthcare and helping people enjoy a better life (Irrelevant)

Beyond these specific lines the added text reads like something i would expect on a personal website highlighting Mr. MacMaster achievements as a politician. For example: "potentially restoring $7 million of economic activity" is an uncertainty (Did it restore 7 million worth of activity? Hard evidence?). Same with the "heartfelt" comment (Yes, the source states it, but it remains a non neutral term).

A secondary issue I believe should raise is that I see a potential conflict of interest. Seeing the content of the edit i assume you may be related to Mr. MacMaster in some way. If that is the case i would point out that this constitutes a conflict of interest with the article which makes it difficult to write neutral, encyclopaedic content. Editing with a conflict of interest is strongly advised against up to the point where it is not allowed (This applies when you receive financial remuneration as an external contractor, employee or similar). If this applies, please have a look at the Paid Editing Terms of Use. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for response Excircial.

First time trying to edit content using information provided to me, so will vet for promotional language and reference accordingly. Fingers crossed I do things right this time. ::Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliticalKnowItAll (talk • contribs)

== Old Kingdom (Egypt) Third Dynasty section hacked citation 5 == By an Afrocentric it is the only way the whole section reads and makes sense. The Dr. Dr. Susan J. Herlin is not affiliated as of this date with the Department of History at the University of Louisville in embedded link. Unable to find books referenced I did find a Susan J. Herlin with the last name Broadhead, in Amazon "Trade and Politics on the Congo Coast 1770-18701971" by Susan Herlin Broadhead. I determined the citations as published by this Dr. Herlin might be two separate works with the earliest period mentioned as the 15th century BCE and long after the 3rd Dynasty. Google refused as did Amazon to locate any work by the article's authority Dr. Susan J. Herlin. Lotfinia (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)" Thank you Excirial :) Lotfinia (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lotfinia: I think i repaired the issue in this edit by replacing the (now dead) reference with an archived copy from 2003. It looks like the original source was taken down and as a result redirected the user to a general page. Based on the archived data there is - or at least used to be - a "Dr. Susan J. Herlin" who wrote the original text. A quick Google search reveals a Ms.Herlin who taught history at the University of Louisville until 2004, before she passed away in 2014. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Excirial. Re my previous request. I'm not sure if you had time to keep an eye on my stuff while I recovered from my injury, but if you did, then thank you. I am not yet quite recovered, but I am able to maintain my watchlist most days now. Thank you again. Storye book (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Storye book: I actually didn't see that message until the 11th of January due to myself gnoming as an IP editor for about 1.5 years (I've pretty much been gone since May 2015). The nudge on my talk page made me realize i had been gone a very long time this time around so I figured I'd pick up my usual vandalism patrol duty once again. I can't say i did a great job monitoring them the first few weeks since i wasn't around, but i did make a point of checking William Swinden Barber every evening since i came back. (And i hope i covered the other ones during my regular vandalism beat).

That said, I'm happy to hear you're back and feeling better. Though i suspect that "better" may be relative since "bones" is plural (If it rains, it pours i guess). That said, im be back to patrolling and I'll be keeping an eye on William Swinden Barber a while longer to make sure it remains as quite as it was recently.

Best wishes, and a speedy recovery!

Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts. Much appreciated. Storye book (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots

Would you consider the edit you just reverted on this page RD2/3 worthy? I am of that opinion. WNYY98 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@WNYY98: Yes, combined with that edit summary i suppose it'd best removed entirely. Done so just now. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

A message from Samsamsim

Samsamsim (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC) hi please concider correcting data about mauritania in english and french since you have some false informations written by some local ngo's who model the image as they wish for theyr profit . regards

RD2 on Liviu Dragnea

Thanks - I've been waiting for RPP for a couple of hours, do you think you can help expedite the process? Thanks, Garchy (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Already done by Drmies (talk · contribs) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

A message from Lotfinia

Help! I have grave doubts this is a copy of what I wrote on my talk page Excirial I'll paste the whole of it here since I know you are a busy person. "Old Kingdom (Egypt) Third Dynasty section hacked citation 5[edit]

your a meany

209.145.122.230 (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's true. Very sad. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

A message from 89.240.127.106

89.240.127.106 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Why did u remove my Jan Treagegele it took me forever to right that and now this is how u pay me back.This took me over one month and u changed all of it not just a part.Plz reply asap because i am really upset 89.240.127.106 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits such as this one are not acceptable. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry

Need help enforcing a block evasion. An user editing on some of our articles was recently banned for a few weeks for socking. On one occasion he violated his ban by trying to edit by proxy on his talk page. This was reported to a neutral admin, for which his talk page access was promptly revoked as a consequence. *sigh* Now he's using the email function hoping to convince other editors to help him edit articles. Pretty cut and dry case of block evasion.

Simply looking to report this latest violation to another neutral admin to extend the block since if a blocked user emails you out of the blue, it is generally a good idea to notify a blocking admin, as this is normally an abuse of the email service. Since he's continuing to be disruptive and making it clear he has no intention to stop, I will recommend that his blocks be increased accordingly to deter further block evasion. This is a no-brainer and I can provide the necessary diffs if this is something within your realm of authority. But I'm not here to embarrass anyone, hence why I'm being discreet about this now. If this is something you can help me with, I will provide the diffs.200.219.247.171 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello there 200.219.247.171,

In some situations a third party such as myself can offer a fresh perspective but in this case I would advice taking this issue up with the admin or admin(s) who are already involved and / or issues the original block. If we are talking about sock-puppetry and block evasion the judgement call of whether or not this is correct is best left to someone already familiar with the situation that caused the original block. I would have to evaluate this situation from scratch and therefore it would be unlikely that my judgement on this matter would be as on point as someone already involved in this. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A message from 70.55.242.123

70.55.242.123 (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC) regarding my Rick Dudley "contributions", at least they were creative...I mean, comparing Rick Dudley to Elmer Fuddley...pure genious

A message from 2003:6:181:C644:9C65:6E32:738C:F7E5

Hi Excirial, thank you for reviewing the legal technology article. Why did you delete the german section and my link? advocado is one of the leading legal technology companies in Germany since 2014!

Please ask if you need more information. Best Jacob 2003:6:181:C644:9C65:6E32:738C:F7E5 (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@2003:6:181:C644:9C65:6E32:738C:F7E5 and 2003:6:181:C644:9C65:6E32:738C:F7E5: Hello there Jacob,

I removed the link and - after inspection - the rest the German section due to the links not conferring to the external link guideline. The link itself has multiple reasons why it shouldn't be inserted in the article:

• The link is promotional in nature - the website it links to exists for no other reason than to promote a company / sell a service.
• The website is only cursory to the subject of the article which is legal technology. Certainly, it is a company that happens to work in that specific area but this is still not enough to warrant inclusion. Imagine if the Butcher article would link to every butchery shop in existance, or that the Human article would include every person alive.

The rule of the thumb is that company websites should not be added to articles unless there is specific reason to include a link, which in general only applies if the link is added to an article detailing the company itself. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

you messaged me: editing cary illinois

What are you talking about? I've never edited a thing on Wikipedia, but I was looking something up and suddenly a message from you popped up. It said something about me editing a page with a name like Cary Illinois. Who are you and why are you bothering me????

I would sign this, but I don't have any kind of ID for this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.12.38 (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@172.56.12.38:

It is quite possible that you yourself have never edited that page - or any page for that matter - but your current IP address has previously been used to edit Wikipedia. Have a look at your IP's contributions - you will notice your own message on my talk page alongside the previous edits made. IP Addresses are not always static (Tied to a specific customer of an internet service provider). Oftimes IP addresses are dynamically assigned or used as a gateway for multiple people. Long story short: Another person has previously been assigned your current address, used it to vandalize, was warned for that but never read it. Later on you were assigned the IP Address and received the old warning for an edit made by another user. The image on the right side visualizes this situation (Click on it for a larger resolution). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi

One Zebedee, bouncing by!

Thanks for the kind words. I took a year or so off, but you know how compelling this place is ;-) And the feeling is mutual - I'm very happy to see you still helping to sweep the corridors clean. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Three-R-One deletion

Give me a good reason as to why you want to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consumingfire1 (talk • contribs)

@Consumingfire1:

The rationale for the article's for deletion template can be found on the AFD Discussion which can be found at the aforementioned link. I have no opinion on the article itself beyond that the added template should not be removed until the AFD discussion is finalized. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

A message from Chrisguarino

Hello! I am new to wikipedia and i have absolutely no idea what i am doing. I am trying to make a page about my dad's small company, Island Jay, but I am receiving messages that i am making inappropriate edits. Please help me figure out what to do. I do not want to get banned. Thank you Chrisguarino (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Chris,

As you might imagine there are billions of topics people could write about, and not everything is important enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia. In order to determine what is important enough, a few guidelines and policies are in place which dictate what does and what doesn´t pass the threshold. The most basic policy is the general notability guideline which states that a subject is notable if the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. There are also some more specialist policies for other specific subjects, such as WP:CORP which deals with company notability.

Simply put: For a small company meeting the notability requirement may be challenging to the point where it is usually not possible. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)