User talk:Nil Einne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Misplaced messages[edit]

{{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]

can you please actually upload the tor image from the ref desk[edit]


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. (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 . 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. . 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.) (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why the hell are you wasting my time with a witch hunt.[edit]

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.) (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. (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. (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]

Some baklava for you![edit]

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]

"I don't really understand what you're suggesting"[edit]

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? (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]

Magnum Crimen[edit]

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 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]

Edit warring at ANI[edit]

Stop icon

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]

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion[edit]


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: 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]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll[edit]

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]

Thanks for the support[edit]

...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]

Ref Desk[edit]

Hello, Nil Einne. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you![edit]

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[edit]

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]

Timothyhere sock?[edit]

Hi. You have been mentioned in relation to μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar Kanagasingam[edit]

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]

minor edit[edit]

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 on my talk page[edit]

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! -- (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. -- (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Nil Einne. You have new messages at's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

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

Twitter and other references/source[edit]

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]


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

Reference errors on 12 February[edit]

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

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]

Brian Martin professor; BLP violations on-going.[edit]

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. (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 {{}}.
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]

Notification about disabling the Wikipedia collections tool[edit]

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.


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

Reference errors on 7 April[edit]

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

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]

ANI - Ram Man[edit]

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. -- CassiantoTalk 06:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tilde vandal[edit]

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]

New question button[edit]

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

Erand Hoxta[edit]

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]

Regarding your post at WT:RD[edit]

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]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Nil Einne. 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)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

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

Perfect Use[edit]

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. (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 about refdesk indentation messing[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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]

Regarding Norwegian grammarians at RD[edit]

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[edit]

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]

Way to go on the reference desk[edit]

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]

Weather prediction stuff[edit]

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]

BLP / ANI statement[edit]

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]

A refreshing cup of tea for you![edit]

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 (TALKCONT) 03:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"IMO it's always risky to add content based solely on abstracts or snippets."[edit]

That should be chiseled into the walls around here.

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

Re: Science reference desk[edit]

Hello, Nil Einne. You have new messages at Plasmic Physics's talk page.
Message added 08:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Just FYI[edit]

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]

On this day, 12 years ago...[edit]

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]

My $.02[edit]

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]

New Page Reviewing[edit]

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[edit]

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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Nil Einne. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merry Christmas![edit]

Happy New Year, Nil Einne![edit]

   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. 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]

Question - Jefferson Davis Park, Washington[edit]

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]

I don't understand[edit]

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]


This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

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

Cal Poly talk page[edit]

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]

talk page reversions[edit]

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]

Thank you[edit]

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]

In response to message left for User:YborCityJohn[edit]

Hello, Nil Einne. You have new messages at YborCityJohn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Picking on Baseball Bugs[edit]

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]

IP User[edit]

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]

Just wondering...[edit]

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 (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 (やや) 20:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Open access DOIs[edit]

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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Nil Einne. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internet societys.[edit]

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. (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Reddit question 4[edit]

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]

Hi! It's me who asked about the mail service in New Zealand[edit]

My friend lives in Glenfield,_New_Zealand. Do you know where she can find an express mail post office? Thank you. (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]

Thank you...[edit]

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

Asdisis or whoever you are[edit]

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]

Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

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]

Kiwicherryblossom replies[edit]

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]

"often seems to bring up editors they've had disputes with in unrelated discussions to make a point"[edit]

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 (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]

Deleted question on RD[edit]

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]

Look again[edit]

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[edit]

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]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago[edit]

Ten years!

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

pump response to Comet egypt investigation[edit]

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. (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC) (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. (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your e-mail[edit]

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]

Response on my talk page[edit]

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]

Need your help!![edit]

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:

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]

Tommy Robinson again[edit]

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]


Information icon 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]

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

On contacting T&S[edit]

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 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 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 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 (If the message didn't mention what this email was for, 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]

For clarity[edit]

@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]

PD-USGov academic articles[edit]

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]

Want to make sure you don't miss this...[edit]


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]

on article protection[edit]

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]

Addition of doi-access=free marks[edit]

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]

Advice on topic ban[edit]

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

No merge[edit]

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]

September 2019[edit]

Information icon 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" (talkcontribs) 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]

Second Glance (film)[edit]

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]

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

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]

Happy First edit day![edit]

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 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]

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 (talkcontribs) 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]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process[edit]


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]

A barnstar for you![edit]

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]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

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]

New message from DBigXray[edit]

Hello, Nil Einne. You have new messages at Talk:Vivek_Agnihotri#Controversies.
Message added 08:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Re: Further discussion of your comment at ANI[edit]

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]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Nil Einne. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Pete (talk) 06:58, 8 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]

Happy Holidays[edit]

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]

Merry Christmas!![edit]

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]

Happy New Year, Nil Einne![edit]

   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. --DBigXray 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!

Alerting self[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

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]

ANI typo? Double negative?[edit]

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. (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]

Some issues with the current Wikipedia Quran articles[edit] Koreangauteng (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gurbaksh Chahal[edit]

@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]

Chahal ANI[edit]

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

Oh, PUH-LEEZ![edit]

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]

Christopher Langan[edit]

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]

Sorry for bothering you, but...[edit]

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
  • New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
  • If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:03, 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]

Australia for dummies[edit]

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? (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]

Admin corps[edit]

I've been passing this book review around to explain the violence of the bureaucracy of Wikipedia: Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Noticeboard - Brendan_Eich[edit]

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. (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd[edit]

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]

Admin Board Assistance[edit]

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]

PA on Graham Linehan talk page[edit]

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]

Common Law[edit]

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]

Alice S. Fisher request edit from May 18[edit]

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 editin