User:Lectonar/Archive 15

OBERLINER

I have now added several third party references to OBERLINER article. Please review them, its a new project working on local journalism and is appreciated very much in local community here in Berlin at this moment as the magazine is not too old we may not be able to provide many links. Its a non-profit project and promotion is not our focus we like to be on Wikipedia so that people can know more about our practical approach on local journalism. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.5.215.147 (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly the point; we will have to let the AfD run it's course. Lectonar (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

RFPP

See my comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Kosovo.E2.80.93Pakistan_relations_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Cprotect.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. I still think these need protection due to persistent sockpuppetry. TDL (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have commented there. Lectonar (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Reconsider request for protecting page Swami Nithyananda

Lectonar, I would request you to reconsider the decline decision to protect page Swami_Nithyananda. The person abusing the page is not open to negotiation and has consistently abused the subject in violation of BLP norms. His account has been blocked due to excessive use of sock puppets. See his page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Call_me_xyz. But he continues to abuse the page by creating new accounts - which is the reason for the protection. Acnaren (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been protected now by another admin. Lectonar (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

United Kingdom local elections, 2014

Hi there. They're at it again. Would you mind protecting this one, too? Thanks — Richard BB 19:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, just as I posted that it got protected. Never mind! — Richard BB 19:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Parity of zero

Hello. It is sad that either my English is not good enough to employ an appropriate adjective, or you misunderstand what “persistent” means. In this instance it means more than two years: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Your insignificant one-week PCPL1 will not have any noticeable effect, except for the need to file yet another protection request. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Your English is quite excellent, I am sure it is better than mine, btw. The problem here is that the vandalism is indeed regular, but not that frequent....we have plenty of articles in the same state which are not protected. The intent here is to see how much vandalism is occurring (for me, I have watchlisted) and then 1)to be able to estimate if a longer protection is needed and 2), a little hope: to see if even the pd-protection might deter vandalism in the first place. Lectonar (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And to vent my feelings a little: my protection of this page might be insignificant, but I was the only admin doing the requests for protection, and we are volunteers too, you know :). Lectonar (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, watched for 3 weeks now...and we had exactly 1 attempt at editing from an IP, and this one wasn't even vandalism. So sorry, no need for a longer protection. Lectonar (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Masquerade

No problem, I'm keeping an eye on it. I've put it up for page protection, but it looks like blocking one of the users might have knocked out the rest, if it was a school IP. --McGeddon (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, actually I was on my way to block one of them too, so probably the autoblock took care of the rest. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Rampaging

Roarr! [/me stick the little Lectonar in pocket and tramp off.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC).

How I imagine Lectonar ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Remember Madam Mim......first there will be little red spots.....but thank you for your affection :). Lectonar (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And that is how I imagine myself, with all the powers of an admin....Lectonar (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Those monkeys

Hey Lectonar. :) I just noticed that the 🙈🙉🙊 REFUND got archived a few days ago. The consensus at the time was 4-1 to recreate, including yourself. Should I un-archive it, or would you be comfortable boldy recreating it yourself? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I boldly went where no admin has gone before, WP:IAR and the like. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for the TP revert. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As usual: no problem, you're most welcome. Lectonar (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Harleyhunter677

Hi Lectonar, could you explain why you only blocked the above guy for 31 hours instead of indef, considering he's a VOA. Cheers. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply because I believe in second chances and redemption. An indef block is quickly implemented, if push comes to shove. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Now, that guy's saying something about he "let his friend use the computer" blah blah blah to ask for unblock. It seems like a lie to me, but perhaps you may want to handle. Cheers. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

See, now he could be lying, but it just may be possible that he is not. And as I implemented the block, I will not handle the unblock request, as I see myself involved. Thx. Lectonar (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

user:Harleyhunter677

This user, whose talk page you have just edited and has, I understand, e-mailed you, has a short block. He has, in his unblock request, stated that his account is or has been compromised. I will not step on your toes, but are you happy with his block expiring and him editing with a compromised account?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I will mail you, ok? Lectonar (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Kindly extend the protection

24hrs protection is not going to do it. There is no hurry, protect the page for a longer period, preferably 72hrs at the least. There are 7-8 experienced editors and two admins involved in this colossal dispute, anybody may request an edit at the talk (that is the plan). Kindly protect the page or people will needlessly have to be blocked or they will edit at the expense of the perception of neutrality of the article. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be somewhat unnecessary now....

Mohammad Arif

Whoops, looks like we were both trying to do the same thing at the same time. Want me to return it to your intended end date? Yunshui 雲‍水 10:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not mind, as usual.....I only do 6 months create protection, at the most....and funny enough, I also wanted to delete the article, but you were faster, so I wanted to beat you to the protection :). On a more somber note: I was watching most intently the RfA of Kumioko, and took the test one user linked too, at http://www.politicalcompass.org/index .....when I go to the US the next time, I will probabyly be shot on sight. I just thought, when doing it, this begins to feel worse than Nazi Germany....Lectonar (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Turns out I'm somewhat more liberal and left-wing than Gandhi, the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela... That was interesting; I thought I'd left my hippy tendencies at university. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Me too, you can find me results on my awards page (seems that I am more leftist than Lenin, and more anarchic than Emperor Zhark....), if you are interested.....Lectonar (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Aaaaaand he's back, with socks

• He's back as User:EunuchRU. Might as well full-protect the page at this point - it's low editing volume and he may have a zillion sleepers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  I have given semi-protection now; if there are sleepers, they might not be autoconfirmed...we'll see. Lectonar (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Monstercat

The article had less info, but this one has sources that aren't first party, the reason the last was deleted. .torinO'Nihhrt (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Then this should go via deletion review; the procedure is outlined there... Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Block on ProudIrishAspie

Sorry to bother you bud, but a 31 hour block on PIA for violation of flags, there may be a two way reading of that on his part "It may in some narrow military history circumstances be appropriate to use flags, as they were used at the time being written about, including naval ensigns, provided that the flags are (as usual) accompanied at first occurrence by their country (or more narrow) names", is under the section WP:INFOBOXFLAG. As far as I can make out, I may be wrong, but he was adding naval, army and malitia flags and ensigns to infoboxs, this would appear to be within the section guidelines. Murry1975 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem about bothering me....but sorry, he was told in no uncertain terms that what he did might be wrong, and there also was an ANI thread about him....in which he did not comment. If he refuses to answer, and instead continues the thing that he was warned about without commenting....I am all for giving people leeway, and am aware about Aspergers', but he could have avoided the block by interacting and explaining exactly what his take is; we are not here to interpret his doings if he fails to interact. Add to that that there already have been problems with his behaviour (look at the history of his userpage; once there was a sentence about him hating the English etc...). I'd let the block run, and see if there is a reaction. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep. If we need to parse whether this or that flag is appropriate, and they are still added without any commentary whatsoever (in an edit summary, on a talk page, on a user talk page, at an ANI discussion), then there's disruption. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for that guys, yes the lack of communiction and interaction is probably more of an issue than the what way the guidelines read. It was just that I have came across many an article where flags are used for military allegence or service. Thanks for your time and help guys. Murry1975 (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem continuing after the block. [7] Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Given another warning; somehow I feel this will be going down the drain. Thanks for the headup. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

He is still adding national flags and still not responding. Also, just because articles use flags to show national allegiance doesn't make it a good idea. Span (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked again, for 60 hours. If he does not communicate, this is becoming a net-negative...and it is as I feared, above. Lectonar (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI intervention

Thanks for your calming comments. I feel I've been herding cats on the Hoppe article, which is why I have a {{user frustrated}} template up. I'll try to get back on my wiki-break. And it's a good thing I've been reading civility essays, otherwise I'd really be laying into some heavy and perhaps nasty commentary. Oh, to get back to Happy Happy Joy Joy! But your nudge in that direction is certainly helping. – S. Rich (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You're most welcome....and as much as I renjoy Ren&Stimpy....what makes me chuckle almost instantly is Three men in a boat....or for wiki-related humour, see this. Lectonar (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

-Wade Robson

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wade_Robson&diff=556505584&oldid=556504942

Why is biography vandalism acceptable to you? Ultra Venia (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read our protection policy. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

full protection of soviet union article again

can you please fully protect the soviet union article again Robert McClenon keeps removing the infobox again and again, there have been many threads and discussion and most users agree that the infobox should be KEPT in its ORIGINAL state Peterzor (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I really think you misread the talk-page, or simply do not know what consensus means....and, btw, blanking warnings on your talk-page does not make them go away....Lectonar (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

for removing that, no comment :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You're most welcome :) Lectonar (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hello L. regarding this report [8] I am curious what your standard is for protection. I count seven edits by four different IPs in two days all of which make the article inaccurate. I want to mention a few things - First, I hold off on AIV, RFPP etc reports until I see a real problem. Next the page in question is on only two active editors watchlist. If either of us take some time off from editing it is quite likely that the incorrect version won't get reverted to the correct one. Please don't get me wrong I don't have a problem with what you did - different admins handle things in different ways - that is to be expected. I just want to get a sense of your parameters for a situation like this. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I go by this, mainly, and a bit by my experience as an admin (I do many protection requests)...and what I have seen there was just a spike of vandalism in, as you said, 2 days....before these edits, there was nothing for weeks (and I might be wrong, but I think about 80% or more of the admins active at RFPP would have declined the protection, too). I daresay most of wikipedias medium to high level (viewed) pages get more vandalism edits than that. Take a look at Dillo Day, e.g., (which I protected)...and compare the article history, the frequency and the form the vandalism took. And the (temporary) inaccuracy of articles is the price we pay for being the encyclopedia that everyone can edit....add to that the list of horses is an article that will have a much lower viewing frequency (and be only of real interest for experts, or people interst in horse-sports: if I would have dropped in, I would not even have been able to see vandalism, because I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject)...and you have, at least approximately the line of thoughts I was going through. Sorry for the blathering, but it is kind of difficult to expalin.... and: I will put it on my watchlist....in olden times there was a saying at RFPP: just watchlist and revert. I know that you have many more edits than I do, and are on wikipedia almost as long as I am, so let me thank you for your hard work. Let's do this. Lectonar (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to reply. I just realized I left out one important fact. The edits that change the list most often come from the New York area. There is someone there (and in a few other places) that just don't like the fact that Man o War was chosen over Secretariat in this list. A weeks protection usually chases the person(s) off for several months. As the article is a list there really isn't any editing to that section that can improve it. Do your admin tools include the ability to view past protections? I thought about digging into the edit history to try and find the past ones but my time online is kind of fractured this week. In any event thanks for putting it on your watchlist as that will be a help. Thanks for your work here at WikiP and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there was one protection in June 2012, for one week. When I watchlist, I usually follow the edits as closely as I can, evaluate, and, if necessary, can come up with pending changes protection, lvl.1 ( I did that with Parity of zero). Lectonar (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: FC Bayern

I think these Bavarians are just a netball team in disguise aber gegen Stuttgart sollten sie kein Problem haben, den DFB-Pokal auch zu holen. Danke für das Bier; sehr spendabel von dir!!! Beste Grüße. Jared Preston (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You're most welcome....und ich strafe die Bayern mit Nichtbeachtung (Berliner strafen eigentlich all mit Nichtbeachtung ;)). Cheers and happy editing. I know I am not allowed to post links to youtube, but I think you might enjoy this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfnKl2oS0ow. Lectonar (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...

...as always. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You're most welcome, as always...and: who else would be around at this time? Lectonar (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Who else is ever around at RPP? I've been shirking duty there myself; bad Yunshui!

Of course, now that you've protected the article I suspect my talkpage is due for a battering instead (it's already taken some hits in the last 24hrs)... Yunshui 雲‍水 08:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Dozens of the 30 or so active admins.....hmmmm, and me being around at RFPP will come to an abrupt end beginning next week, for the whole month: sweet holidays are looming. You want your talk-page protected? Lectonar (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a kind offer, but no need; I don't think anyone would have a problem if I PP my own talkpage, and hopefully I won't have to. Enjoy your hols, going anywhere nice? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was half-joking about the protection...hyperbole, if you will. And yes: to the southwest of Ireland, Kenmare and surroundings. Lovely country, lovely people, lovely food...and lovely weather, sometimes. Lectonar (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice. Enjoy yourself (but if my own memories of southern Ireland are reliable, take an umbrella or two...). Yunshui 雲‍水 12:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Free!

Hello! I've noticed that you've semi-protected the article Free! until June 10. However, it appears that it was only vandalized by two users (unlike its last bout of semi-protection where there were several users vandalizing it), and from the look of it, they've stopped. Because of the relatively low activity, would it be possible to either: 1. unprotect it, 2. shorten the protection period, or 3. change it to pending changes protection? Thank you and happy editing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say leave it as it is....10 days is not so long, and for it seemed like people hadn't realized that is was unprotected again...so, the length is a bit of a precaution too. Lectonar (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Berlin population...

OK, so the older, i.e. 2011, data is more accurate than the "fortgeschriebene" of 2012. Had overlooked that "fortgeschriebene" in the footnote and it is not stated on the actual page refered to, but I suppose it's true. Maybe someone ought to do a "Fortschreibung" for the past yeasr and a half or simply add up how many people are actually registered in the Bezirksämter. I had assumed this latter total was the basis for the Nov. '12 figure. In any case, we'll get back to the 3½ million Berliners one of these days.Alandeus (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course, with people moving in all the time :). Have a look here: https://ergebnisse.zensus2011.de/, but you will have to fight your way through to the Berlin statistics (I am too lazy). Lectonar (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)