User:Lectonar/Archive 16

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Hi, Lectonar, I agree that the editing to the article is disruptive and a lock or editor sanctions might be appropriate, but which editor do you think has breached WP:3RR? Nothing recent, right? Are you talking about the June 27 battle?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, amongst others.....and I meant 3rr as edit warring per se in this instance (and as I see you left a message for the user in question, was on my way there to leave a message too). I had the joy of having to fully protect the article for almost two weeks in march. Lectonar (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You should feel free to do whatever you think best. In fact, it would be appreciated as I consider myself WP:INVOLVED based on previous content edits to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I will think about it, but this has been going on virtually for years with some calmer phases...RfC might really be the only option. Lectonar (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Good thing they can't shoot each other. :-) It's possible that a lock and an RfC may be needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That would not be trial by Wikipedia then ;)? Anyway, I will fully protect again at a pinch, and my suggestion for the RfC is already on the talk-page. We will see what we will see. Lectonar (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support a RfC. At present, one editor has deleted a US Supreme Court opinion because he believes a single law professor's opinion has more weight than twelve court decisions spanning 60 years (which he removed). I will make no more edits for 24 hours, but if this editors fails to change his/her view on this, I will post a Request for Comment or seek a resolution on the noticeboard at first just on this limited issue of reliability. GreekParadise (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That's grand; as usual, use the articles talk-page for further discussion. Lectonar (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

AK-47

AK-47 was vandalized nearly 20 times in just over a month (this is on average one unconstructive edit every 1.9 days). That's not enough disruption for semi-protection? ^King Jakob _C2 14:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, what I see are around 20 edits from IP's in the one month, and not all of them vandalism, but some just being edits by newbies, unconstructive perhaps, but far from being vandalism....not everybody who comes here is an expert in wiki-editing....and to answer your question plainly (and I will quote from the protection policy first: "...Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism....): no, even 1 vandalism edit per day would not constitute "heavy and persistent" vandalism. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As an example for heavy vandalism, have a look at the article history of Mohamed Morsi. Lectonar (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What about applying pending changes protection? I understand that that requires a lower level of vandalism to be implemented. ^King Jakob _C2 16:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that everyone can edit( even IPs): every protection which is applied changes that, because than not everybody can edit it; that is just Wikipedia culture and one of the 5 pillars. Of course I have thought about pending changes too, but originally pending changes were implemented to get a better hold of violations of the BLP-policy....and sorry again, as you might feel a little stronger about the article, what happens there is simple and pure, sometimes childish even, vandalism, in a not even very high frequency. I do not know how many articles you have on your watchlist (over 53, I see), but I am sure you get the feeling the article pops up a lot, almost every day, and you get annoyed with the vandalism. Just fyi: the article has been protected in the past, but the last time in the beginning of 2012. All in all, I stand by my decison to not protect. Cheers again. Lectonar (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Bearian#Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection

FYI, this is just a courtesy notice. There is no need to comment one way or another. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw; this new system has some positive sides. Thx for your involvement. Lectonar (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding what you said to me.

Don't worry, take a look on the date when these edits were made, there is no edit war here, i think you have misunderstood it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not think so....the last edits were today. I also would strongly urge you to put the edit-warring warning back on your talk-page. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What i meant was the other edits were days ago, while there were only two edits today and we have made one edit each, it's not really serious, since he has stopped. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; just stopping to edit for some time does not make the underlying problem go away....it just may be due to time-differences or real-life engagements. And edit warring is not about the number of edits. Lectonar (talk)

Those edits days ago were because of another reason, these edits today are something else. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

See below. Lectonar (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Lectonar. Thank you for your warning on my TP. However, I feel you have mis-aimed the warning. You should be directing it to user:HistoryofIran who:

- came in and single-handedly changed [1], without any consultation, an established wording agreement for the lede - which had been setablished after lengthy discussion on the Scythians talk page [2] (where numerous 3rd party users already commented). His stated reason was simply because he was "tired of this word called Iranic". Forget propper English conventions, and established concensus, but lets go with the personal whims and feelings of single editor ? I could not allow that, I felt justified

- I then did try to counsel this fellow as to why his wording is problematic [3], highlighting differences between German vs Germanic, Italian vs Italic to draw on independent but related concepts, but to no avail, who merely continued his mass reverts and insiting he is correct.

- a third party editor then came in an made an acceptable re-wording, using duly specific linguistic terms [4] only for HoI to then again feel compelled to add an entirely nwarranted sentence which smacks of nationalism [5].

- again, i commented on his talk page to try and enlighten him as to the problematic nature of his edits [6]. For a start, the source he used is a questionable quality on-line web page of some "PhD' Dr Farook [7], so it fails WP:RS. In addition it is WP:WEASAL scholars are virtually unanimous.. Which scholars ? This "Dr Farook" is "virtually all scholars" ? Moreover, it is WP:UNDUE . The lede already stated they were an East Iranian speaking people; why does he need to further add they were related to the Persians of ancient Iran ? It adds nothing further to the article, is factually dubious anyway (a common language doesn't assure common identity, way of life or customs, as all western-educated people know) and is not WP:NPOV - that is not how the established scholarly mainstream describe the Scythians. They don't draw paralleles to ancient Persia, or Iran, but clearly described them as These Scythians constituted a subdivision within a larger group of Scytho-Siberian nomads inhabiting the Eurasian steppe. [8] No mention of Iran. And the Scythians was a broad term to refer to masses of different people from Romania to Mongolia, some were decidedly 'oriental' (eg mogolian). To link all these people to Iran is not only false, but achieves nothing than satisfying the unreasonable fanices of an editor who appears to have educated themselves from nationalist Forums rather than quality articles.

Again, i have left extensive edit summaries and comments on his TP highlighting these problesm but he continues to ignore and mass revert. IMHO, this is a new user bursting on the scene and making tendentious edits. Thanks again for looking at this, and for your advice about seeking dsipute resolution. I have made one last appeal on his TP, if I fails I beseech you to lock the page as is currently so we can get mediation Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your information, but you might have noticed that I left a warning for the user you mentioned too; the warning I left you isn't about content, but just the pure and simple fact that you can not find consensus, and without me taking a side or evaluating the content. As I said: use the articles talk-page, try to get more eyes on this and do not revert, only communicating by edit-summaries. See also his comments above, over yours. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No one linked the Scythians to Iran, i linked them to the Iranians, the Iranians are not originally from Iran. And what do you keep ignoring what i write? it was made BY Dr. Oric Basirov, a renowned Anglo-Russian Archaeologist, Iranologist and historian. I don't see why it should not show what the scholars think about the Scythians, this is clearly neutral. And this is not the only source that states the Scythians were Iranians. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please use the talk-page of the article; I am not the arbitrator here. Lectonar (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

re: President of Egypt RFPP

No problem - I preview the page's history with popups before I take a hard look, and I didn't see your protection then, and there was no response to the query. I think I declined PC anyway, so it's all good. :-) KrakatoaKatie 09:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As-salamu alaykum!

Hello Pal! How do you do? My regrets for my edit-warring. But you know that History is history. I always try to learn from it, but I shall never give up in this journey of learning. Wikipedia is my first and the last love. Your message on my talk simply moved me much. Gracias for the trust! I shall try the best for keeping this trust on the spot. I will not try to explain again the behaviour of the other party on edit-warring. Frankly speaking, this has become the habit of some, even RfC's results are not accepted. Anyway, this is not going to stop. I give in and I shall try to stay away from them, and shift my focus again on Anti-Vandalism work. My regrets again. Don't take me wrong, I am learning, and I shall be counted as learned soon, In Sha Allah. Faizan 10:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kazakhs

Please protect the page. Chris1636 (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that is ncecessary now; IP 217xx has been blocked in the meantime. Lectonar (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

What about 178.91.73.241 (same user with same edits)? Zyma (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This IP should be warned if he edits in the same vein again, and subsequently reported to AIV. He only has one edit to the article, which makes protection for now unnecessary. Lectonar (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but he did same edits on several other articles like 217x. See his contributions. Zyma (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw....but he has not been warned shortly after the edits, and I for one usually do not block out of the blue; warning now for edits from yesterday will not be enough, btw. Lectonar (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Now can I warn him for his yesterday edits or I should wait for today if he come back? Zyma (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please wait until he edits again...as I said above: This IP should be warned if he edits in the same vein again. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the help. Regards. Zyma (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I find him removing content again on the page and Golden Horde, Mongols,Kyrgyz people.......Chris1636 (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussions: Incivility and forum-like comments

Hi. How to deal with comments like this one? Zyma (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, tell me: what would you do? If I told you what I would do, it wouldn't be fair, in a way. But remember: you always have a choice....and: I do not see much incivility in this comment. The "pathetic" seems to used more in a general way here...Lectonar (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It depends on comments. Sometimes I remove them, but usually I don't have any business with forum-like or unrelated/harassment comments on discussions. Because I'm not very familiar with discussion's policies. Zyma (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you be interested in dealing with them? Or why were you asking? Lectonar (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The first. I'm interested in dealing with them, so I need your suggestions. Because I don't want to make problems instead of contributions. Zyma (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In the case above: I would not do anything at all; I see the user making the comment has proclaimed on his user-page where he is from, so I can deduce something from that....but as I said, it is not over the top, we have seen worse. Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school is a nice read even for non-admins. And keep in mind that I am very easygoing as admins go(and it is nigh impossible to bait me); some other admin might have blocked for the comment on the talk-page (ok, perhaps not blocked), that is why I think you should find your own approach. Lectonar (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. As a non-Admin user I like to learn new things from admins like you, Lectonar. It's very helpful for me. Regards. Zyma (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional Help

Thanks but I need to edit a page for myself. I am at the end of my adoption program with Pol and its my assignment to edit and or create pages. So the link you sent me won't help me to actually edit the Tupac page. Maybe you could help me find where to present this problem I've had with my original account 'Selene Scott'. That account has all of my history and all the edits I've made over the last year and a half. I tried but none of the help pages seemed to fit my problem. Thanks "Selene Scott II (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)"

Your old account had email enabled, so perhaps Help:Logging in might hold the answer. Anyway, as far as I know, adoption assignments do not prescribe a certain article to be edited, just any article will do. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Your right it can be any page. I have tried having my password mailed to me and it never shows up. Then I wait 24 hours and again no mail. So I gave up and created this new name. I hate having lost all the edits I made on the old account, plus access to all the work I did with Pol. Thanks again. "Selene Scott II (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)"

You might want to read

WP:Words to watch Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, call me dumb, but I do not see....but I have read it. Lectonar (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see now....Behemoth or the flooding? Lectonar (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Without going back to look, it was the word "claims". Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will take care in the future. Lectonar (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I've done it myself. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-stop edit warring and reverting between two users (several articles)

Hi Lectonar. Please look at the article Qizilbash. There is a war between User1 (link to user's contributions) and User2 (link to user's contributions) on that article and several other articles.

User1 broke 3RR role on Qizilbash and uses bad English and insulting/harassment/sarcasm in his edit summaries. Examples: diff1, diff2, diff3. Or trollish type comments: diff4, diff5, diff6. Because of his poor English, it seems this user uses translator software (Google translator) and due to his contributions maybe he is an ethnocentric user. I don't know why he attacks Persians and Afghans.

User2 uses clear edit summaries and his edits looks constructive, but he is involved in edit warring too. Please review their edits (both articles and talk pages) and edit summaries. User1 needs a longer temporary block than User2. Zyma (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I am a little busy at the moment in RL, so if you do not want to warn the users yourself, use the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Then when you have enough time, please verify their actions. Because it's not just a simple edit war between them. Those incidents need admins' attention and I think those two users won't attend to my warnings, so your help is really necessary. Please notify me about the result. Thanks. Zyma (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

about protection......

Hello! Thank you for responding and for the complete understanding of my motivation. In the past, I was quite involved in patrolling for the el-wp. There we are accustomed to more frequent semi-protections, however we have the excuse of much much smaller number of active patrollers (therefore our articles are very prone to vandalism and confirmed users feel quite helpless sometimes). Indeed, patrolling was a very nerve-streching experience for me (sometimes pushing me to the point of reconsidering the views of ancient Socrates on the intrinsic goodness of the human soul...)

I have read the policy and I understand that you choose to follow its suggestion on not preventing useful anonymous edits. That said, I still feel a bit sad when, in the course of time, an article's history is so polluted by silly edit warring, also polluting my watchlist. But, when the final result is under control (as I admit it happens in the Commagene article), I should not complain. Best regards.--Dipa1965 (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Guide me about my article deletion

Hello. Recently I'd created a page named Farshid Haidari twice which had been deleted which due to that there were no evidence then I wanna know that would magazine or official video records be approve as evidence or not ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMTheAdrenaline (talk • contribs) 12:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farshid Haidari. And what we need are reliable sources, not just a passing mention in a magazine. When in a magazine, it should be are very known one, and the article has to be about the subject, presenting it in a neutral manner. If you are not happy with the outcome of the deletion, you can always have it reviewed at deletion review, After looking at the deleted article, I would just say that Farshid Haidari is just (yet) not notable enough for an inclusion here in Wikipedia. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Shhh...

Shhh, maybe nobody will notice... Alright, I goofed. [This shows how much I rely on {{pp-protected}} and the like, which mysteriously wasn't added by a bot...] Theopolisme (talk)

Well ,you are forgiven ;)...and actually, I never have seen the pp-template added in userspace; but this might be because I use the templates only for full-protection/edit-warring. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Protecting archives

I saw your comment at RFPP, apparently there was a change in policy one month ago, where protecting archives is acceptable. I didn't get the memo either...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that too, but talk-pages are not exactly user-subpages; I think this still collides with what is written at the PP about user talk-pages. But if you want to fully protect, go ahead. And it still only says it "can" be protected.Lectonar (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have any strong feelings one way or another, although it does say talk page archives. Personally I don't really see the need to, as I have all my archives watchlisted and can keep an eye on them. I'm not going to bother, just wasn't sure if you had seen it. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Me not really either, but I am lawyering my way out here ;). And he is a rather new user. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review this deletion

This is to request that you review the deletion of Kilroot Recreation F.C. - as notified here. Since Kilroot Rec have played in a national cup (see here, they meet the notability criteria in WP:FOOTYN. Many thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, the article I (re-)deleted did not mention it, and neither was the link you provided here in the article. I have restored the article, but you should add this info asap. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

‎THUNK a cappella

Despite your declined undelete here, user went and recreated anyway. Just thought you'd like to know. I've re-CSD'd it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this has to go via AfD now....Lectonar (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, redeleted and salted. Thx. Lectonar (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson

Hi. I reviewed this again and I'd say go ahead and undelete, but the article needs substantial work to be neutral and non-adverty. Spencer^T♦C 11:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I have undeleted and left a message for DGG. Lectonar (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of AEON Big

This supermarket is a well-known and widely-available supermarket chains in Malaysia, as such, this article is deemed fit and suitable to be recorded into Wikipedia page. If Giant supermarket page can be stored, I don't see a reason why AEON Big page be rejected by the administrator. --Desmondyap93 (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This article has been deleted because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about companies. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning companies will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. You might also want to read WP:FAQ/business and quite probably you have a conflict of interest to boot. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A note

I've reported the obvious railway article-related sock at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waterspaces. Every edit they make shows even more clearly who they are... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I saw....he is a bit away from gaining autoconfirmed status, and is just venting his frustration at the moment, and so I watch.....at a pinch, I will block for quacking. Do not get impatient ;). Lectonar (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• The main reason I'm impatient is because Waterspaces is trying to make out I'm some kind of little troll that is of no benefit to Wikipedia, and they've posted such things in several places, which, I hope, any viewing of my contributions would show this not to be the case. Also telling is the lack of any denials from this user that they are Waterspaces... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• You are obviously not a little troll, and demean yourself by allowing this to get to you.....is he in a postion to judge that, or is this just baiting you? Again: patience, young jedi. Do not let this get to you, and you will feel better, immediately. Lectonar (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm one of those weird people who can sometimes take everything on the chin, and other times, get annoyed very quickly. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Third Perso-Turkic War

Can you give a little help over here: Talk:Third Perso-Turkic War --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Left a note...Lectonar (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The guy don't want to resolve the problem, he thinks he can remove sources and put his own without discussion, i guess that makes me right to revert the edit back? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not think so.....the debacle at DRN just shows that both of you do not want to discuss anything in a civil manner (btw, did you see the remarks of the volunteer to reopen the case? The door is still not closed....). As I said: a third opinion should be the better way here; we need more eyes on this. Lectonar (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I know that it may can be reopened, but as i said, the guy don't want to discuss about it in there, take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Third_Perso-Turkic_War&diff=566029493&oldid=566018612

This what he said: I changed my mind. I'll not argue this WITH you. if there anybody else want to discuss about perso-Turkic war, I'll be here for discussion. but I'm tired your lies, defamations, nationalistic -so-called- sources etc. TransporterMan, please check sources which I shared and check his sources too. and you decide which of us has the point. and HistoryofIran do not bother me again, do not post on my page, ok? I doubt if you understand me but I'm just saying, do not bother me again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

add protection to ICC Cricket World Cup 2015

add semi protection to ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Cricket_World_Cup_2015

as world cup schedule has been recently announced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhruv vij (talk • contribs) 16:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I do not see much vandalism, more to the contrary.....so no need to protect just now. Next time, please use requests for page protection. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Page on Telangana: 30 July 2013

The Indian government did not pass a resolution nor did it officially announce it, it is Congress (INC)/ UPA Allies that passed a resolution. It is a fairly misleading article and is protected. Kindly edit it. SimplyJITH 16:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Abhijith Jayanthi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijithsince1986 (talk • contribs)

Please add one of the following templates (Editprotected, Editsemiprotected or Request edit) to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here; I am not here to judge article content, I just protected the article because it is obviously necessary. See your post here. Lectonar (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Fallon

I'd like to ask you to reconsider the protection of this article. The only reason is because pending changes level 2, which is the option you chose, has been explicitly rejected by the community. Only pending changes level 1 is currently authorized by the community. See here for a curent discussion of this and several other PC2 protections. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify Beeblebrox's statement, PC2 may be accepted by the community at some point but the consensus is that people don't want to consider giving it the go ahead until there is a draft policy outlining appropriate uses of the protection. Such a draft policy doesn't exist at the moment. I am hopeful that we can come up with a draft if we put our heads together now, although others may think it is too soon. Yaris678 (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have been sorted. Lectonar (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Iran

This article is frequently edited, and there is still vandalism. Care to raise protection level? --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

your opinion?

Hello Lectonar. Could you please check this article's history and provide me a clue on what to do with the troll? He/she does not care to respond to anybody. I think that he does not care whether his edits will ultimately be reverted. Somehow I have concluded that he wants his edits to stay on-line for at least a few hours per day. Do you think that I should request temporary semi-protection? Other possible measures? Thank you.--Dipa1965 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorted out...sorry for being quite late. Lectonar (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see your name on my watchlist... you have been missed! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mark :). I am a bit busy in RL... Lectonar (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

John Brent

Hey there. I just made a few edits that I wasn't sure about, and the last time I had an issue you helped me out (as documented on my talk page. I haven't made any substantive edits in a while (and none while logged in), but I recently tried to fix a problem in which a few links intending to reach a page for John Brent (a Second City performer from the 1960s) were actually arriving at John Brent (and English author from the late 1800s). I made John Brent (disambiguation), but then read in the style guide that I probably shouldn't have done that. Is the proper scenario for this to put a hatnote at the top of John Brent explaining that he isn't the comedian? I changed a few links like the one in Let's Go Away for Awhile#Composition from John Brent to John Brent (comedian). Should I have done that? Sorry for all the missteps here, and thanks for the help! --MyNameIsJason (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

AN/I discussion regarding Providence (religious movement)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833#Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement Article. ... Since you previously responded in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive785#Looking for uninvolved admins to watch Jung Myung Seok, I thought your consideration of the case would be of value. Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Michel Pastor

Hello. Did you delete Michel Pastor's page because it was just a one-liner, or was there another reason? I am thinking of creating his page again, but obviously a start with references. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a oneliner I am afraid....go ahead. Lectonar (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection of Pondicherry and Puducherry

Hello. On WP:RPP you wrote that you protected them for 1 month, but the preotection log says they've been protected for 1 week. Cheers. Thomas.W ^talk 16:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Rectified. Better now? Lectonar (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm very happy. ;)

Would you mind taking a look at Baloch people too? Loads of copyvios, unhelpful/unconstructive editing and so on by IPs and newly created user accounts. Both the IPs and most of the new user accounts are with all probability used by a single person, who started out as Ahmedzaibaloch1121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and has been warned for copyvios on multiple articles, and also blocked once for it. Today two IPs, 39.48.169.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 39.48.238.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), both geolocating to Karachi, Pakistan, added large chunks of copyvios to the article (sourced from thebaloch.com, one of the sites that Ahmedzaibaloch1121 has previously "borrowed" from), text that was reverted by me. The IPs were also warned for it. And then just minutes later Ahmedzaibaloch1121 showed up, and started to edit the exact same section of the article as the IPs had, now adding long totally meaningless lists of just names and numbers. I don't see it as vandalism, just a user who doesn't understand that this is an encyclopaedia, not a fanblog or a personal website. Reverting it all is a bit boring, though, so maybe semiprotection of the article could help him find another hobby? Cheers. Thomas.W ^talk 20:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm...I am just back from a longer wikibreak, and personally am a fan of pending changes protection. I will apply that. If the problems with the user persist, try filing a report at WP:SPI

Will do. I just found new massive copyvios by Ahmedzaibaloch1121 on Khetran, text copied from "www.balochistan.gov.pk". Thomas.W ^talk 20:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Will watch this...next copyvio means timeout for him. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Just seconds before you blocked him for disruptive editing Ahmedzaibaloch1121 made this copyvio edit on Khetran, 6.2K bytes of text copied from "balochistan.gov.pk". Thomas.W ^talk 21:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, he is blocked now...next block will be longer. He has been warned enough. Lectonar (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

lt would be nice applying the same thing to Kurdish Jews. 185.34.17.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) deleted the sourced content and added his NPOV and forum-like additions to the article. An user reverted his pov but it seems that he is going to involve in an edit-war. 149.140.83.29 (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I have watchlisted the page; so far I do not see a need for protection of any kind. Lectonar (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Mystery post on your userpage

Hi, Lectonar. I don't know what 86.22.146.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is trying to say with the repeatedly posted note on your userpage (I clicked on their link, but it didn't help), but perhaps you do, so I've moved it here. This is what it said: http://www.klikgamers.co.uk Defunct: 10 September 2014 Closed: 2065 - 2581 Sunday 28 June 2065 - Thursday 19 October 2581. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

Thx for reverting that my Dear. Actually I do know what this is about....have a look at the IPs deleted contributions....and all will become clear :). Lectonar (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ha. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC).

Request to review deletion of wiki page on Project Vigeye

• [[:Contribs) deleted page Project Vigeye (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): borders on spam)

Project Vigeye has been launched (I was involved with the launch) as a significant innovation that empowers citizens all over to help fight corruption.The Project was officially launched by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) - a statutory body concerned with prevention of corruption in India. In its annual reports for the years 2010 and 2011, the CVC has reported on the project to the Indian Parliament. A report on the Project Vigeye taken from the website of Central Vigilance Commission is given here: http://cvc.nic.in/vigeye11012011.htm

After demitting office in CVC, I am maintaining a blog on my Facebook called "Whither Vigeye" and am actively campaigning to retain the powerful tool that was first conceived and launched to fight corruption. But for the fact that certain vested interests do not want this tool to be available freely to help citizens fight corruption, and are deliberately not providing any resources to make it popular as a tool could be very active in fighting corruption in India nay the world over.

I request you to reconsider the deletion and support the cause for a whistleblower tool for every body. pl also see vigeye.org for further details on how the tool operates. Now it is four years since the launch of Project Vigeye as the tech tool for whistleblowers to report corruption troubling them in their local jurisdiction. Project Vigeye has a definite purpose and has served/ is still serving its purpose. The Project has been studied by Harvard Law School and was presented by me in the World Bank's International Corruption Hunters Alliance program in June 2012 as an innovation for whistleblower empowerment. It is high time that the page is relaunched and is taken up for undeletion and rewritten with available material from the net. Would be grateful for your consideration.]] · ( [[|talk]] | logs | [[Special:WhatLinksHere/ contribs) deleted page Project Vigeye (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): borders on spam)

Project Vigeye has been launched (I was involved with the launch) as a significant innovation that empowers citizens all over to help fight corruption.The Project was officially launched by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) - a statutory body concerned with prevention of corruption in India. In its annual reports for the years 2010 and 2011, the CVC has reported on the project to the Indian Parliament. A report on the Project Vigeye taken from the website of Central Vigilance Commission is given here: http://cvc.nic.in/vigeye11012011.htm

After demitting office in CVC, I am maintaining a blog on my Facebook called "Whither Vigeye" and am actively campaigning to retain the powerful tool that was first conceived and launched to fight corruption. But for the fact that certain vested interests do not want this tool to be available freely to help citizens fight corruption, and are deliberately not providing any resources to make it popular as a tool could be very active in fighting corruption in India nay the world over.

I request you to reconsider the deletion and support the cause for a whistleblower tool for every body. pl also see vigeye.org for further details on how the tool operates. Now it is four years since the launch of Project Vigeye as the tech tool for whistleblowers to report corruption troubling them in their local jurisdiction. Project Vigeye has a definite purpose and has served/ is still serving its purpose. The Project has been studied by Harvard Law School and was presented by me in the World Bank's International Corruption Hunters Alliance program in June 2012 as an innovation for whistleblower empowerment. It is high time that the page is relaunched and is taken up for undeletion and rewritten with available material from the net. Would be grateful for your consideration. |links]] | [{{fullurl: contribs) deleted page Project Vigeye (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): borders on spam)

Project Vigeye has been launched (I was involved with the launch) as a significant innovation that empowers citizens all over to help fight corruption.The Project was officially launched by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) - a statutory body concerned with prevention of corruption in India. In its annual reports for the years 2010 and 2011, the CVC has reported on the project to the Indian Parliament. A report on the Project Vigeye taken from the website of Central Vigilance Commission is given here: http://cvc.nic.in/vigeye11012011.htm

After demitting office in CVC, I am maintaining a blog on my Facebook called "Whither Vigeye" and am actively campaigning to retain the powerful tool that was first conceived and launched to fight corruption. But for the fact that certain vested interests do not want this tool to be available freely to help citizens fight corruption, and are deliberately not providing any resources to make it popular as a tool could be very active in fighting corruption in India nay the world over.

I request you to reconsider the deletion and support the cause for a whistleblower tool for every body. pl also see vigeye.org for further details on how the tool operates. Now it is four years since the launch of Project Vigeye as the tech tool for whistleblowers to report corruption troubling them in their local jurisdiction. Project Vigeye has a definite purpose and has served/ is still serving its purpose. The Project has been studied by Harvard Law School and was presented by me in the World Bank's International Corruption Hunters Alliance program in June 2012 as an innovation for whistleblower empowerment. It is high time that the page is relaunched and is taken up for undeletion and rewritten with available material from the net. Would be grateful for your consideration. |action=watch}} watch] ) · [[[Special:Undelete/Contribs) deleted page Project Vigeye (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): borders on spam)

Project Vigeye has been launched (I was involved with the launch) as a significant innovation that empowers citizens all over to help fight corruption.The Project was officially launched by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) - a statutory body concerned with prevention of corruption in India. In its annual reports for the years 2010 and 2011, the CVC has reported on the project to the Indian Parliament. A report on the Project Vigeye taken from the website of Central Vigilance Commission is given here: http://cvc.nic.in/vigeye11012011.htm

After demitting office in CVC, I am maintaining a blog on my Facebook called "Whither Vigeye" and am actively campaigning to retain the powerful tool that was first conceived and launched to fight corruption. But for the fact that certain vested interests do not want this tool to be available freely to help citizens fight corruption, and are deliberately not providing any resources to make it popular as a tool could be very active in fighting corruption in India nay the world over.

I request you to reconsider the deletion and support the cause for a whistleblower tool for every body. pl also see vigeye.org for further details on how the tool operates. Now it is four years since the launch of Project Vigeye as the tech tool for whistleblowers to report corruption troubling them in their local jurisdiction. Project Vigeye has a definite purpose and has served/ is still serving its purpose. The Project has been studied by Harvard Law School and was presented by me in the World Bank's International Corruption Hunters Alliance program in June 2012 as an innovation for whistleblower empowerment. It is high time that the page is relaunched and is taken up for undeletion and rewritten with available material from the net. Would be grateful for your consideration.|revisions]]]

Project Vigeye is a citizen empowerment technological tool of CVC India that was launched on 9th December 2010- a day that is observed as International Anticorruption Day, the world over. It has been deleted on the same day of its launch ! The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 14:45, 9 December 2010 Lectonar (talk -14.96.55.30 (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Allow redirect/unprotect admin only page?

Hey Lectonar, would you be able to unprotect or redirect (whichever is easier for you) Aliya-Jasmine Sovani as I believe it needs to go to Aliya Jasmine Sovani. I was going through potential articles on Wikipedia:Requested_articles and came across this on the list and felt it needed a redirect to prevent future requests on WP:RA. I found your name on the deletion/move log page. Thank you.Calaka (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Article upgrade assistance request (Pre-translation stage)

Seasons Greetings,

This is in reference to a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.

Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.

While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.

Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.

This particular request is being made to you since your user name is listed in Wikipedia:Translators available list.

Thanking you with warm regards Mahitgar (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Please see my comment on application of CSD A7 to Euniversity on the bottom of the page. Please correct me if I am wrong. WannaBeEditor (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Although I don't completely agree with you, I am choosing to trust your experience.

BTW, we made agreat team tonight, you deleted al my CSD nominations. LOL. --WannaBeEditor (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Question about deleting the page: Safterei

Hello Lectonar,

I saw that my page got deleted from wikipedia, because i used puffery language and it was unambigious promotion and adverstising. I based this page on the page of [| fritz-kola] that has already been accepted.

Could you maybe elaborate a bit more what you didnt like about the article so that i can improve it to the correct standards? Thanks ahead, Rens1324 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The page you linked to is on the German wikipedia; the different language wikipedias have different criteria for inclusion. The subject of your article fails said criteria. Lectonar (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Development Bank

Dear Lectonar,

Regarding the

as well as additional edit request which have been submitted by me,

In the request I asked to put to more tag which are and . Even potentially the whole section intention is related to WP:NPOVD besides WP:DISPUTED, WP:DUBIOUS, WP:AD.

For example These detail on that section:

====

In August 1999 the Islamic Development Bank approved a $250,000 transfer issued by the Saudi government as a contribution to “the purchase of land in Washington DC to be the headquarters for an education and research center under the aegis of the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR).”[13][14] CAIR is a U.S.-based Muslim advocacy organization with strong ties to Hamas which have been confirmed by several investigations.[15]

An article by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen reported that in 2001 the Islamic Development Bank transferred $538 million raised by Saudi and Gulf royal telethons to support families of Palestinian suicide bombers and the cause of the Palestinian intifada.[16] On August 1, 2001 Dr Ahmad Muhammad Ali, a Saudi academic and president of the Islamic Development Bank, reportedly said during an interview with Asharq al-Awsat: “There was no delay in paying financial assistance to the families of Palestinian martyrs...We have started paying them soon after receiving the money.”[17][18]

Dr Ali had previously declared that IDB was responsible for the smooth functioning of al-Quds Intifada Fund and al-Aqsa Fund, both established during an Arab summit in Cairo in October 2000. According to the final communiqué of the summit, “Al-Quds Intifadah Fund will have a capital of 200 million dollars to be allocated for disbursement to the families of Palestinian martyrs fallen in the Intifadah.”[16][19]

Furthermore, Ehrenfeld and Lappen mentioned documented bank records discovered in the West Bank and Gaza proving that the IDB has channeled UN funds to Hamas.[16] Nevertheless, the bank was granted observer status by the UN in 2007 amidst all-round criticism.[16][17]

====

Those are NPOV point-of-view as based on these facts http://www.saudiembassy.net/latest_news/news06150901.aspx http://www.isdb.org/irj/go/km/docs/documents/IDBDevelopments/Internet/English/IDB/CM/Publications/IDBGroupBrief2013.pdf http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2015/10/15/090224b08314b83e/1_0/Rendered/PDF/West0Bank0and00additional0financing.pdf

Islamic Development Bank together with Saudi Arabia, UNRWA and the World Bank. We are working to help people in emergency situation. And it's not only Islamic Development Bank but also others such as World Bank itself. That section (Ties to terrorist and extremist organizations) is misleading and has intention which is has break the rule of WP:NPOVD.

I am asking your help as the administrator and third person to justify that section. Islamic Development Bank is never ties with terrorism an extremist organizations. Our vision and mission are to fight poverty which has significant relation with reducing terrorism act in certain point. These are our Vision http://www.isdb.org/irj/portal/anonymous?NavigationTarget=navurl://eb226e0b9a3297ebddcc5554057dd35f Our mission is: Mission “The IDB Group is committed to alleviating poverty; promoting human development; science and technology; Islamic economics; banking and finance; and enhancing cooperation amongst member countries, in collaboration with our development partners.”

Please help and really appreciate your help. And very sorry for my limited knowledge of Wikipedia rules and regulations. Adimyati123 (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC) adimyati123

As protecting admin I will not interfere with the building of consensus for the article; you have to come to a result in collaboration with the other editors of the article. I propose using the talk-page of the article for that. I would try to understand first the rules under which wikipedia functins, especially: reliable sourcing, Neutral point of view and Conflict of interest. And of course I am not knowledgeable enough to even form an opinion. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

What the heck

I only have one edit an I get blocked how 128.54.193.240 (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

And you don't have to settle for German pilsner... Drmies (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a million......but...isn't Pilsner Czech? Lectonar (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sure, but not from my Dutch perspective. I was mainly thinking of the image in the barnstar--whoever picked that one is complicating things. The beer is, apparently, a Dortmunder Export but in the style of Munich, not Dortmund. It looked like a pilsner to me, and it has aspects of that, apparently, but its very classification is a matter of some dispute. Ah well. Cheers. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

After taking off my glasses to beer/peer at the image of the glass, I have ascertained that the beer is from http://www.steiner-bier.de/# (listen to the startling special-effect at the start), lost somewhere deep in Bavaria. Anyway... beerology... Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Help request on F1 articles

Hello,
You recently protected the Fittipaldi F8 page. Not sure how you became involved but trust me the F1 project are grateful. I wonder if you could also consider protecting the March 87P and March 761 pages. Both these pages are (I think) currently re-directs but pages have earlier been created from the re-directs by the same disruptive IP editor involved in the F8 page. He is well-known to the F1 project and constantly creates pages for non-notable cars (which are also not up to Wiki standards) and will not accept it when project members re-direct them. That's less than 10% of his unhelpful activities and he's been blocked three times. Blocks are awkward as his IP changes daily (sometimes more often). Would appreciate any assistance you can give us. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome; I just watch RFPP, so no special interest in F1 pages. Concerning your query: pages are not protected preemptively. If she/he really creates new articles out of redirects repeatedly, ping me please or list at requests for protection. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

OK fair enough; the 761 has only recently been put back to re-direct and he has yet to react to that. The 87P has already been subjected to some of the same to-ing and fro-ing as the F8. He originally created it out of a re-direct for the 87B (same car, different category) but when it was twice reverted he made a draft for the 87P, which has been rejected (possibly more than once). Then he requested a re-direct for the 87P which enabled him to transfer the wording to mainspace. Not only does the car have zero notability but the page is very poorly written. And yes he's been doing this sort of thing for months. Eagleash (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again... I note that you later protected the March 87B page, but this one has been untouched since the 2nd reversion noted above as far as I recall. My 'colleague' on the F1 project (I think) meant to ask for the March 87P to be protected. This is the page recently created after requesting a re-direct and has suffered from the same 'warring' as the F8 page. Do we have to place another request at WP:RFPP? Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It was a request from yesterday, reported by someone else....I just processed it only today. Lectonar (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

And all are done now. Lectonar (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You beat me to it! I was just checking that the link was right (from the request page) and saw your protection. Many thanks. I would like to say that the small group of editors who work on tidying up after this IP don't see RFPP as the ideal solution... far too many pages involved. Thanks again. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

A rangeblock might be the solution; unfortunately, I am not savvy enough to do it...and actually, the vandalism is, in comparison to other pages, low-level anyway. Lectonar (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

He's been blocked three times but other people are using the ranges. I agree the v'lism is low level but it's the constant disruptive editing and refusal to listen that is a problem. Another ed. and I try to make something of the stuff he submits but some of it is just completely unusable. Others, would rather just delete everything he does. Anyway... happy editing. Eagleash (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Similar situation here. A re-direct has been created despite the fact that the target page is itself a re-direct (and comment to that effect). (See para above). The IP will like as not create a page for the 8D now. Eagleash (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer protection

Just checked the level of protection. Your post on RPP said it was on semi-protection but the article is under full - only admins & template-editors can edit - protection for next few weeks. Was that your intention? Shearonink (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Shamefully i must admit I forgot to wear my glasses...fixed. Lectonar (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Heh, happens to all of us from time to time. I just wasn't sure if maybe I had missed some other vandalism. Got so tired of dealing with the ongoing ohsofunny Twitter'ers... Shearonink (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You're very gracious. Lectonar (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

March to WrestleMania: Live from Toronto

First of all, I would like to thank you for protecting the NXT TakeOver: Dallas article. Could you also do the same for March to WrestleMania: Live from Toronto? It has been getting vandalism as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotected 3 days. Lectonar (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for the content of a deleted page which i have created on 24 FEB around 6 'o clock' goes by name 'Raks Effect'

Hello sir, i am in favor for the speedy deletion of this page and regret for wasting your vital time but content of this article will be necessary for a hypothetical topic on which my team is working on.can you please mail me the deleted page content at [email protected] .And i promise we will never post the hypothetical theories on Wikipedia again unless we have a proof.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick2k16 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not restore attack-pages, however veiled they might be. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You misjudjed my intention I just want the content so that we don't have to compile it again and I don't request to restore it just wanted the content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick2k16 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstood: to give you the content, I would have to restore the "article". That I won't do. Lectonar (talk) 09:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Mitchell

There have been reverts this month. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I count two attempts, and I usually do not extend before it expires. I prefer to look at an article after a protection expires, how it develops in terms of editing. When it's bad, we can always reprotect. Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred. Lectonar (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Michael Felgate

Hello , I am contacting for the article of Michael Felgate and why its not available? i am willing to edit it myself but its protected... i have noticed most pages about professional footballers use the source of website Soccerway [[9]] but if needed more sources let me know.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brap14 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the article after a request at REFUND. It was previously deleted at AfD because the Cypriot First Division was not considered fully professional, but it is now accepted in the list at WP:FPL, so the player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks John Lectonar (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic

Hello. I would like to thank you for stepping in and protecting the Donetsk People's Republic article. It seems, however, that you are protecting the wrong version. Before this nasty edit war began, the country infobox was used, as seen here This is an older version, but the infobox is the same. So, rather than showing favoritism to one side, however unintentional, could you please restore the article to the pre-edit war version. I feel this is of particular importance, as I suspect that some of the very users pushing for a change were behind a prior edit war that lasted over a year before consensus was reached. Please do not show such behavior favoritism. You appear to share my views regarding bias, POV, and the aforementioned favoritism. Please restore the article to the pre-edit war version with the country infobox. Thanks in advance, and my sincerest apologies for bothering you. Anasaitis (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anasaitis (talk • contribs)

Usually, it is always the wrong version of an article that gets protected. As protecting adming it is exactly not my place to show any "favoritism" as you call it, the article is just frozen in the actual version, without making any calls about who is correct or not; that is the task of the participating users who are encouraged to find consensus.In short: I see an obvious edit-war, I protect. I am not here to judge your arguments. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Steven Ciobo

Hi can you please stop Skyring from removing pertinent information from the Steven Ciobo wiki page thanks124.170.171.157 (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I won't. This is essentially a content dispute; please use the article's talk-page for discussing your edits prior to putting them in the article, and find consensus. If that fails, follow the procedure laid out here. Lectonar (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Why is it that you have set my long standing, factual edit with multiple sources referenced to require permission? If there is a dispute over referenced and factual information, the onus should be on the denying party to provide references as to why the sources that have already been referenced are unreliable or invalid. Political staffers using Wikipedia to push their political agendas should not be permitted and certainly shouldn't be rewarded.124.170.177.40 (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have used the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steven_Ciobo#Julia_Gillard 124.170.177.40 (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Lovely, and now discussion is happening...which was the intention. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

But you should refrain from personal attacks while doing so. Consider this a warning. Lectonar (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)