User talk:Samsara/Archive16

Pending changes on extended-confirmed protected articles

Can you remove pending changes protection from Mossad and Hosni Mubarak because both articles are extended-confirmed protected? PC isn't needed since all edits that can be made will be automatically accepted, as the only users who can edit those articles are extended confirmed users. —MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 01:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Stradivarius: @Mark Arsten: Any comments/objections on the above? Samsara 03:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None - and I've gone ahead and done it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify that I was talking about leaving extended-confirmed protection in place but removing pending changes only. —MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 13:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's all good. Samsara 19:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Samsara!

Happy New Year!

Samsara,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Happy New Year, Samsara!

Happy New Year!

Samsara,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 20:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Happy New Year, Samsara!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Thank you for all you did for this project in 2016, Samsara.
May your house be safe,
and may you
and those privileged with your company
enjoy good health in a

Happy New Year 2017!

Kind regards,
— Sam Sailor 01:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pass on!

Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages.

Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

Regarding this

I just wanted to note that the situation is not a content dispute. The IP has been trolling for over a year and their game has resulted in numerous page protections and blocks. Not protecting the page is fine; they'll be back. That is all. I would have replied at the request itself but I was not active and it is now archived. —DangerousJXD (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an admin when after removing the CSD tag, they placed tags indicating problems with notability demonstration and referencing. These tags were perfectly justified, and your removal of them is clear evidence that you are engaged in a conflict. Samsara 23:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit war here, believe me. The supposed conflict isn't even regarding the admin. I removed the tags because I am currently working on the article and they were only added in response to a vandal. Tagging the article is silly when it is under construction and you could slap several more tags on it if you wanted (incomplete, outdated). The admin's subsequent comments indicated that they had no problem with the removal of the tags. If you feel strongly about it, reinstate that tags; they'll soon be rightly removed when I am finished with what I am currently doing at the article anyway. I have no interest in discussing silly tags further. My post here was just noting that the 'conflict' between me and the IP was not a conflict at all; you thinking that way is exactly what they want. They got their start here harassing admins, resulting in revisions being hidden, and now, after playing a few other games, they focus on me, with one highlight being impersonation accounts. —DangerousJXD (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Michael

The full protection ended. Can you restore the temporary semi-protection, or let this slide for now? --George Ho (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and extended - thanks for spotting it! Samsara 00:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scurrilous Knave

This is actually a sock of Kingshowman, so I would appreciate if you could extend the block. Thanks very much, GAB^gab 20:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not without evidence. Samsara 00:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny O...

...is now at AFD. Patient Zero^talk 13:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It seems there wasn't an admin keen to pull the trigger, so I'll be curious to see what the community thinks. Samsara 13:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, same here. Patient Zero^talk 13:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

changed protection level for Switzerland

Pardon-me, but I cannot really fellow the rational ehind your changed protection level for Switzerland. What was the incident justifying it? -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The protection reason was the following: Persistent disruptive editing: long prot log and RfPP request. There were a total of 14 previous protective actions, including semi from 19 July to 29 October 2016. Recent edits from non-autoconfirmed users include [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. If you can make a strong case for enabling PC1 instead, I will consider it. Regards, Samsara 08:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

user:Kellymoat

Hi can you please block the user:Kellymoat as they keep harassing me and are a vandalism only account too? 2A02:C7F:DE12:2400:BD0C:23A8:A4FF:4F6A (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A user has expressed concerns that this range of IP addresses is being used by MariaJaydHicky, a notorious sock puppet vandal. But feel free to investigate me.Kellymoat (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect request

Can you semi-protect ÷ (album), Castle on the Hill (Ed Sheeran song) and Shape of You to persistent disruptive editing. 123.136.107.59 (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full protected all three. Seems a genuine dispute - typical case with reverts flying back and forth and little or no discussion on talk pages. Samsara 04:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I request that the way the pages were before the IP started edit warring on Ed Sheeran's pages be restored? Meaning "Shape of You" as the first single. It was my understanding that the way the page was should be kept, and any proposed changes to it (i.e. the IP's edits) reverted until they can be discussed. Ss 112 09:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

You semi-protected my talk page for sixth months after someone else made a request at WP:RFPP. I appreciate the concern other users have for me but I don't think that it's necessary. Please lift this protection from my tp. At this point, I'm totally used to the vandalism, and it doesn't bother me anymore. In fact, these long periods of talk page protection actually make me more uncomfortable than the occasional spell of vandalism the page receives. If I ever change my mind, I can just let you know and have protection reinstated. Sro23 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be more polite

"I'm sure you've realised by now that" -- really? Do you think that's a constructive way to go about communicating with other editors? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Protection level for "Arabs": New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page. Arabs article related to the Arab-Israeli conflict also. like the Arab League and Palestinians articles.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see reference to the conflict in that article and would therefore decline the request. Samsara (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a conflict, but it became less, I think will be back. I suggested at the moment (Semi-protected). Like the vast majority of ethnic groups have a sensitive situation.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern. I'm sure there will be conflict again at some point in the future, but we do not protect pre-emptively (this is in our protection policy), so the article will have to remain open for as long as editing conduct is reasonable. I looked at whether there could be cause for enabling pending changes, and also could not justify this. Best wishes, Samsara (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm al-Hiran

Hi, I saw that as per a request from Zero0000 you protected Umm al-Hiran under ECP for ARBPIA. I think that was a mistake. If the article needs protection, regular protection levels are enough. This article has nothing to do with the Israel Palestinian conflict. Please modify protection settings. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: I strongly disagree with this. The conflicts between the Negev bedouin and the State of Israel are a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as construed by many reasonable sources. Note that although the acronym ARBPIA stands for "Palestine-Israel articles" for historical reasons, the actual Arbcom ruling says "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" and it is always interpretted that way. So it fits. Zero^talk 02:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the Bedouin issue is one of real estate and villages, etc. and the disputes on Wikipedia doesn't really come to the level of sanctions. If there was disruption on the article, regular protection should be the first resort. Not every dispute in Israel is automatically Arab-Israel as a part of the ARBCOM ruling. I mean, it's rather arbitrary, look at the section right above. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Negev Bedouin are classified as Arabs, the area is in Israel, and the article clearly talks of conflict. If you still feel that I have made a mistake, I would ask you to make your argument at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee or a similar venue (and notify me), where I shall be happy to respond to the input of actual arbitrators. Samsara (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no reason to get snippy though. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onam : Page Protection

Hi, please look into my request for page protection. Thanks. Shimlaites (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply was made (by me) some time ago at the request page. Samsara (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect Shape of You

Can you semi-protect the page to persistent genre warring? 123.136.111.246 (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is either one of the two versions actually referenced? Samsara (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks

Could you perform an indefinite extended confirmed protection on this article per WP:ARBPIA3? Thanks! 73.96.112.163 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit from a new user was in 2015, and with no evidence of disruption, taking my cue from recent discussion with other admins active in protection as well as arbitrators, I'm going to have to decline this one. But don't hesitate to bring it up if you find that there is disruption. Best, Samsara (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though, I saw this and thought I'd ask because per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30:

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

From what I understand here, it doesn't look like the article necessarily has to have recent disruption in order for any Arab-Israeli conflict page since new editors aren't allowed to edit it anyhow... (FWIW, I'm actually currently logged out right now...). But I guess that would also contradict the fact that pages shouldn't be protected preemptively. Cheers. 73.96.114.186 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant discussion if you're interested:

HTH, Samsara (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kellymoat and Binksternet's 3RR breakage

On the Folklore (Nelly Furtado album) article both Binksternet and Kellymoat keep reverting (on numerous occasions) my edit; I've added sourced content and they both keep reverting it; Binksternet has been blocked numerous times with regards to edit wars; if you look at the Dreamlover (song) history Binksternet went as far as 8 reverts in a-less-than-24-hour-span; can you please try and protect the Folklore page so that only admin can access it as I can see them not giving up anytime sooner? Many thanks. --2A02:C7F:DE24:AE00:BDD2:31AF:2750:8648 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gilda (singer)

"that really is best reserved for the article about the locality". Not really. The coordinates not only point to the location of the accident, they also point to the location of the shrine erected by Gilda's followers, thus inclusion on the main page is mandated. Even if there were a separate page for the "location" (there isn't) it would still be proper to include the coordinates of the location, a small and innocuous tidbit of text. Now please revert your edit and add the coordinates.

None of that information has been made verifiable. Samsara (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No verification needed: Just follow the coords link into Google Maps (satellite view) and look for yourself. You will even see the crashed bus. The location Gilda's shrine is a very well-known public piece of information. Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.91.126.119 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Maps search for "Santuario Gilda" (Gilda Sanctuary) points directly to the location with the coordinates you censored. A regular Google search for "Santuario Gilda como llegar" (Gilda Sanctuary directions) retrieves 31,200 links: The existence, and location, of Gilda's sanctuary is common knowledge. Can you please revert your edit and restore the coordinates? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.95.18.239 (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have ceased responding. Can you please either provide a solid reason to remove Gilda's shrine coordinates or else put them back in? Many thanks.

I see you're giving me the silent treatment. Glad It's all going on record! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.88.207.20 (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. B. Priestley

You might like to comment on an issue I have raised at ANI. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the RfPP discussion has taken a new turn, for reasons given there. Your review might be appreciated by others. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at RfPP. Samsara (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Quebec City mosque shooting

Thanks for this edit, where you asked "Did you mean for that to be indef?" The answer is "no", so I have changed the protection to 10 days. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that you appreciated it. Samsara 13:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

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

Administrator changes

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

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Obituaries

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

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Europefan

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=1969_in_Germany&diff=763212862&oldid=761984968

I see that you've decided to reinstate Europefan's edits. You're welcome to do this of course, per WP:EVADE, but please be careful to check that these unsourced edits (which you're not sourcing either) are valid and accurate changes. There is a long-running problem over several years of Europefan pushing inaccurate and biased edits, and of course unsourced. Those who've been cleaning up this mess have gone round this loop with other well-meaning editors beforehand: they lie. This also means that re-adding these edits is hard work, as they have to be checked one by one. Even when that's done, the hit rate is so low that there's not enough left to make it worthwhile. So for some years, the response has been to simply blank the lot, per WP:DENY. This isn't refuting those edits, it's not wasting the effort to check which of the few might be worth keeping.

I do not appreciate having this termed "edit warring". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Batman Movie

The film was released in Dublin and I finally found a source that doesn't appear to be a report from the unverified Tweet. Thank you for your assistance in the matter. Dark Knight 2149 23:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for addition to the Wyandotte, Michigan, page

Hello Samsara,

I would like to suggest an addition to the section on Wyandotte Chemicals. You say the company made "a variety of soaps and cleaners." Actually, although their chemicals might have been used to make soaps and cleaners, the big business was ethylene glycol, which we know as antifreeze. That was a bulk industrial product. Also, in the 1950s, the company was one of the pioneers of polyurethane foams, now a major business. Makers of insulation foams, such as Icynene, buy their chemicals from Wyandotte Chemicals. I know this because my father was head of the labs at Wyandotte in the 1950s, then went on to become president of the company. Thanks

Charlotte Wolter techlady@techlady.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techlady (talk • contribs) 17:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Misbug for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Misbug is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misbug until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AtlasDuane (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tuberculosis in popular culture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tuberculosis in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuberculosis in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:SCOTMregular

Template:SCOTMregular has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Portals-short

Template:Portals-short has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]