Lectonar, I understand your concern regarding the IP and the page protection requests.[] Please note the IP editor has been blocked for block evasion []. Springee (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you; I have lifted the full protection. It's not always possible to keep track of every sockpuppet etc; only one small brain here. So next time you request protection, be so kind as to include some more info. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I would never presume to make POV corrections as MLpearc. I understand this looks like an 'edit war' but mlpearc never let the changes stand long enough for me to include the references on a sentence that didn't have references to begin with. Now, I under this editor's reservations, but the fact remains that my changes to the sentence are accompanied by references.
Apache land was, in fact, Apache land when the Spanish arrived in the 1620s. And it was still Apache land under Spanish 'agreements of territoriality' until the Americans invaded in 1840s. So the sentence, which I edited - and to which did not originally have a cited source either - was incorrect, and I corrected its syntax. If it is the aim of wikipedia to continue misinformation in the name of politics, than so be it. I am well aware, that mlpearc's racism should stand, and the entirety of the world should think that Cochise was just some criminal on American land before the Americans invaded, correct history be damned.
As I said...provide the sources, and use the article's talk page. Form consensus. And assume good faith; one persons POV is the other persons bias. And please do not see a conspiracy where there is none. I consider myself neutral, as I am an European, and I do not see Wikipedias aim being misinformation. Heed the edit-warring warning please. Lectonar (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to ask if it's possible to delete the revision titles in the "view history" section with vile and crude language in the article Warsaw? It was directed by an unregistered user. Best Regards Oli(TALK) 19:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I've done that; please have a look if I caught all of it. I also protected the page, as there was IP-hopping. Lectonar (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help. I appreciate it. Best Regards. Oliszydlowski(TALK) 23:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Late to the party, seems to have been taken care of. Lectonar (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lectonar, sorry to bother you, but how would one add the note you suggested? Furthermore, what about visual edits? I imagine they would not see it - and even if they did, they couldn't seem to see the four notes in the article itself... Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Saturnalia0: No bother, please see Wikipedia:Editnotice. If you do not want to go all the way to make a proper editnotice, please see the last bit on the page, "Alternatives". I don't know about the visual edits, though. Lectonar (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Bleh. I hate to split hairs over this, but this is one IP that currently reading through the article and doing pretty good c/e. May want to consider waiting literally just ten more minutes. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Grrrmbbll....if I unprotect now, we get him, but also 10 vandalisers to boot. I will reduce to 2 days, but not unprotect. I wish there was a possibility to code exceptions for single IPs not to be caught by protection. Alas. Lectonar (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action on that page - we seem to have overlapped each other's edits when you semi-protected the page, so apologies for that. I don't think I have permissions to re-add semi-protection - is that something you can redo? The vandalism was so extensive it seemed easiest to just revert to the last known-good version of the page, but I'm not sure if I did it in a proper manner or not.
Juansmith (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Juansmith: All is fine...the protection just adds a line to the article history without changing the article...protection persists regardless of how much you as an autoconfirmed user edit (try editing the article while logged out, though, to see the difference:)). Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, cheers. Juansmith (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Lectonar, I noticed earlier that you deleted my pages, Anti-Gravity Freedom Machine, The Anti-Gravity Freedom Machine, and AGFM on the basis of promoting spam and having no relation to the redirected article (Email). I'd like you to explain your reasoning that the AGFM is not a fork of Email's history or has relation, and therefore can not have the redirection to Email, and that it promotes spam. -Patrick Boots CEC (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
"The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam" as there will be no mention of AGFM in the email article unless you come up with drastically better sources. --NeilNtalk to me 01:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with NeilNs interpretation; as long as I see no consensus on the talk-page of email to even include this in the article, I see no sense in a redirect, as I consider it implausible. Lectonar (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
And the pattern is always the same: first an edit to link a year, 5 tot 20 minutes later the attacks. What a pitiful creature. TheBannertalk 02:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Pathetic is rather understated; blocked and revdeled. The range of the 178.xxx IPs is too big for a rangeblock. Lectonar (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
You might have a bit of a respite now; I had some fabulous help which did apply a rangeblock. Please keep me updated. Lectonar (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
That sounds really nice. TheBannertalk 22:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Another rangeblock. We'll get them yet. Lectonar (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
And the same pattern: first adding a wikilink, then the personal attack. TheBannertalk 08:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
And blocked the single IP; the rangeblock calculator is down, but I will get to it asap. Lectonar (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again. TheBannertalk 08:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to cause confusion. The reason I saved the German text first (which I don't normally do) was that there was a Wiki popup over the editing screen that I couldn't get rid of. By saving the text and re-opening it, the popup disappeared. Anyway, all sorted. I think there's a "translation in progress" hatnote that I guess I could use in future. Fortunately I didn't lose my translation when you deleted the article! ☺ --Bermicourt (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: And I would have undeleted at a pinch anyway; sorry for deleting it in the first place. Cheers and happy editing. Might I coax you over to WP:PNT, btw.? Plenty of work there:) Lectonar (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Just took a look at WP:PNT and can see some articles where I can easily help. Thanks for drawing that to my attention. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: Splendid; adminning takes up too much of my wikitime, and translations need plenty of that....Lectonar (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The edit conflict on the Kashmiris page has been solved now. Please remove the protection. Losthistory9 (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Losthistory9 I'd rather have that discussion on the talk-page of the protected article; be so kind as to move the discussion there to get more eyes on it. Lectonar (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The discussion turned sort of private. So there's some details that I don't want to share. But basically the conflict was over a spelling of a caste (clan) name. We both acknowledged both spellings as in use among caste members. Just that the other user did not want to use one of the two spellings in the article. So now we have compromised by agreeing to include both spelling variants. Losthistory9 (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I read the discusion you had linked, and, sorry to tell you, nothing here on Wikipedia is private. I have the strong impression that you kind of very strongly nudged the other user into compromising. And let me assure you that I am well aware of what this was/is about. But my opinion stands: I would really like to see this on the talk-page, as mentioned above. Lectonar (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Well since you have such a feeling I have no choice but to withdraw my request for lifting page protection. At the same time I would re-ask you to consider the factor of the use of WP:RS which I have strictly adhered to. I would not like this discussion moved to a talk page but I am happy to re-discuss this issue with that user on the talk page afresh.Losthistory9 (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
By asking you to move it to the talk-page of the article, I just adhere to the process laid out after fully protecting a page, see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Types of protection, full protection/content disputes. Lectonar (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lectonar. Just to let you know, @Oshwah:. Nothing came of the dialogue between the other editor and myself and unfortunately no-one else has weighed in. For me, without further voices and suggestions on the matter and on how to proceed, I am leaving the article and moving on. However, that should go both ways, but the other editor feels different about it. Actually it would appear that is has now become an obsession, a question of proving a point, seeing that he has done nothing else on the English Wikipedia for almost two months and for two days did nothing else other but this. To me, the shorter this etymology section the better, for it makes no sense to go into such detailed analysis in the article, as I said here, to wit, "The only reason that article has such an extensive etymology section has nothing to do with the tree, but with the unending debate over the |origin of the name Brazil/ Brasil. And the reason for that unending debate is exactly because it is not possible to ascertain for sure what the origin of the name is.". In other words, that level of detail belongs at Name of Brazil, not in other articles about the species. Keep well, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Rui Gabriel Correia Thank you for your patience and calmness; I have one more idea, and that would be to list this at WP:3O (it seems to be an ideal case for a 3rd opinion). Would you be so kind to do that? I don't want to put it there because it would make me involved, and I try to stay as impartial as possible while doing admin-stuff (it leaves me more options). My rather small hope from the beginning was to get more on eyes on the problem. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Lectonar. I will list it at WP:30. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Just seeking clarity on the WP:3O process. I see that there is an IP who routinely goes to the page, responds to the request with a few lines and deletes the request. However, it feels odd that such a process is handled in such a manner by an individual who one knows nothing of, has no credentials, etc. What weight does this IP's opinion carry? Who is then to act on the opinion and implement whatever is to be implemented? Thanks, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you change it to pending changes anyway? The policy says its great for BLPs, which the article is.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate the attempt! But I guess because they're already autoconfirmed...? Anything else can be done, or just watch the page? I didn't think it was disruptove enough to ask for 30/500 (or whatever the numbers are). Anyway, thanks for looking in! —O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah...the autoconfirmed-status was what made me undo it; extended confirmed is too heavy handed and actually not indicated with essentially just one user. Still mulling over how to proceed.....a rather stern warning might be sufficient. I will decide after some coffee. Thanks for the head-up. Lectonar (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi
The user change his ip frequently. Also, another user reproaches him for suppressing passages sourced unilaterally and according to his personal analysis. So, I have warned him. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Then file a SPI; sockpuppetry and block evasion is easier to block, and so an easier way to deal with problems like that than page protection. Lectonar (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about this - . I probably got a little to carried away on seeing the magnitude of people working to disrupt an article. JupitusSmart 18:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
It just struck me as worth mentioning; Wikipedia is caustic enough already. And well...they are probably not in cahoots, and I always tend to think fanboys-/girls... they are just as passionate as they come (which does not mean I condone the their behaviour). It always pays to keep a cool head, though. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi
The article has been moved without consensus an the party will be renamed on 15 July 2017. Could you reverse the name to En Marche!? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Move-protected at "En Marche". Lectonar (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I had originally requested protection on several of my userpages several months ago following a run-in with Amotrtias/ Armotrias/ 92.40.156.172 (not to be confused with Amortias) and this RfC a weeks/months later. The account I mentioned is globally locked and I requested G10 (on only the pages they created) and (later) oversight on several (if not all) of their edits, so I'm not sure if you are able to see what pages they started creating after they noticed it was always the same user undoing them, but they were not nice (to put it very mildly). After the RfC passed for default protection on all root userpages (not user talk pages), I later decided to protect most of my subpages (except a draft I had in my userspace at the time which didn't go anywhere and I eventually deleted) to avoid vandals and new users being able to edit pages they shouldn't need to edit. That request at RFPP was granted. I requested page protection on all my currently unprotected subpages a few days ago with the same reasoning in mind. I just didn't realize I had created so many subpages in the time between that request and this one. —Gestrid (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I was aware of that, and I answered at WP:RFP; my answer took the form of a note to allow other administrators to weigh in and protect the pages if they thought it warranted.....but no one else did. The part I quoted from the protection policy is still valid, though. As of now, I (still) would not protect as I do not see the actual necessity (no vandalism, no disruption). I admit there is a bit of admin disgression where, so perhaps you should relist it at RFP. I would then recuse myself from answering. As a sidenote: what might also be a problem is the amount of requests at RFP overall, with perhaps only about 5-10 admins dropping by regularly. Cheers and happy editing, and keep up the good work (I see you allover here, Teahouse etc). Lectonar (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I'll relist at RFPP for now. It could be seen by some admins as somewhat disruptive since I made the request a few days ago and got an answer (albeit, not one that caused the bot to archive the request).
Also, it's kind of amazing that, with as much vandalism as we get, there aren't enough admins on RFPP to answer requests seconds after they come in. I suppose it's because many users prefer to ask specific admins (ex. the bot they call Oshwah) on their talk pages and IRC to get answers quickly. And I guess users prefer to do that because not many admins patrol RFPP. It's an endless circle!
They aren't enough admins as it is it; I think around 540 are listed as acive at the moment, but this does not mean they are doing adminny things (activity being measured against edits, not admin actions). All in all I would tend to think that 90% of adming actions are done by 50-100 admins (100 being on the optimistic side here). I am in Europe, and I get the feeling that from the morning up until 2pm my time I am the only one doing RFP at all (I might be wrong, but it sure feels so). Anyway, thank you for taking all that in good grace. Lectonar (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi
The title was used from years. Also, the rules are clear. The first title was used since 2 years so you should revert the move then we will launch a request move. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
And what administrative action is needed in your opinion? Lectonar (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Remove the freaking tag on top of the article! It is polluting the article! Holy Goo (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Who was the nazi that came up with this bullshit. What happened to the padlock icon on the top right corner? Holy Goo (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
As I know you can write in a friendlier fashion when you put your mind to it....let's just say it like this: do your own research. Lectonar (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lectonar, please may you downgrade the protection level. From the protection log, talk page and page history I can't see the justification for full protection. You could downgrade to pending changes or semi? Tom B (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the talk-page being unused is an indication that the article need full protection; I have protected after a request at WP:RFP, because experienced editors were reverting back and forth all over the place. Form consensus on the talk-page and then the page can be unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This has been going on as a slow-burning edit war for a long time, topic cryptoviral extortion. Now of course in the news...Lectonar (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could help remove to protection/blacklist so that the SahBabii article can be created. I started a draft, thanks! 2602:30A:C06D:8D00:A91A:66FB:DC4D:575A (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Kimber0316 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, no. If you want this to go to mainspace, follow the AFC process. Too many problems in the past. Lectonar (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Please consider adding a protection template on the page Love in the Moonlight as there has been several reverted edits by an IP address claiming other editors are sock-puppets without any proof and confirmation. Thanks! 103.212.222.155 (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't know why, in this case, an editor would claim they are socks of one specific user unless they are actually a sock of the specific user. Usually they just claim other editors are socks of no one specifically. It seems the user the IP mentions in their edit summaries was recently identified as an LTA, and, what's more, they also had a few of their accounts blocked on the 17th of this month. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bertrand101. —Gestrid (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know {{pp}} or {{pp-vandalism}} should be added to the page as the page was protected. Matthew_hktc 20:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Then go ahead, but actually it is not strictly necessary; for once, it will be added by a bot sometime in the next 18 hours, and the protection doesn't depend on the template being added: every IP or not-autoconfirmed editor who tries to edit the page will not be able to. I only template protected pages when I fully protect. Lectonar (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Please Consider Recreating the page, Camp Carmel. I represent them on some matters and we are a non-profit. If I need to take some information out, that is ok, otherwise the source is CampCarmel.com and I will be able to put that under references, which I suppose is my fault for not doing so. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheep11 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Please use WP:REFUND, or deletion review, but I see think your chances to have that restored are slim either way. Lectonar (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for added Protection to La Luna Sangre. But the IPs' now turn into red users. They deleted all my contribution (where I added many sources to the page). I saw one of the users also being blocked from editing another article. Please help to block the users. I've listed their vandalism here.
Please report those at WP:AIV, wih a short summary why you think it is vandalism. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
You might want to keep an eye on this article. Although you recently set pending changes on it, the back-and-forth edit warring/disruption is still continuing. Regards. 78.84.108.148 (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up; it is on my watchlist. And pending changes prevents the edits of the IP-hopper from going "live"...which might be frustrating for them:). Lectonar (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Lectonar,
Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from German to English Wikipedia?
This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original German article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:
There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including German , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from German. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.
If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:
Chi-Chi Igbo✗Fail, as the sources are dead, and info is different in German article.
All you have to do, is compare the English article to the German article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.
If you can help, please {{ping}} me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! From you bud over at PNT;-) Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, great idea. I will try to look into it in my spare time. Lectonar (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Can I send a few more? Mathglot (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Go right ahead, but I can not promise I get to it right away. Btw, your last long comment at User talk:Henia Perlman was fabulous. I hope it amounts to something. Lectonar (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I noticed something unusual in my watchlist - I'm wondering if you meant to do this, or was that meant to go here. —DoRD (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Lol...it is late here...and I did not mean to protect the RfP page. Thank you for watching:). Lectonar (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
And @Zzuuzz: fixed it. Thanks a million, both of you. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I notice I'm already on your talk page:) I didn't want to hassle you -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Everything is shipshape. Thanks again. Lectonar (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you were involved in the debate over infobox ideology in the article Conservative Party of Canada. The page is currently locked because of an edit war, and no attempt has been made on the talk page to resolve this. I would to thus invite you to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Conservative_Party_of_Canada#Ideology so the page can be unlocked and constructive editing can continue.--Jay942942 (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jay942942: Thank you, but I only fully protected the page after a request at WP:RFP, to further a discussion on the talk-page. Weighing in there would make me involved. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Lectonar. You recently declined to semi-protect Attila (miniseries) on the grounds that the problem "Seems to have died down". For the record, the problem is continuing, apparently coming from a dynamic IP address. Please reconsider whether semi-protection might be appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The disruption is not heavy enough to warrant semi-protection. I have pending-changes protected for 1 month, which will prevent the IP-edits from going "live" unless accepted. Lectonar (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Lectonar, I need a help from your side. The article Palaruvi Express is facing persistent and stiff vandalism from an IP. I've seen that you protected the article some days back. But that got expired, I believe. The troubles came back now. So please protect the article.
I have semi-protected for another week. Lectonar (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Long time.
The user you recently interacted with, has a sever problem with English fluency. Most of his edit summaries, comments, replies, and userpage content are extremely likely to be copied from somewhere else. I am very surprised about how he manages the language barrier. As he is a good-faith hardworking editor, I have watchlisted his page since my discussion with Neil, just in case if he runs in some sort of trouble. From my experience on wiki, I have realised an editor can work proficiently in anti-vandal work without fluency in English, but it gets difficult in other fields of wiki. Especially when it comes to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, or where PCR is required. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up; I was aware of some problems, but not that they are that grave. I will keep that in mind. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
:-) —usernamekiran(talk) 09:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Here is a little incident again. Nothing serious though. Like I said previously, copy-paste; including responses and edit summaries. See you around.:) —usernamekiran(talk) 11:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've just messaged 'the other guy' about it, so I'm just gon copy-paste the message: "Hey, I'm just letting you know that I've reverted your edits and instead mentioned that Stargard Szczecinski is now called Stargard. You can't say that her birth place is Stargard because it's not, it's not what it was called at the time she was born, and It's not what appears on her birth certificate." I don't understand why you would call my edits childish and say I do edit warrings. Each time I revert something I message the author of the reverted edit with explanation. ArturSik (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I did say it seems childish, not that you or your edits are. And edit warring is not about being right, but just reverting back and forth; anybody is free to just walk away. As I said, both of you need more competence, and less ownership. I will not touch this article again, but be aware that even good articles may become former good articles. And what is happening over there is just paving the way for that: the kind of behaviour by all involved will make the article deteriorate so much that it might loose the good article status. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
reverting is the last thing I want but if people change correct informations to incorrocted it leaves me with no other choice. I can leave a note explaining why it is this way and not the other and ask for not changing this but there's nothing else that I can do. I am the person who contributed to this article becoming GA and I cannot let people destroy it, and don't get me wrong I'm not saying others can't touch it, I'm just always there to double check if what they did is correct and when it comes to her birth place I dealt with this before and a lot of people get it wrong. As I said I always message the person who's edits I revert but sometimes they ignore what I say and begin edit wars. That's one of the reasons I've requested protection for this page. ArturSik (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The case rests. I really do not care. Lectonar (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
fair enough ArturSik (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you please give me a good reason why new editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page? Jsnsnsnsnsnsn (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328Let's discuss it 00:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The pleasure is all mine. Lectonar (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lectonar. Would you mind explaining in a bit more detail why you decided to decline protecting the Sam Pepper article? As I said in my request, I am aware that the page isn't edited extremely frequently, but these are obviously vandalism and BLP violations and they can be found at the top of the revision history. There's no shortage of problematic revisions once you look deeper either. WP:PCPP says
Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate
So what rate of editing would justify protection in your view? To me, the BLP violations lead me to believe the page should be protected. I would appreciate some insight on your end. Eventhorizon51(talk) 14:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I was aware of all of that, but: Wikipedia should stay the encyclopedia that everyone can edit, not: the encyclopedia where your edits are reviewed before going "live"; to quote a bit more from protection policy "....Pending changes may be used to protect articles against: persistent vandalism, violations of the biographies of living persons policy and copyright violations...". Carly Fiorina presidential campaign, 2016 was an article I pending-changes protected, e.g....this had about 2 or 3 vadalism edits per day for some time before protection. much also depends on how one reads "persistent"; policy is more or less mum on that account. In very olden (Wikipedia-)times I would have said: just watchlist and revert. In consequnce, I have watchlisted the article. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation; I appreciate it. Eventhorizon51(talk) 15:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Good question. In addition to User:Ravensfire's reverts within the last couple days, I also noted that they had to reverse other edits just this month. I therefore chose to protect the page, taking in concern User:Ravensfire's comments. Feel free to drop the protection down if you don't think it's warranted. Academic Challenger (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I found your name in Wikipedia:Translators_available#German-to-English. I recently translated User:Degeno/Canton of Mutterstadt, using Google translate (carefully sentence by sentence, sometime clause by clause, cleaning up and resolving issues as best I could), and I'd appreciate it if you could double-check it to the point where I might be able to remove the "rough translation" banner. I lined up the original German sentences with my translations using Template:Clarify, which I hope will make that easier, but the text still follows de:Kanton Mutterstadt closely if that's better.
Thanks! - Degeno (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
It has been brought to my notice that you have deleted my Wiki page, "Chunky Zucchini", for being an "ATP (attack page)". However, the page contains a clear notice that it was uploaded with consent of Chunky Zucchini, and that he is okay with the page being up and does not take offence. Please bring the page back up. Thank you.
PS: If the phone number is too offensive (even though Chunky thought it was fine), I will remove it at your request.
PS 2: It appears the page has also been protected, but I shall note here that I would not have recreated the page without permission from the deleter of said page (Lectonar (you)) anyway.
PS 3: It also appears that the page might've been taken down for an unsourced BLP, in which case I will gladly remove the biography section.
Maybe you can remember me from the discussion we had at the time about the Luang Por Dhammajayo article. I was wondering what your thoughts were on the Warakagoda Sri Gnanarathana Thero article and the edit-warring that is going on. Nobody really does anything about it, because nobody knows a thing about the subject, myself included, but it is a lot of messy editing and reverts. Please let me know what you think could be done about it.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Hi i am a real life independent polltican. and i am a hardcore socialist,- so i was wondering if i coud publish my concept trondisme wonces it has ofcourse bean written and is finnished and is grammerly corrected,- i am asking yu as a moderater cause im afraid the page will get deleted i want to share my concept whit the world but im just a normal worker so yea =/ i dont know about eny other way to publish it to the world then on here,- i know wikipedia is a community services thats why i asked about it first,- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red socialistdude (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF)talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I see you recently accepted this unsourced addition to February 1. I was able to find a source supporting this addition and add it to February 1.
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.
Please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Was done via pending-changes, not my edits. Lectonar (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Lectonar. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "SahBabii".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Was not my draft. Lectonar (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I’m writing to ask if you might be willing to take a look at the Articles for Deletion page for Jesse Waugh. The vote already took place based on the article’s current sources, but certain people seem to be determined to get it deleted. Thanks either way. 81.44.32.50 (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Will you please remove protection from Martin Garrix? I would like to edit it but I can't because it's semi-protected. There has not been any disruptive editing for a long time so it would be great if you would unprotect it. KingAndGod 15:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Lectonar,
Never mind, sir. I will try to ask someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marykartowski (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Lectonar,
I see source code of some new Wikipedia pages (e.g., 26-Mar-2018 created new article: view-source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemma_Senbet_Fund) have a NOINDEX HTML tag (<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>). I think Google Search spider honors that tag by not adding to Google Search Index, and thus Google Search does not return these new Wikipedia articles via search string "https://www.google.com/search?q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemma_Senbet_Fund". I've read "Articles older than 90 days are automatically indexed".
Does that mean Google Search Crawl Policy stops honoring a NOINDEX tag after a target page is 90 days old, or more likely Wikipedia robots remove the NOINDEX tag (and adds the INDEX tag) from new articles after 90 days (26-Mar-2018 + 3 months = 26-Jun-2018)?
I'm guessing the latter. I think because Reviewedness data is lost 90 days after creation, Wikipedia Patrollers might not be able to know if a page was reviewed before 90-days, so that Wikipedia robotic software probably uses a configuration variable ($wgRCMaxAge, or $wgPageTriageMaxAge) to remove the NOINDEX HTML tag from new pages after 90-days.
Do Wikipedia New Page Patrols usually shorten this wait from 90 days down to xx days?
Is there a way to see the status (or queue, or schedule, or backlog, or ETA) for New Page Patrol's review of a specific new Wikipedia articles?
P.S. I know there are 5.6 million Wikipedia articles, and only a tiny squad of Patrollers. And we (Patrollers, Administrators, Contributors, Editors) are all volunteers. But I really strove in good faith to create a Wikipedia article that met Wikipedia excellent standards (notable, useful, neutral, factual, encyclopedic, supported by 3rd party evidence, referenced, accurate, spam-free, advertisement-free, not vandalism, not hoax, not violate copyright, not defamatory, not exploiting Wikipedia to earn money, not orphaned, etc).
Marykartowski (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for protecting Jhanvi Kapoor but it appears that the new editor Lovedancing12(talk·contribs) has reached autoconfirmed status. They have been given much rope but seem unwilling to listen. I have provided them links to Wikipedia's reliable sources page, notability page, and edit warning page but I think a block is necessary to stop their disruption. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand WP:AGF and they are likely just a misguided new editor but edit waring on Bigg Boss 12 and ignoring warnings probably isn't the best place to start. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Poppyseed. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Poppyseed redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. B dash (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Fun is not allowed anyx more it seems:). Lectonar (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
The Randy Orton page, currently on semi-protect pending changes protection has been for a couple of days blizzarded by endless, very similar, edits from a variety of IPs (my rough reading of them indicates that a dynamic range probably wouldn't work, but I shall endeavour to look into it), several editors, including myself, have been filtering the messages.
However it has reached such a high level that I was hoping you could temporarily (1/2 weeks) shift protection to standard semi-protect since the article has fallen out of the "infrequently edited" category atm.
Looks like all the recent disruption has come from a single IP that is now blocked. Please consider unprotecting unless we see that the issue absolutely cannot be solved with reverts/blocks. As I'm sure you are aware, it is highly important that our forum for new editors be open to non-autoconfirmed accounts. GMGtalk 12:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Or can we at least downgrade to pending changes so we can allow guests to ask questions? GMGtalk 12:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Reason for revert is?
Hungarian diet adopted a motion declaring that the constitutional relations between the two states have ended on 30.10.1918. - Source New York Times
Source for 29.10.1918 is from Croatian parliament. Everything is from article Treaty of Trianon212.15.179.75 (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear lectionar
Im a german native as well, but I guess I should speak english like the other one here. Im an ARMY and I just realized thst there is no german translation for Seok jin's Wikipedia page. if you click on "deutsch" it will just send you to the groups german wikipedia page. The english page is semi-protected due to vandalism so I thought you could just translate it maybe, or at least just create the post so all fans can add every little detail XD I'd be very thankful if you would do that <3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Seok-jin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.16.158.193 (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I am virtually non-active on DE-Wikipedia...and in any case, it would be better to post your request over there. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Request translation: de:Ludwig von Flüe (Ludwig von Flüe). This page needs more information, if you can find it somewhere in internet. Thank you very much, if you can do it. --95.232.34.233 13:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.34.233 (talk)
Will be probably too busy. Lectonar (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
