User:Lectonar/Archive 19

A year ago ...
"assume the assumption; of good faith"
	... you were recipient; no. 1993 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

Bekir Kaya speedy deletion request

Dear Lectonar,

I have just created an article about Bekir Kaya, a kurdish politician, a mayor is imprisoned and prosecuted for terrorism because he has built a bridge and allowed that Kurdish fighters who fought IS in Kobane were buried in the cemetery of their hometown with the name Van. It has been requested a speedy deletion for it because of copyright questions. I have cited the sources and I rephrased most of the phrases in order not to have too much similar phrases, but certain phrases are simply fine like they are and there is little need to change too much at them. So I found one phrase which was the really the same, and I rephrased it now, too. Most of the info available in the article can be read in three different sources cited in the article.

Is this enough, or should there be changed more? If it is enough, could you end the speedy deletion request? If there should be changed more, could you please tell me what else is there to change?

Best,

--Lean Anael (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems to have been sorted via AfD. Lectonar (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Lower protection level of Mankatha

Hi Lectonar, could you take a look at Mankatha and consider unprotecting the page? You set up pending changes protection back in 2015, so it might be worth seeing if the protection is still needed. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 08:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the movement on the page....I think it still warrants pending-changes protection. Lectonar (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

How is the Arbitration Committee not notable please explain

Hi I did give references that the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia is clearly notable I don't understand how a global scale notability is addressed but since you're a long time sysop or administrator I just wanted to clear my doubts of how it is not notable enough and not reliable sourced (as in my edit I gave the primary, secondary and tertiary sources to show it is a global and notable event as told by the sources themselves) Best regards 182.58.164.185 (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee might be notable for in-Wikipedia purposes, but surely is not notable in the wide world; plus, it's only the Arbitration Committee of the English-language Wikipedia. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

New

I am new in wikipedia page can you help me which rules i will follow Dotgirlfine (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Left a link on your talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

At least now

people are saying Wikipedia was a true source of information. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

We'll see if Wikipedia is still any source of any information after EU’s final Copyright Reform. Lectonar (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Paris Kassidokostas - Latsis

Thanks for restoring that. The revision history of the page seems to have disappeared though, can you have a look? I wanted to restore it back to a previous version as there's a single purpose account which keeps changing it to a badly formatted mess. Valenciano (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

All this moving about made my head spin...should be ok now. Lectonar (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

MIG-21 Update

When you locked out any edits to MiG-21, the verified facts about 1999 Atlantique incident between India and Pakistan as well as the table of confirmed air kills were deleted. Please restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayonpradhan (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk-page to discuss your edits; me restoring any part of the article after having protected it would make me involved. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sukaphaa

Hi. A user by the name Sairg is involved in disruptive editing of the page on Sukaphaa. Kindly, go through it. The sources given seemed to be proper with references, but the user is constantly undoing it falsely accusing it to be vandalism. As far as I know, the journey of king Sukapha into Assam has been recorded in different versions. All versions are equally important and therefore all versions have to be added including the one which Sairg thinks is right. I guess he is involved in POV push. It's best if the user is reported. He is involved in disruptive editing in other pages related to the Ahoms too. Check [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbariankiller456 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk-page to discuss your edits; me taking sides in editing of the article after having protected it would make me involved. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:Sudeep Karat

Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sudeep_Karat I have provided enough references. https://g.co/kgs/ermCSR — Preceding unsigned comment added by K2share (talk • contribs) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I just reacted to the moving back and forth from draft to mainspace; I will not participate in the evaluation of the draft, as that would make me involved. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you please check whether there are any issues with references or content?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K2share (talk • contribs) 10:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

See my answer above; in short: I won't. Lectonar (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I have understood you OK :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K2share (talk • contribs) 11:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Exotic pet

Thank you for configuring pending changes for the Exotic pet article. Unfortunately, this has not deterred the constant IP vandalism. Without engaging in discussion, IPs (mostly but not exclusively in the same address range) have been repeatedly adding very poor examples to the list of examples of exotic animals kept as pets in households – e.g., whales, porpoises, extremely venomous snakes, and lions. Could you possibly see fit to raise the protection level to require autoconfirmed editors? —BarrelProof (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Well, the pending-changes protection does what it's supposed to do: it prevents the changes from going live (normally frustrating as hell for IPs). As for the edits: be so kind to escalate the warnings, and subsequently report the IPs (mainly from the 87.xxx range) to AIV. It could be that a rangeblock is needed. Lectonar (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and applied semi protection to the article for 3 days. Given the edit history, it's clear that there's back-and-forth disruptive editing going on by anonymous users, and at a rate where I feel that it's justified and in order to put a stop to it (at least for now). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough; I just think that protection should be the last resort....if not, why all the other instruments at our back and call? Lectonar (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Protection request

Hi Lectonar, you recently added extended confirmed protection to Barbara Engelking. Would you consider doing the same to Jan Grabowski (historian)? It is experiencing the same BLP violations for the same reason, namely that the two have edited a collection, Dalej jest noc (2018), that (if I've understood it correctly) criticizes the Polish public's treatment of Jews during the Holocaust. See this edit, for example. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually came here to thank Lectonar for the ECP on Engelking. As someone who created the page (which I now almost regret), I felt responsible for protecting the page from antisemitic vandalism. Jan Grabowski (historian)‎ is better watched, but ECP would be beneficial there as well to reduce disruption from accounts with limited track records. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I've had a look at this, and the disruption is...different from the disruption at Barbara Engelking; if Jan Grabowski (historian) is to be protected, ECP-protection would not be enough anyway imho...but discussion is already ongoing. I have added both articles to my watchlist in the meantime. Lectonar (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

RPP

Hi, I had requested protection for Invasion of Normandy which it appears you have declined with the reason being that "the users are blocked". The problem is that it is a single person using both IP access and multiple new accounts to repeatedly make the same series of disruptive edits to the page. They already waited out a 1-week protection then immediately went back, hence the reason I requested protection again. The page needs a longer period of protection with a minimum of 'Extended Confirmed User' for access. Thanks - wolf 21:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Apart from this one user, there is virtually no disruption of the article which would warrant a protection of the kind you are requesting; instead of locking down a whole article, it is better to block sockpuppets...it causes much less disruption, and after all: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that everyone can edit, one of the 5 Pillars. Lectonar (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

TFA being vandalised

Please address/resolve this page protection request. Dan56 (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Not poorly sourced

Sir that is not poorly sourced on Bruce Dickinson's page. It is cited to the article The Famous People which is considered reliable in wikipedia community. Also a same kind of statement is added in the page of Freddie Mercury but no one dared to touch that but only in Bruce Dickinson. This is clearly injustice. Injustice against heavy metal vocalists has no place on Wikipedia. Please add that this ain't fair. Flight time broke 3 revert rule but you didn't warn him that is clear injustice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A38D:A93:A891:1A39:6B2F:8F24 (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Then be so kind and use the talk page of the article to make your point; protecting the page makes me involved now. Lectonar (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice Job!

Thanks for your swift response to my WP:RFPP earlier, I really appreciate it. Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

obviously...

you didn't look at the last 12 months, but then again, I didn't take (waste) time assembling diffs for what should be obvious. So nevermind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I like your attempt at online mind-reading, but you're quite wrong; I did indeed look at the last 12 months (and more) of both articles, but perhaps your definition what constitutes a relevant disruption warranting semi-protection does differ from what our protection policy says. Persistent the disruption might be, but it is also rather slow. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Bayan Fenwick

Hi there, I see you rejected my request to semi-protect Bayan Fenwick as there had not been enough disruption but I disagree. Most days I have to keep changing it back and the vandalism has continued since. I ask if you can please rethink your decision. Thanks, Cam (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cazza3012: I beg to disagree....in 2019 (3 months and running), there were exactly 6 (!) instances of edits by IPs. I really do not see how this might be described as "most days". While you're at it, please have a read of our protection policy. Lectonar (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Jobbik

Hello. I've read on the internet, that Csaba Gyüre is selected in the Jobbik's parliament in Hungary. Here is a proof: https://index.hu/belfold/2019/03/23/gyure_csabat_jeloli_hegedus_lorantne_parlamenti_helyere_a_jobbik/ It's an hungarian language, so the Jobbik's mandate is 22 again, not 21. I've just saying that. That's all, have nice day. --PD55ZG (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Then put the source in the article, and it's fine. Lectonar (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Protection

There's more disruption. ∯WBG^converse 13:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Back from your wikibreak? I've semied for 3 days now...Lectonar (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Lock template

I noticed some of the pages you've protected recently don't have the little lock template. I assumed that happened automatically (or by twinkle magic), but I thought Katie Bouman wasn't protected because it didn't have the lock template, and it turned out it was just invisibly-protected. Is this a thing you're doing on purpose, or just an oversight? Natureium (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Natureium: Being an old coot, I use neither twinkle nor huggle, but still do every edit manually. Afair, these little locks are put on protected pages by a bot (though this may take some time). Plus, after reading our protection policy (again), use of the locks is not mandatory. I for one always look at the logs of the page. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI at RFPP

Hi Lectonar! I hope you're having a great day and that life is treating you well. :-) I hope you don't mind, but I reviewed the protection request regarding NSE co-location scam, and I felt that applying full protection was necessary in this situation to put a stop to the ongoing edit warring and disruption. I noted my actions here, and I added that having an AN3 report filed in addition to applying full protection was a good idea. If I stepped on any of your toes here, or if you have questions, objections, concerns, comments, etc - please don't hesitate to let me know (just ping me if you respond here), and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. I doubt you'll mind that I did this, but I wanted to let you know just in case. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

As I always say...I (almost) never mind if my admin-decisions are overturned, but thanks for letting me know. Protect away. Lectonar (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"I doubt you'll mind that I did this.." ...sometimes like WikiYoda I feel. Lectonar (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

LOL. No problem, and thanks for understanding. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

German to English

Please see this; asking someone directly is the last option, as we're all volunteers here. Looking at the German articles, they lack a bit in what we consider reliable sources, so some digging would be necessary too. It's not high on my bucket list to be honest. Lectonar (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Rama Arbitration Case

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous listing as a party

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Well...I had an opinion as a non-involved-party, so I will have a look after all. Thx for the heads-up. Lectonar (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

More popular than Jesus

Hi Lectonar. Could I ask that you lower the protection level for this article and allow logged-in users to continue trying to improve the text? As user:ILIL stated at WP:RFPP/A, there is no dispute at the article other than an IP user continually adding the same irrelevant and poorly sourced detail. ILIL and Ritchie333, I believe, have been doing a good job in keeping the user's efforts at bay. We're now discussing larger issues about the article at the talk page, none of which have been the cause of serious disruption. Preventing any editor bar an admin from working on the article for three days is completely unnecessary. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually...I am happy that the talk-page is now used to good effect, but talk-page interaction only started after the full-protection was implemented. Why is the need for editing the article so great now that it can't wait for another 48 or so hours? And as an uninvolved party, I must say that I saw more disruption than just by the IPs. Feel free to come up with a solution on the talk-page, and ping me afterwards. Or let the protection run down its time. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"... talk-page interaction only started after the full-protection was implemented." Yes, exactly – one of the editors involved in a dispute about the lead (I didn't mean to play down ongoing disagreements over the lead, btw, I wasn't fully aware of that issue; I was focusing on the edit warring as a result of the IP user's repeated additions) requested full page protection before even raising the issue on the talk page or discussing it on the other editor's talk page. Since when does that happen? FPP should be a last resort, after all attempts at communication have broken down; in this case, no one even bothered to start a discussion. Christ's sake ....

Why can't it wait for another 48 or so hours? Well, I want to expand the article now and I don't believe any of my additions have been or will be contentious – I've no interest in the lead until the main body has some of the important content that's missing – and I don't see any good reason why I or any other editor who's not invested in the lead issue can't do so. JG66 (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well...it is unprotected now. Lectonar (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Undelete Request

Kindly take a look at my article undelete request of Faizullah Arain

Seems to be sorted. Lectonar (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Reset protection settings on Brad Marchand

Just as an FYI, I converted your pending changes protection on Brad Marchand to semi-protection. There's no actually useful edits coming in from IPs and it's been lighting up my watchlist lately. I hope you don't mind. Maxim_(talk) 00:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Maxim: No, I do not mind, but somehow the approach of some admins to protection seems to have changed....protection should be the exception, not a rule, and keeping IPs completely out goes straigt against the five pillars. That is why I find pending-protection useful...just semiprotecting an article because there was no useful IP edit in a while while disruption overall would normally not warrant semiprotection, and it kind of popped up on a watchlist....just leaves me baffled. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding RPP

Hi Lectonar, you declined my request for page protection of User:Optakeover/Barnstars and Awards ([3]). I would like to ask if you could clarify why exactly you declined my request, especially because I requested protection of my user space sub-page per WP:UPROT. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Also I have approached Oshwah and he has already helped me to protect the page. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The reason I declined is exactly here....User pages and subpages may be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists—pages in user space should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected. Requests for protection specifically at uncommon levels (such as template protection) may be granted if the user has expressed a genuine and realistic need. There was no reason given, so no need expressed, and as there was no disruption there was no protection; nice of @Oshwah: to protect it. Lectonar (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Unda (film)

Dear Lectonar,

I request you to go through the deleted article another time and have a look at it. It says User:AhamBrahmasmi created before being unblocked and banned, and therefore instead of deleting the article please block the user from any further editing on this page. Understanding the importance of what the article has in India, I request you to reconsider the deletion. Regards. 2405:204:D183:DAB4:1824:E0CF:CE55:3AE6 (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It's done.. I misread the year of creation. Thank you. Lectonar (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for your comment there, which is spot on. It is quite unfortunate that this user conflict has swapped over to english wp. Cheers, Stefan64 (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thx for that; yeah, I looked up the whole unfortunate series of events...Lectonar (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Move GOOD TV

Hi, please move Good TV for me. There's some problem with the temmplates showed weird stuff. I'll try to fix that later, or if you know how, please go ahead. Thanks! Mistakefinder (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I'm taking care of it now. Thanks! Mistakefinder (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

I've granted it per your request. Please feel free to let me know if there's anything else you need. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal: Thx for the speedy reply... rollback would be nice. Lectonar (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

some wildflowers of thanks and understanding --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of edits on July 30 page

Hello Lectonar,

Regarding your reversion of my addition of Henry Bloch's death year to the July 30 page, here is Bloch's Bloomburg obituary, as well as is his death notice in the New York Times. Do these suffice as citations, and are there additional steps I should take to implement this edit?

Blaueziege (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Blaueziege: Those should be ok...just put the sources/citations in the article (it's better than to put them on the DOY page), and it should be fine. Cheers and happy editing. And, just being curious here, why a blue goat as your username? Are you from Tyrol? Lectonar (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Done and done (cited in section "Death".) As for the name, no connection to Austria unfortunately. Blaueziege was a silly nickname of mine among some German class friends in grade school, one of those inside jokes that sticks around years later. Blaueziege (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you! --Viennese Waltz 11:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure. Lectonar (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Confirm

Please let me edit the 2019 Pacific typhoon season as I am always the one who updates it. - 👦🗣️ 06:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit it. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

13 October page

I'm new to Wiki editing and recently tried to add the observance of Fontinalia to the 13 October page, but it was removed. I don't understand why it was removed. How can I get this added to that page? Thank you. Sumoea13 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Because I am stupid and did not read properly...I have reinstated your edit; please accept my apologies. Lectonar (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! That was my first add to Wikipedia. Thank you! Apologies accepted. Sumoea13 (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

14 years of adminship!

Wishing Lectonar a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, well...how time flies when one has fun. Thank you very much indeed. Lectonar (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Protection of Coinage of India

Hi Lectonar. Your protection of Coinage of India [4] does not seem to work, as any users (including newbies) are now apparently "automatically accepted" [5]. Or maybe you can enlighten me on something I don't understand... Best! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope, autoconfirmed editors edits are always automatically accepted. Now it is more a question of what belongs in the article, which is something to be hashed out at the talk-page....the natural growth process of an article, which does rarely come without some pains. Lectonar (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors article is inaccurate, biased, and does not meet Wikipedia standards.

Earlier today you locked the Wikipedia page on the legal status of pornography depicting minors for "vandalism" and reverted my changes to it.

Nothing was vandalized. The changes that were made were to correct both factually incorrect statements and article bias. As it currently stands after my changes were reverted, the article does not give an accurate view of US law in this topic. It is also littered with bias and incomplete information that does not meet Wikipedia's neutrality standards.

The article opens with a biased and unnecessary paragraph that should, if anything, be in a separate "Opinions" section; "Some analysts have argued whether cartoon pornography that depicts minors is a victimless crime.[1][2] Laws have been enacted to criminalize "obscene images of children, no matter how they are made", for inciting abuse. An argument is the claim that obscene fictional images portray children as sex objects, thereby contributing to child sexual abuse. This argument has been disputed by the fact that restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating a non-criminal outlet for desires that could motivate crime.[3][4]" This paragraph not only presents two pro-pornography arguments, it provides **four** pro-pornography sources and zero to the contrary. This is not even an attempt at a balanced framing of the issue.

The next major problem is in the United States section; Despite US obscenity law being critical to this issue, particularly 18 U.S.C. § 1466A which reads; " Section 1466A of Title 18, United State Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene." https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity Nowhere in the article is this line stated. The statute itself is only mentioned in passing in relation to Dwight Whorely's conviction later in the article. The fact that this very important statute is effectively left out of the article is unacceptable.

Next, the line: "In 2002, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) was facially invalid in prohibiting virtual or cartoon child pornography." Nowhere in the Ashcroft case does the word "cartoon" ever appear, this was an invention by the Wikipedia editor.

The next line of the article that's factually inaccurate is one of the worst of all; it reads "Response to "18 U.S.C. § 1466A" has been met with legal challenges on a number of fronts. On May 19, 2008, the SCOTUS again applied the holding of Ashcroft, supra, to virtual child pornography via United States v. Williams (2008). It was ruled that "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed...Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever." Except 18 U.S.C. § 1466A had absolutely nothing to do with United States v. Williams. To state that US v. Williams was a "legal challenge" to 18 U.S.C. § 1466A is completely inaccurate, as the statute it challenged was not only completely different but even upheld. The case ultimately had absolutely no effect on US obscenity law, and the way this entire paragraph is worded is both misleading and intended to give the view that 18 U.S.C. § 1466A was "overturned", though that is completely inaccurate.

Finally, the article closes by listing "thought crime" and "victimless crime" in the See Also section. This is utterly biased. Many would argue that this issue is neither a victimless crime (the UN has stated it's used in child grooming, for example) nor a thought crime. Neither of these two things should be listed as they present a starkly pro-pornography bias.

I locked the page, as there was unexplained reverts, but did no reverts myself. Make your case, as you are inclined to cite case law, on the articles talk-page. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SharabSalam (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		This is for your outstanding performance in Wikipedia as an administrator. I appreciate your selfless effort in serving Wikipedia. Your efforts are really grateful. Your quick troubleshooting abilities are a gift for Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

ECP for BLP

Per ArbCom, your WP:ECP in furtherance of protecting Li Hongzhi needs to be logged. Please do so. Buffs (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I only wanted to semi-protect (as has been done before)...I have corrected my mistake. Thanks for the heads-up. Lectonar (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It also seems that these are logged automatically now, at User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report. Lectonar (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That's what brought me to you! No worries! Thanks for the correction! Buffs (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Yoshi

FTR, you seem to have accidentally protected the page for only 5 hours. disruption resumed immediately. it has now been protected indefinitely.Hydromania (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I tried to keep protection as short as possible, as all sockpuppets had been blocked.The disruption might easily shoft to another article now, and that will leave us with another indefinetely protected article...which I do not like as it goes straight against the 5 pillars. Lectonar (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Nazier Paulsen

Undo? No I seldom reverse another admin. My reluctance is based on having received a menacing letter from attorney for defaming their client for protecting a page for three days. Months ago. The whole page should probably be thoroughly discussed at BLPN and anyone troubled by the content is free to do that or discuss the page's finer qualities on the talk page. That seems too hard for some people. Much easier to edit war and disrupt and to track someone down via the internet and threaten them. I don't see that happening here, but I was burned once and fear fire. "Getadelt wird wer Schmerzen kennt vom Feuer das die Haut verbrennt" --Rammstein-- Deep fried okra 13:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I guess those RL things/threats/burnings happen to many if not most of the admins here...most just do not talk about it too much. In the end you didn't decline said request. I think a (rather short) pending-changes protection might help to calm things a bit. And a bit of Rammstein too: Alle warten auf das Licht, fürchtet euch, fürchtet euch nicht. Have a good weekend. Lectonar (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the usertalk protection and advice posted there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:RFPP - Hazza Al Mansouri

Re this edit, I'm curious as to what collateral damage you see as the result of application of pending changes? IPs would still be able to edit but we could stop the disruption by the UAE IPs, which ranges from subtle disruption (like this from today) to the outright vandalism, like this (from yesterday). --AussieLegend (✉) 08:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The collateral damage would be that the good IP edits would have to be reviewed before going live....and the disruption is not that great either...one IP today, and very sparse disruptive edits over the last days. Lectonar (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If my count is correct, in the 9 full days since 22 September (UTC) out of 131 total revisions, 53 had to be reverted by another 15.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] That represents just over 51% of all the edits. Over that time there are only around a dozen valid IP contributions. That their edits might have to be reviewed is really a minor issue compared to stopping the vandalism and disruptive editing on a BLP where we usually treat such editing more seriously. The good IP edits will still get through (that's why I suggested PC) but the vandalism won't. Regardless, your help in reverting any vandalism in coming days will be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ford v Ferrari

Hey! I went ahead with semiprotection before noticing you had recently declined the same thing. Let me know if this should be changed. There has been an RfC on this question where no IPs have participated, so it seems possible there is a steady stream of new IPs who aren't fully aware of the issue. (Though I haven't checked thoroughly). EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston Thanks for the heads-up...I was aware of the RfC, but still didn't (and don't) think the disruption rises to the level of needing any protection...even pending-changes seemed too much, as there were only about 5 instances of editing against the RfCs result since it concluded....which was on september 21st. No change needed, but for me this protection (and especially its duration) seems like shooting with cannons on sparrows. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

there are some very inappropriate

comments I could leave regarding such issues, but no help for anyone in the end... thanks anyways JarrahTree 08:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Submitting an artist page

Hi Lectonar- I am new to wikipedia and am adding the education I develop here to my skill set as a consultant towards branding, marketing and creative writing. I am a developing branding consultant for a media agency and am trying to create a wiki page for an artist who's team I have been enlisted upon. She has a very strong digital footprint to warrant a wikipedia entry and it will also allow us to build the base towards social media verification platforms. She has over a million authentic followers and recognized on youtube as well as a thriving business thanks to her 300K following. How do I submit a draft for consideration for a wikipedia page/entry for her? I just joined a week ago and am not clear on the rules as I don't see the tools to submit drafts for review on my account as of yet. Thanks for your help!GiaKay81 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Update- Several folks in the teahouse have answered my question and referred me to appropriate guidelines to review. I have noted the guidance as well. Anything you can add let me know. GiaKay81 (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiaKay81 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)