User talk:NeilN/Archive 16

Telangana

Article telengana is affected by Vandalism. some editors are aggressively trying to insert non nuetral arguments into it. Plz ensure page protection for the article. Sorry if I used the word incorrectly in any situations.Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rameshnta909. TheRedPenOfDoom, who is a very experienced editor, disagrees with your assessment. Please use Talk:Telangana to discuss why you feel content should be removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree with the opinion of TheRedPenOfDoom on this particular edit but there are lot of instances of vandalism in the page like blanking of page and aggressively inserting non nuetral arguments. plz ensure page protection for the article.Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rameshnta909 - I'm not an admin so I can't protect an article. Please make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rameshnta909: I have fully laid out my rationale at Talk:Telangana#Tehelka_as_a_source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Page protection tag

Sorry i added page protection tag in the article telangana by mistake. Thank u 4 reverting.Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I am wondering

just what "situation resolved" (or something) at the Talk:Toll Brothers page means? I believe that I was the first editor to stumble onto the "threat" and I am curious as to what finally happened. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carptrash. The IP and his socks were blocked either indefinitely or for a year. There's nothing further for editors to discuss or speculate on. WMF Legal was given a heads up but I doubt they'll hear anything further given the specious nature of the threat. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Just curious. thanks for getting back to me. Carptrash (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Potential superpower

I suspect that the IP at Potential superpowers is none other than this guy. He was temporarily blocked for his unconstructive edits, POV pushing, personal attacks and harassment. The administrator who blocked him made the observation that hes using proxies (thus the reason why he edits under many different IP addresses). If he continues his behavior on Potential superpowers ill report him. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I placed a talk discussion to further talk on this matter on Potential Superpowers. I reverted back because there was no discussion on January 1st[1]. Since there was no discussion on these edits, I reverted back simply because

I felt there no proof on the article was done in good faith as good sources were removed with using talk.--185.35.164.107 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I see participation on the talk page by both Antiochus and Arnoutf on January 1st. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That was only population, that wasn't on other matters. Sources were removed without talk{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Potential_superpowers&action=history] So I ask we talk about those matters. I placed a discussions on talk, you see what I added there.--185.35.164.107 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Three editors have reverted you and you've been reported for WP:3RR. You need to stop reverting and discuss as this is not just you and Antiochus reverting each other. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I edit the airsoft page?

can I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:22FF:3EF0:0:0:0:3B (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I recommend reading at least Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines before you get started. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Ok.

Rahul Gandhi Revert

I changed the Gandhi starting to Rahul Gandhi. Because in that article lot of references to Rajiv Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Nehru-Gandhi Family etc.. This will confuse with Rahul Gandhi by simply saying (Gandhi). Also in India if you say Gandhi then it normaly refer to the Mahatma Gandhi, Father of the Nation. If you go for a google search just "gandhi" then you will get the pages of Mahatma Gandhi. Ok this article is about Rahul Gandhi but I think it is better to use Rahul Gandhi insted of just Gandhi. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ranjithsiji, the references to the other Gandhis are very minimal. In fact, I took a second look at the article just now and found there are already way too many instances of "Rahul Gandhi" right now. I will be shortening most of them per our other articles like George W. Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Superpower article

Hello, I opened an RfC at the talk page of the superpower article. A particular IP has been making some rather unconstructive edits (pushing POV material and undoing mine and others edits). I would appreciate it if you could join the discussion with a brief comment expressing your opinion, or something like that. Thank you. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Contact

Hello there,

I need your help... is there anyway I can get in direct contact with you in private? such as email?

Thanks.

@WebsiteTalent If you click here, you'll be taken to a form where you can send me an email. Please read the notes carefully. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you, I have messaged you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebsiteTalent (talk • contribs) 00:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Replied. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

...Yess....vhat did you think?...--98.16.129.220 (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Not much. Please contribute more constructively. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Your recent editing history at Ross Miller shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --2602:304:B0FD:BF10:DC61:8E1E:22A1:B638 (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Very funny. Try reading WP:BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision

If under attack attack meant that your opponent has a move to that square, then a king would be allowed to threaten the other king if it was protected because the square the king moved to wouldn't be under attack because the other player couldn't put their king in chack to capture your king and I know that that's not allowed in chess. I sometimes attempted to move my king right beside the other king in Chess Titans when my king would have been protected and Chess Titans said that square was under attack so I know what under attack means. It might have been better to wait for somebody to modify what I added in to have it state what I was trying to say more clearly. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Blackbombchu, That, along with "A square is under attack when by a player when that player would have a move to that square, even if it weren't for the restriction that they can't put their king in check." is completely unclear and I play chess. The current wording leading off the Check section is accurate and concise. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

reference links not intended to be spam. suggestions?

hi, im new to this, im attempting to present factoids of songs written about people on their wikipedia articles. however, the best references I found were links to the amazon pages for said songs. any suggestions for alternate links I can use as reference to avoid deletion for "spam", which is not my intention ..would magazine reviews of those records suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozfanboy (talk • contribs) 05:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

please do not black list me

i added a whole lot of stuff with similar links before i realized i had messages, alright? im not spamming, just did not realize those links wouldnt work as references. I will have to do better research for references. I am sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozfanboy (talk • contribs) 05:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

sorry!

I'm a newbie at this. Thanks for letting me know. Was not trying to spam or shill. Just being overly OCD thorough. I see your point now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozfanboy (talk • contribs) 05:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we're good. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

putin

tataral inserted that "mafia state" nonsense/false information again, can you please do something about that Kalix94 (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kalix94, while I am somewhat sympathetic, your edits, edit summaries, and potential sockpuppetry have me unwilling to do more than I have already done - a couple of attempts at removal and pointing out on the talk page that the sentence was to be removed as per the RFC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Soviet union

why did you revert my version, it was according to Template:Infobox_former_country/doc Kalix94 (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kalix94, Because there is an ongoing RFC discussing it. Wait for the outcome. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

so you mean we shall just ignore wikipedia policy? no you cannot do that Kalix94 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kalix94, What policy are you referring to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

this: Template:Infobox_former_country/doc#Preceding_and_succeeding_entities Kalix94 (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kalix94, That's not Wikipedia policy, that's template documentation. About as different as an elephant and a mouse. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Instant reversion of my intro change to "Unidentified Flying Objects"

The intro as it stands now is historically inaccurate and highly POV. Different governmental and private studies have indeed come to widely differing conclusions about the significance of UFOs (including the USAF, which has produced both), whereas the current intro states that the conclusions are all negative. That is simply FALSE (in caps, because it is without question factually inaccurate).

I linked to the list of various studies in the Wiki Ufology section as a reference, because that would demonstrate the point (studies both positive and negative), provide further links for further reading, and simplify the intro by removing a list of links to various studies within the intro itself.

I don't understand the rationale for removing this (self-referential Wiki link), since the rest of the article and all of Wikipedia is full of cross-referencing Wiki links. In fact, the intro you reverted to uses three self-referential Wiki links, but only to negative UFO studies. Would you prefer a list of studies, positive and negative, within the intro, all with links outside of Wikipedia?

The key point, however, is that the intro as written is currently factually incorrect.50.0.95.136 (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please log in with your account and use Talk:Unidentified flying object to discuss. Also, please see the sourced Unidentified_flying_object#Scientific_studies section. Finally, you are factually inaccurate (do I need caps?) in saying the "intro states that the conclusions are all negative." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Davis

I now know that you made a comment on the talk page, but I can't see it. There must be something wrong with my cache.--NK (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed it - it was a unclosed tag from a previous post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Davis (2)

Her page is being edited by political enemies to distribute lies about her personal life. I've tried to edit the page to remove them but I was told I didn't leave an explanation. What can be done to stop the personal attacks on her life on her page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoolsbelly (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is User NazariyKaminski telling blatant lies about Wendy Davis on her page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoolsbelly (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Schoolsbelly I've been checking over the content and have not come across any falsehoods. What are you referring to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

How about the article they keep referring to is full of blatant lies http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20140118-as-wendy-davis-touts-life-story-in-race-for-governor-key-facts-blurred.ece

How about if I just donate to Wikipedia and you keep user NazariyKaminski from editing her page. He's works for the GOP in Texas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoolsbelly (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Schoolsbelly You're just going to get yourself blocked if you keep editing as you have. Wikipedia treats the Dallas News as a reliable source. If there are errors in the article, you need to provide other reliable sources that point them out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Davis (3)

You removed a legitimate CNN reference by A Killough And you removed "under oath". I can see you removing "under oath" but the reference to her being supported by her husband etc, which is still in the article was in the CNN article. That is why it was cited. You should not have removed the citation.

I will add the Federal court transcription record as a link showing her taking an oath and showing her stating that she received no money from her husband.

The citation to CNN and the Washington Post are reliable sourcesa nd are ubiquitous in the media.

The citation you removed will be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/4am.pdf These are the records of her testimony. These are court documents.

I will add to article as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your reversion of Undo is wrong. The phrase "did not want custody" did not appear in the edit by NazariyKaminski 17:14 jan21, 2014. If you would simply read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Then make your case on the talk page why your version is better instead of falsely calling something as vandalism. Wikipedia has a strict definition of vandalism is and what it isn't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Great job liberal denialist spinbot. You do not like, so you edit out obvious encyclopedia content, presented by neutral sources are you 12yo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing deters users greater than endless spin from agenda ridden editors and their gangs. Not performing any service for anyone by attempting to revise history.

I complete agree, but alas, we still try to guide you into becoming constructive editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For numerous reversions of vandalism, especially over the last few days. Green Giant (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Green Giant. I really appreciate that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Review Management page

Hello! I received your message that you removed my citations on the Review Management page because you were concerned they were promoting a business - this was not my intent. The article is listing services that review managing companies offer - my company offers several services that are typical to online review managing so I was trying to show that was the case. I totally understand that it does lead to my business site though, so if you need to remove it, I understand that as well. Thank you for your consideration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impressionsrm (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Princess Daisy in Super Smash Bros 4

Is Princess Daisy going to be on Super Smash Bros 4 for the Nintendo Wii U? 173.59.11.76 (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know. Don't really care. If you do, that's great but you need some reliable sources stating that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Invicta

Hello,

I read you post about reverting the Invicta article. Unless one looks at two links posted from a known watch forum and a blog owned by a respected member of the watch and clock association, almost every thing related to Invicta is put out there by the current ownership which has been caught in many,many lies. I have seen something similar with Doxa watches. A brand which went out of business and then was re-invented by the new owners. I know someone who posted on the largest watch forum in the world, owned by a magazine in fact who exposed Jacques Coustea as a man who forsook his country during WWII. He posted the information because a watch company was touting the relationship. That person was banned for telling the truth.

Wiki has become almost a advertising site from business rather than an objective site.

Granny lalo (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Granny lalo. As you noted, I reverted to a much, much less commercial version of the article. Is there particular text still troubling you? Or do you have reliable sources we can use to add new information to the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

-) Deb (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Breast article

Neil, can I get your temporary or long-term help watching the Breast article? I just reverted a mostly odd edit there. And that editor is likely to revert and/or object on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted. I'll probably ask on the talk page for the editor to explain if they revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And notice that the source about orgasm from nipple stimulation only claims that some women can orgasm that way (the orgasms are still genital orgasms, regardless); it mentions that a few men have similar response with regard to how the brain reacts to breast stimulation, but it doesn't state that those men achieved an orgasm from such stimulation.

Anyway, thanks again. And on a side note, I was going to state that, if you're interested, there is a move discussion at the newly titled People (American magazine) article. But now I see that the article has been moved back to its current title (moved back minutes ago). Not sure how you feel on the subject, but I felt that you might be interested in that discussion, given our past involvement in "People magazine as a source" discussions. If a new discussion about that mater starts, I might ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines (though it's generally inactive) and the people at Wikipedia:Disambiguation to weigh in on it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Dispute Ayurveda

Why are you ignoring the clinical research that I have presented? I am presenting facts. You have no right to ignore facts and distort the truth for the sake of for-profit corporate interest groups who make a big income by NOT curing cancer. I am going to provide you with the clinical research that I suggest you take a look at before you sensor the truth. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304383595038873

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-46401-5_21#page-1
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/10/20/6847.short

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/7/7/1894.short http://repository.ias.ac.in/5196/ I have much more, and I suggest you review these clinical research articles before you are so hasty as to censor the truth. You can't argue with science. You seem to be more interested in propaganda than facts, so I am going to research what actions I can take against your refusal to allow my first ammendment rights to be infringed upon. It is one thing to censor false information. It is quite another to censor facts that are backed up by science. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased,therefore, I took out information that was not based on facts, and I added information that was based on facts. I did not remove all information that represented the corporate biased allopathic view, only the information that was not fact-based. I allowed for the corporate allopathic view to express their opinions, as well, but countered it with the facts of scientific research. I intend to dispute your actions with all of my time and power. People like you are why misinformation runs so rampant in the world. I hope you can sleep at night knowing that millions of people are dying from a disease that allopathy has no cure for, thanks entirely to your closed-minded, corporate sponsored, unscientific censorship of the the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.245.114 (talk)

You need to understand the studies you're citing. They do not study if curcumin has the potential to cure cancer. They studied if a regular dosage resulted in any "discernible toxicities". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

please published the proof about telexfree is working with ponzi scheme to talk about it

please published the proof about telexfree is working with ponzi scheme to talk about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Segago (talk • contribs) 03:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Segago, I replied to your post on the article talk page and listed four sources the article uses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Saraiki Language

It is conform that Saraiki is a language. Also Jhangvi dialect is dialect of Saraiki. Riasti dialect, Shah puri dialect,Multani dialect, Multani language, Thalochi dialect, Thalochi ,Derawali dialect are same. I suggest merging these articles , as the all these are same. And also be Redirected to Saraiki language.

Extended content

Kindly See these External Links http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=skr http://globalrecordings.net/en/language/16338 http://votebits.com/sweet-and-interesting-languages-of-pakistan/ http://www.ankarascene.com/haber/pakistan-823.html http://thepolyglotexperience.blogspot.com/2011/01/pakistan-language-map.html http://languagemaps.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/languages-of-pakistan/ http://mazhar.dk/pakistan/ http://www.dostpakistan.pk/geography/languages/ http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Ethnic_groups_in_Pakistan http://siraiki.blogspot.com/2013/12/languages-of-punjab.html Department of Saraiki, Islamia University, Bahawalpur was established in 1989 and Department of Saraiki, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan was established in 2006. Saraiki is taught as subject in schools and colleges at higher secondary, intermediate and degree level. Allama Iqbal open university Islamabad, and Al-Khair university Bhimbir have their Pakistani Linguistics Departments. They are offering M.Phil. and Ph.D in Saraiki. Five T V channels and Ten Radio Stations are Serving Saraiki language Twenty distracts in punjab, Pakistan and two distracts from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan are saraiki speaking area. Bahawalnagar Bahawalpur Bhakkar Chiniot Dera Ghazi Khan Dera Ismail Khan Jhang Khanewal Khushab Layyah Lodhran Mianwali Multan Muzaffargarh Pakpattan Rahim Yar Khan Rajanpur Sahiwal Sargodha Tank Toba Tek Singh Vehari Frontier Region Tank Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan These distracts are also Saraiki Chakwal Hafizabad Mandi Bahauddin Okara Fazilka Sri Ganganagar Saraiki is spoken in India, United Arab Emirates and Afghanistan also. Saraiki is second largest language in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with more than 2.5M. In United Kingdom. Saraiki is spoken by 400,000. In Canada, China, South Africa and United States saraiki is also spoken.

182.186.111.216 (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

So far you and your past IP's have mostly added links to blogs and tumblr pages. These are not reliable sources. Find academic papers or newspaper articles that specifically back up your changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You may check the reference as given above, and do the request to write Saraiki as languge.182.186.111.216 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I decline to become your meatpuppet. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhural/Archive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am also Sorry, on What you are writing. You must do the same as I am requesting. Because I am giving correct information. my account is not that you are understanding. I am other person, mind it.182.186.111.216 (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You can make your arguments on Talk:Saraiki dialect as has been done before. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have done the same but in vain. you may see,182.186.111.216 (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:DR, specifically WP:CONTENTDISPUTE for steps you can follow. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Silesian German

I reverted only one, two editions is bold (see Wikipedia:BOLD), . Kwamikagami make 2 clear reverts. Please, rebuke him. Franek K. (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Franek K., WP:BOLD is is no way a free pass to edit war. Whatever gave you the impression it was? These are the only exceptions: WP:3RRNO. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Bieber

Hi NeilN. You said on Talk:Justin Bieber#Legal troubles section that you have "no objection" to trimming of the removed section to three or four points. I have posted a new trimmed section in purple near the end. It is five sentences, compared to the previous sixteen or so. The first of the five sentences is the topic sentence, half of which is already in the article already. I would like your further comments on it. Thanks. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: What's wrong with the current paragraph? It adds the Canadian charge. I do think the Style, image and fans section should be updated though, with sources like [2]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not that there's something inherently wrong from the content in the current paragraph, but I believe something is missing. Which is why I am proposing some elaboration of his troubles before his first arrest, which were profiled in many reliable sources when his first arrest was reported. This demonstrates long-term notability. I am not trying to change the content currently in the article, but I am trying to add more information. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 01:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your comment, I see your point. The content on his image change (I do have more source for that, and can use your source also) can go to the Image section, but the actual previous incidents I am proposing should go to the Personal section. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 01:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, I'd just like to say that I added your provided source to the article to the Image section (with content from that source). That part has since been reverted / removed by Collect. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! Caden cool 23:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi page

Thanks for the condescending comments on my talk page.

Please read the second to last paragraph on the NY Times article. The quote I provided was directly lifted from there.

Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.184.132 (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. You need to read the sources you're providing a lot better. [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Just to let you know that no good contributions to the wiki ever goes unnoticed. In which case, I will present you with this barnstar! I found it lying in my attic, no clue how it got there. Well, since I look bad giving myself a barnstar, here it is. K6ka (talk | contribs) 04:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Hi, I am Anil and I want to know that those Ayurvedic books was not promotional, and you should read the Wikipedia guidelines It says "If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, " . If you want to verify you can sure check the website and download those books and read them, then take any action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Anil Singh Pokhriyal, the "fact" you were referencing by adding a link to a book was that the author wrote what looks like to be a self-published book. Wikipedia is not the place to promote such things. The only way the book would merit a mention in the article is if it is widely considered an influential and historically important work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

First you should read about the author in Wikipedia and then see there he was died 4 years ago how can he promote his own books he didn't even copyrighted the books he dedicated his whole life for human kind he was very well known social activist in India and you are saying it was not influential and historical. Please read about the author Rajiv Dixit and please don't make this place hard

Anil Singh Pokhriyal, you are advertising his books. And please read what I wrote carefully. The book must be widely considered an influential and historically important work. The author's bio doesn't even mention any work in Ayurveda, besides noting he wrote a book. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia welcome page says "If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, or suggest them on the article's discussion page." If you want to verify you can go to website and check books. How can you edit a page like ayurveda when you don't know anything about it or hindi language. Please after verifying the books undo my editing yourself.Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Anil Singh Pokhriyal, you're still not reading what I wrote. Here it is in a different way: We do not add text about non-notable books to articles. We're not interested in advertising "facts" about such works. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

But everyone who reads article about Ayurveda wants to explore more on this topic and want to read a book which is not written by some hobo the author was expert in his field he even cured a person effected with radiation which is not possible any other place. What else you want and next time please mention me to the line where its written in Wikipedia guideline that a reference should be world famous.Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Anil Singh Pokhriyal, you have provide no sources indicating the author was regarded as an expert in the field. You have provided no sources showing the book is notable (Wikipedia:Notability (books)). And you are not using the book as a reference. You are essentially saying, "hey, this book is important enough in its field to have a specific mention in the article" without providing any proof that it is considered significant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok you want a proof I will give you. Read about Ramdev and then see the video of Rajiv Dixit giving lecture with Ramdev on health topics. See youtube video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY67VAMZqeE. This time if you won't revert it I will assume you are being racist because all the lectures and books are in Hindi language.Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Anil Singh Pokhriyal: Doesn't even come close to establishing that the book is influential or historically significant. See WP:SYNTH for starters. And I would keep your assumptions to yourself - WP:NPA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Tell me your email Id and how many emails you count as significant, a million would be enough or moreAnil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Go to google keywords research tool and enter Rajiv Dixit there and see Rajiv Dixit has more 50,000 searches per month and Ayurveda has 160,000 per month.Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Anil Singh Pokhriyal, doesn't matter. We rely on published reliable sources that state if a work is significant in the field (in this case, probably academic sources), not email and google search counts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Answer These Questions:

Do you have knowledge of Ayurveda? Can you read Hindi? Do you know anyone in India?

If none of them is yes, then how can you verify that he is a notable person or not. I have given you video link where he is giving speech but you can't understand because its in Hindi. First find someone who know Hindi than research on that person and don't throw random links at me. Read 1st, 3rd, and 5th point of (Wikipedia:Notability (books)). And this time if you won't revert my changes, tell me how can I report to the Wikipedia support that you are trying to harassing without even having the knowledge of the topic.Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Anil Singh Pokhriyal - Answers: No (besides what is in the article), no, and yes. And per WP:BURDEN, it's up to you to provide references explicitly stating the book is significant enough to mention in the article. If you want to escalate this content dispute, see WP:DR. If you want to report my behavior, see WP:ANI. I think you'll be disappointed in the responses you'll get in both places, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For listing Valentine's Day at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The "best friend" material added to various WP:BLPs

Did you see the dispute going on with regard to Pass a Method, StAnselm and Sportfan5000 across various celebrity articles, such as here and here at the Brad Pitt article? Quite trivial information. I would have already reverted Sportfan5000 at the Brad Pitt article, but I was busy with other matters and was waiting to see if anyone else would revert. Still waiting. Sportfan5000 was reverted at other articles on this "best friends" material, such as here at the Jennifer Aniston article by Lady Lotus and here at the Justin Timberlake article by XXSNUGGUMSXX. We certainly don't need a "best friends" precedent set for WP:BLP articles. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: anyone else smell sock puppets? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What the hell? Are we going to add, "Her favorite color is purple and her favorite food is pizza" next? All reverted. This is an encyclopedia, not Stars Weekly. The only reason why that kind of relationship would merit a mention is if sources wrote about what kind of notable impact it had on the subject's life. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. An example of actually notable friendships I can think of that had impact on career and such would be Matt Stone and Trey Parker since they frequently work together on projects (notably South Park). StAnselm also reverted the addition of Rihanna being the best friend of Katy Perry. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There is still Courteney Cox and George Clooney to go, and then I think we've cleaned it all up. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Lady Lotus, Sportfan5000's editing style is completely different than Pass a Method's editing style...generally anyway. Sure, if you look at Sportfan5000's earliest Wikipedia contribution, it's clear that Sportfan5000 was not completely new editing Wikipedia, but that's likely unrelated. For example, Pass a Method generally never types as much as Sportfan5000 did in that first contribution. And I'm comparing those two because StAnselm was the one trying to remove the "best friends" material.

Exactly, Neil. Thanks for reverting the rest. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Sportfan5000 actually provided references, dubious though they might be. Pass a Method added them all in with no sourcing whatsoever, and then seemed outraged that I reverted him. StAnselm (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok those two are gone (did 11 by my count). To be clear, I have no issues with editors re-adding the material in an encyclopedic context. Say, for example, how the friendship of Cox and Aniston has affected their careers or made an impact on their personal (and notable) views. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be fair to mention "with friend ______" if involved in an organization or project of some sort, but to say "is best friends with ______" is rather unnecessary except for friendships like the one between Matt Stone and Trey Parker. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This kind of stuff is also used by publicists so watch out for that. Adding {name of famous celebrity) is best friends with (name of less famous celebrity) in the former's article to drive traffic to the latter's article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I could make an exception for Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, but it'd need to be covered well...like Neil and XXSNUGGUMSXX stated. Not like this piece, which Gareth Griffith-Jones reverted. But then again, the Damon and Affleck connection is covered well enough in their articles. Also, if we were to cover such relationships in WP:BLP articles, and in an encyclopedic way, then do we duplicate that exact material in both articles? Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so as the effects of the friendship would likely not be the same on both parties. Hypothetical: Celeb A credits best friend Celeb B with getting him sober after a long stint of alcoholism. That would appear in A's article but not necessarily in B's. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No I wasn't saying StAnselm was a sock, it just seems convenient that Pass a Method and Sportfan5000 are backing up this kind of edit so hard. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

We knew that, Lady Lotus- no worries XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that for sure; wasn't sure if Lady Lotus was aware that StAnselm was doing the opposite. So that's why I stated above, "And I'm comparing those two because StAnselm was the one trying to remove the 'best friends' material." And then Lady Lotus responded to that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Out of interest, Sportfan5000 has called my reversions "disruptive". StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

StAnselm When I revert something like that, an edit summary of "unsourced trivia" covers both bases :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment; the way i'm reading some responses is that the only thing that is notable about BLP's personal lives should be a) their spousal relationships b) their religion and c) any family members they may have. I mean i know a lot of people who attach more importance to their friends over their family members so why shouldn't wikipedia reflect real life? Pass a Method talk 04:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • And I know people who love their pets more than their family members. The fact remains we need reliable sources covering how important the relationship is and its impact. Marriage/kids have implied importance and are standard biographical details. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Did the friend(s) play a significant part in the person's career and/or personal life (i.e. crediting friend for helping recover from alcoholism, depression, drugs, etc.)? If not, then the friendship is trivial. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Italy is a great power

Data and even articles talk for her.Can i add them in the Talk of Italy?I want to see your good feith.Gemina4772 (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

So let's start even the better place should be great power talk page.THE PAGE IS STILL BLOCKED.Gemina4772 (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Gemina4772 You need to wait until you are autoconfirmed (user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is this british supercazzola?Gemina4772 (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Gemina4772 Wait, Talk:Great power is not protected. What are you talking about? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Italy is a great power as the other guy says.It's common believed in Italy and in the world this thinking.Italy overtakes in many aspects,UK,Russia and Germany.Data talk .There are also the citations (that are really ridiculous as support for an article).Suipercazzola = non sense burocracy thing .Gemina4772 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've no time to lose. ByeGemina4772 (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Gemina4772, Sigh. For the last time, we don't care about what your synthesis. We care about what reliable sources say. If you cannot provide any, there's no point continuing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've tons them.You seem Italophobic.You enter when is morning in America.I'm not the same guy that wrote in the Talk of Italy.New people will arrive on Wikipedia english.This is just the beginning.You wanted the war against Italy,you got it.You didn't respect italian page.Italian institutions as i read were warned about Italy article situation.Gemina4772 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop posting here Mediolanum. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm Lorenzo.))))Gemina4772 (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Aaaaand blocked --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Italy

I'd like to add something on Italy Talk page.I'm not in a hurry,but i neither like to wait here 150 years. 89.97.225.73 (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggest you register an account and wait to get autoconfirmed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I wrote on the Antiochus the Great Talk ( so he says to be) but he cancelled what i posted like for fear.Strange place Wikipedia.89.97.225.73 (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is a discussion at Talk:United States presidential election in New Mexico, 1996 on whether a picture and its accompanying caption should be included in the article. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Meetup vs. WikiProject

Hi, I just commented on the comment you left on my page at User talk:OR drohowa. Thanks! OR drohowa (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of hypoventilation training

Dear Nein

A few hours ago, you reverted my edit on "physical exercise" and "James Counsilman".

You said to me that the external links did not seem to be appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I can understand that links to websites where you can buy books, in particular self-published work or books not available in any library, should not be added.

However, I don't agree with you when you decide to remove "hypoventilation training" from the two pages above mentionned. Hypoventilation training has been the subject of many scientific studies over the last decade and can really be considered as a physical exercise.

Furthermore, this training method, which consists of reducing the breathing frequency while exercising, began to be used by runners in the 1950's and was also instigated by James Counsilman in the early 1970's in swimming.

I think these data can be useful for people who want to get information about physical exercise and James Counsilman. As such, I would like to edit again the changes I made today but without any external links.

I hope you will be ok with this, so that we won't waste our time to edit and undo the same things endlessly.

Kind regards

Sinequanon59 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sinequanon59 I'm fine with that as long as you provide a reliable source like Trackinfo did here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do my best. Sinequanon59 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Matt Schultz

Neil, TheKillingNoise is back at it again. At what point would this sort of thing be considered disruptive?CFredkin (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC) In the past, he appears to have edited as 173.27.52.177. CFredkin (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@CFredkin It's not exactly disruptive until you can cite a guideline or policy for your version and communicate that to the other editor. I've organized the page according to WP:MOS so hopefully that will be the end of it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I wasn't aware that a MOS exists.CFredkin (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@CFredkin There's style guidelines for everything. There's probably a style guideline for all the style guidelines. Also: [4]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In addition to TKN's repeated POV and inaccurate edits to "Matt Schultz" and his/her malicious edits to the Disambiguation page, there's this edit which resulted in the portrait image on "Matt Schultz" being removed. Would it be reasonable in your opinion at this point to seek an article ban? Or would a threat of that be appropriate?CFredkin (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@CFredkin, as far as I can determine, he also uploaded the picture which is used being currently. As the edit occurred three weeks ago, I would let it go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the input.CFredkin (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, He didn't bother to upload the image until after I restored the previous image link to return a portrait image to the article (following a duration of quite some time).CFredkin (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin, I wanted to give you a heads up on this. If it becomes necessary to open a case, everyone's conduct will be examined. Also, as you seem to be the editor who has most dealt with Peace In Mississippi (formerly TheKillingNoise), any diffs you have showing clear bias will be helpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do this. Just let me know when and where.CFredkin (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

file away

Absolute 4RR or more -- and no rationale for SYNTH in his edits ... Cheers. Sorry if I am too polite to such campaigners <g>. Collect (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Henchman page

thhe Jimmy Henchman page was litigated, vetted, and decided up by the Wikipedia community. Please see the RfD discussion. I reverted the page to most accurate version of it before it was vandalized as did StaticVapor. Do we need to go through another RfD? If so we should have the original commenter present including RonJOhn and Dennis Brown. Thank youScholarlyarticles (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, your repeated usage of the term "litigated, vetted, and decided up" is frankly nonsensical. Use the article's talk page to gain consensus before doing such a massive revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

please take a look at this. It went on for white a while and a mediator was involved. Most the information was voted on. The outcome was keep as it was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_Henchman. Someone removed the pointer to the discussion so I hope this helps. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, I'm aware of that. It's a deletion discussion from 2012, not a content discussion. The content discussion took place last month on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we did have a discussion of all the points in article and whether they were backed by the articles. Much of the hard work of many editors was deleted in this round. I don't know where the consensus came from as most of the authors who built the page were trying to protect it from massive and inaccurate deletions. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, you completely mischaracterize the AFD discussion and misconstrue its purpose. Read the article's talk page for content discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw no place in the discussion on the talk page in which there was consensus about changing the content of the page that people worked so hard to create and therefore it was premature to allow it to be stripped of its content. For now, I would like to take to take the Chuck Philips paragraph out under his personal life until this can be resolved in dispute resolution. Chuck Philips isn't a part of Henchman's personal life, and there's a BLP issue. I hope that's okay for now. .Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, then you really need to read closer. Talk:James_Rosemond#WP:BLP_issues on down has many, many, many posts on the content and how it had BLP and sourcing problems. And please, discuss article changes on the article talk page where other interested editors can weigh in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to be difficult. I know it's a controversial page. But we spent months on this. Henchman is a notorious person of great interest. Dennis Brown was referred by the Arbitration Committee to help with this issue. He spent a tremendous amount of time not only helping people understand the issues involved but actually reading the underlying articles. There is no consensus on the talk page that changed what was an excellent article to an inaccurate incomplete and problematic few paragraphs. To wipe out what has been there for a year and a half because a few people don't like it seems like a great waste of time and energy. I imagine Henchman has lots of people who don't like what's been written but we can't keep rehashing this. For instance, I noticed that even on the talk page reasonable arguments are being deleted. A number of times on Jimmy Henchman's talk page editors wiped out massive parts of the discussion. This is a serious, important page on a notorious person that has been well-researched and collaborated on by many people. I don't think we can allow someone to just wipe out massive portions of the talk page. Likewise, massive portions of the page including a painstaking analysis of Henchman's criminal activity recounted by someone was removed. This is serious business. Really, we spent a lot of time on this, and a lot of time of very valuable and respected members of this community were involved and I don't think it's a good idea to let such a version stand when it does not have consensus. I hope you understand.Please consider going back to the earlier version until there is a consensus. Thank you. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, again you completely mischaracterize what happened. Digging through ANI, I see that Dennis Brown was not referred by Arbcom but instead offered to be your mentor as he and others felt you were having problems understanding Wikipedia (sourcing, copyright violations, personal attacks). And no, I will not discount the detailed analysis done over the last month in favor of a more superficial discussion on sources done at AFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm still a bit new to this. Are you an administrator?Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, no, I'm not. I do have about eight years of experience editing here, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand a bit better. the copyright issue you referred to, it turns out, was made by the person before me and mistakenly attributed to me. There's been a fair amount of discussion of this off site because this involves a criminal and delicate matters. So it might be had to understand precisely what's going on. I think WP:Competence requires that people are familiar with the underlying articles they are changing. There's really no consensus at this point so it looks like it will probably need to be examined again. I believe it would be nice to include all those who worked on it. Best, Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I just knew "WP:COMPETENCE" was going to make its way into this discussion at some point!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@alf laylah wa laylah Not in the way I expected, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Pfft

Pfft

ETC — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorbidFractal (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

MorbidFractal, Wikipedia is not Facebook or your personal blog or your soapbox. Please keep your ramblings and observations out of articles. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

outpsyjah

hi Neil, i would appreciate if you undeleted the 'outpsyjah' article, as i have provided sources and would like to add further information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk333 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and please follow the advice on your talk page after your block expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Penis edit

I removed certain content about duck penises that was redundant, repeating itself unnecessarily. That often happens when editors do not read carefully an entry before adding their own content to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeker alpha806 (talk • contribs)

Seeker alpha806, thanks for explaining, I've undone my revert. Can you please start using edit summaries? It makes it a lot easier for other editors to figure out what you're doing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Your question

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Michel Lewis (psychologist)

Having tried to explain Wikipedia's rules on WP:COI the idea of the subject of the article repeatedly adding back his additions, including removing the C O I tag, is totally unacceptable. If the subject wishes to suggest changes, these should be made on the talk page and consensus reached before they are added. Please revert your last change. Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Arjayay, I too have been involved in looking at the article and reverting when necessary. However WP:COI does not say never edit articles. We are not machines here - we can judge if an edit improved an article and act accordingly without making new editors jump through hoops. In this case, the edit also added references to an unreferenced BLP. I call that an improvement. However you are entirely correct in saying the COI tag should not have been removed. I will restore that right now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't lie

If it was my last warning, then tell me why there was already a last warning if there was. Don't lie. عمر چودھری 08:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar Choudhry (talk • contribs)

Omar Choudhry, do you really want to be blocked from editing so badly? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I would not like to be blocked from editing on wikipedia عمر چودھری 18:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar Choudhry (talk • contribs)

Omar Choudhry, so why complain if I gave you "another" last warning instead of asking that you be blocked? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well clearly if I already had one las warning, then maybe that should actually be the last warning. عمر چودھری 18:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Omar Choudhry, I was hoping by warning you again, and not asking you to be blocked, that you might stop your disruptive editing and instead contribute constructively to Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe you could have just put no warning on the page instead of putting another last warning. عمر چودھری 22:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Omar Choudhry, well after you messed up the template again I did report you and you were blocked so I hope you got what you were expecting? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Arab people

Why do you delete the Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Umar, Shafi'i, Alhazan, Averroes, Ibn al-Nafis and Zenobia. Not your right to do so. All these Arab personalities .. Or you hate Arabs??? I'm sorry: You are not neutral!! Tamim506 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to calm down and stop with the attacks. As you do not own the article, you do not get to dictate who has the "right" to edit it. Finally, see Talk:Arab_people#Infobox_mosaic where there is discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry maybe I angered you I am so sorry but I want that I see the Arabic important personalities in Arab people not existing now specifically modern personalities.. I would like to accept the apologetic Tamim506 (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

كل شيء على ما يرام (I hope I got that right). Like I said on the talk page yesterday, I will restore your version if there are no strong objections. Why don't you join in the discussion and respond to the IP? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

an Arab is who speaking arabic native,even a chinese. but, the amercians, they are in ignorance with the East,and they call evey muslim an Arab! HAHAH. so how can they edit on our articles.?!--۝ ۝ (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That was a completely unhelpful post. And they're not your articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

evey article i wrote is MINE. like every picture i uploaded is mine and i can request deleting when i want.--۝ ۝ (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

۝ ۝, I've placed a note on your talk page disabusing you of that idea. Please read it carefully. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

so we are nothing, nobody thanks us , nobody remeber us... --۝ ۝ (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

۝ ۝, that is definitely not true. You and I are two volunteers out of hundreds of thousands who freely work on the encyclopedia and its content, recognizing that Wikipedia gives our work away for free to whoever wants it. We are remembered through our contributions like these. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I

I just dont like his user name.what means FAt and Happy ? oh!Americans! --۝ ۝ (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

۝ ۝, It doesn't matter if you like his user name. If it's not offensive, it's perfectly valid. And see fat and happy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

so. he has many Food to eat(Fat) and many fun activities (Happy)!--۝ ۝ (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

۝ ۝, Yes, I suppose you could put it that way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A Eastern Qoute for you

	Benefit
	«Man is like a tree in time to benefit and Kindness, then, it would be only once a year!» Al-Hamadani to a beggar ۝ ۝ (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

do u get it?--۝ ۝ (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

۝ ۝ Not really. I searched for that quote but couldn't find it. Do you have the correct translation? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

i translated badly. the stoty is: a beggar attached Al-Hamadani in an alley:PLz!PLz.help me... and he dont stop requesting. so hamadani told: Man is like a tree in time to benefit and Kindness, then, it would be only once a year! . he means just once a year i help homeless ppl,like fruit of a tree .--۝ ۝ (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

۝ ۝, why would he help the homeless only once a year? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Is the story here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

no. its mentioned by Tha'alibi in Khas ul-Khas. you should imagine that age like movies of One nights and thousands . always walking,busy Bazaars, and beggars was a big group in islamic middle ages cities.so noboday can help them everyday in evey alleys and Bazaars.--۝ ۝ (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference

These are the sources--- 1>http://www.gaylaxymag.com/latest-news/indian-politician-subramanian-swamy-tweets-being-gay-is-a-mental-disorder/ 2>http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/columnsothers/subramanian-swamy-spokesperson-for-indian-manhood/article1-1078298.aspxKathy234354325 (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Kathy234354325, you need to add the sources to the article. Another editor will probably revert your revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.I will add.Kathy234354325 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

re Talk:James Rosemond

Thank you for being so cool headed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

pictures

how am i suppose to find a picture i can use for a page? almost every picture i uploaded got deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganknudsen (talk • contribs) 01:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Davis - need your help with same user

NazariyKaminski just reverted a number of edits in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wendy_Davis_%28politician%29&diff=prev&oldid=596184564 with a false claim "(Reverted a ton of the removals of notable, reliably sourced pieces of information that was deleted with comment on the talk page and without an attempt to reach a consensus such as the FACT that she lived in Mistletoe Heights and not in trailer until Harv)" There was no mention that she lived in a trailer until Harvard. Sentence about Mistletoe Heights neighbourhood was removed because it was not connected to any significant statement. That can be added. But you can see with the other edits, you can see sentences were moved and reworded e.g. exact quote from announcement speech used and info was also added e.g. she also separated from Underwood at age 19, details of family living arrangements while at Harvard. etc. Only duplicate info was removed. There were also a number of corrections to accuracy e.g. Jeff's statements. All were sourced from reliable sources and I made note of what I did in each edit in the edit summary for each edit.

You reverted this user Toa Nidhiki05 when they did a similar revert yesterday. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wendy_Davis_%28politician%29&diff=596120824&oldid=596120475

I can restore each edit back but this user may just try this tactic again of mass reversions, with a blanket false claim. What can be done? Can they be given a warning? Maybe I should act soon to address this edit before this user continues but would appreciate your help and advice.

Iricova (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iricova. I would use the article's talk page to explain why your edits improve the article. I will be watching and contribute when there's a need. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you NeilN. Iricova (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I've now done two edits to two paragraphs + one minor edit. In my most recent edit I again split a paragraph into two paragraphs. Please let me know when you think there is something I should post on the talk page. I have been trying to ensure my edit summaries are comprehensive & I am using the same sources as before. Iricova (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Iricova, yes, looks okay. By the way, Toa Nidhiki05's revert yesterday was a mistake. [5] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

NeilN need your help again. NazariyKaminski made two edits that appear to be POV pushing. Addressed them on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wendy_Davis_(politician)#Latest_edits Iricova (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page, Iricova. I agreed with one of your points. By the way, you don't have to add my name here when you post. I add your name because you should get an alert if I mention you here (so you don't have to keep checking if I replied). If you post here though, I automatically get a notification there's a new post on my talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Noted. I remain wary of NazariyKaminski based on his revert above and his recent two edits and his comments their edit summaries. About to post one more comment re the years of marriage. Iricova (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

NazariyKaminski just reverted your revert without discussion on talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wendy_Davis_%28politician%29&diff=prev&oldid=596312006 He also did this edit, illogical claim https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wendy_Davis_%28politician%29&diff=prev&oldid=596312496 --Iricova (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Context for the comments made by NazariyKaminski in his edit summaries & by others on talk page, linked to from the Guardian article that was cited in the article:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/01/22/wayne_slater_paints_wendy_davis_as_a_gold_digger_and_a_bad_mother_in_the.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/wendy-davis-sexism_n_4638465.html

• What is described in these articles seems to be reflected in the language and reasoning used by them.
• Also, back to NazariyKaminski's claim about re "FACT that she lived in Mistletoe Heights and not in trailer until Harv". No where in the sources that state that she was living with her child in a trailer as a single mother claimed that she continued to live there until Harvard. The neighbourhood she lived in with Jeff is not a particularly notable fact. No where does it say they lived together in a trailer. His profession is well documented and noted in the article, and referenced later in the law career section. I could not see where the neighbourhood would tie in to the rest of the article. I also do not see any reference to her living in a trailer in this article even though it was widely reported and symbolic significance to her economic background. --Iricova (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• Also in the interest of chronology and logical flow, I think the number of years married sentence should be moved to the last paragraph concerning the 2003 divorce. I still think this sentence is redundant when the year of the separation and the year of the official divorce are already noted in that paragraph. I'm wary of postig this to the discussion the talk page right now due to the current nature of the discussion. Again, it is not a particularly notable fact, it is not being disputed as any key part of controversy. Neither is Amber's adoption although it can tie in with the discussion on custody arrangements. Also the articles I mentioned above talk about why some are focusing on all these details like the exact time period in the trailer, the length of the marriage, exact date of divorce, etc. wp:undue may have some application here.

--Iricova (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sexual identity article

Neil, if you're willing, I might need your help on this matter. The editor (Penitence), as seen there, clearly changed the text so that it diverges from what the sources state (is not supported by the sources). And I reverted. Clearly another case of WP:Activism. Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted. And yes, we cannot expand wording to cover cases the sources themselves don't mention. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:DONTBITE, sheesh. Penitence (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Penitence, I feel that I was being more so stern than biting. As is shown on my user page, I have zero tolerance for WP:Activism behavior. But I do understand that you've only had the Penitence Wikipedia account since March 21, 2013 and edit sporadically; so based on that, you could be categorized as a relative WP:Newbie. All I ask of your editing at this site is that you become more familiar with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and follow them to the best of your ability. And maybe even some of the commonly cited essays, such as Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD). Flyer22 (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for all your help. My edits wouldn't have been possible without you. Hoping to meet others like you here on wikipedia. Iricova (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Your recent editing history at Wendy Davis (politician) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --NK (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Retaliatory as the editor has no support for their edits [6]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to a bit tag happy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not my fault that you were engaging in an edit war. Please stop or you will be blocked.--NK (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the editor Collect corrected your constant unsupported removal of notable, reliably sourced information so the article has been fixed. Also, Collect edit proves that my edits had support, which makes your comment above incorrect, and your wholesale removal of notable, reliably sourced information was just attempt to whitewash the article.--NK (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I find it amusing you're praising Collect for essentially the same edit I did. [7]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that statement is not true. You removed the whole section. Collect merely eliminated the small part that was questionable. I find it amusing that you feel the need to make this comments on your talk page and you just can't edit the article. The good news is that the article has been fixed and your attempt to eliminate (whitewash) the whole topic did not succeed.--NK (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not the one who four times tried to shove in the info that was ultimately removed while still managing to screw up what the husband said [8]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Serena Williams

Hello. I am not sure as to why you view I am in an edit war. The issue I spoke of is clearly cited in the article that is referenced:

"Williams came up on the wrong end when Mariana Alves overruled the line judge in the opening game of the third set -- it was an obvious call, the ball landed two centimeters (an inch) or so inside the line.

"I guess she went temporary insane," Williams said.

Alves will not advance.

"Regrettably, the replay on television showed that an incorrect overrule was made," tournament referee Brian Earley said.

"A mistake was made. Ms. Alves is not scheduled to officiate another match during the 2004 U.S. Open."

No one would say whether Alves -- seated on the opposite side of the court from where Williams' ball landed -- had been flat-out fired. Either way, she's gone -- too late to help Williams"

Thank you and have a nice day. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The "Alves will not advance" part of the article makes it pretty clear. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My comment in the Zbigniew Brzezinski talk page

I just saw her mentioning it in in a segment of her show that the Daily Show rebroadcast, and I was just shocked, because I have a good opinion on him. I thought that, since it was a talk page, other people might know more about it, sorry. 87.121.162.191 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, I replied there[9]. I hope it's OK that I'm mentioning that here, it's been a while since I've edited Wikipedia. 87.121.162.191 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you want me to read and respond to the content with you?

or wait until you've submitted it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs)

Scholarlyarticles, the RfC/U will focus on behavior (yours specifically) not content. Since I doubt you're going to listen to anything I say, what is there to discuss? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Spam revert

NeilN -

I added a substantiated anecdote to the Spam(food) page. The editor who keeps removing the passage cited that my source "was a blog". This is not true. The item regarding Shane Victorino and PETA taking him to task for his love of Spam was widely reported by legitimate news media, including the Phila. Inquirer/Daily News (my original footnote), as well as TV station KHNL in Hawaii (see http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/9183387/peta-urges-shane-victorino-to-strike-spam-from-his-menu).

I don't understand why this keeps getting removed. Victorino is an extremely well-known baseball star (now with the Boston Red Sox) and the anecdote is extremely relevant to the topic of Spam in popular culture, especially since he is from Hawaii (which leads in Spam consumption as per the existing Wiki text). And Victorino remains probably the #1 Spam fan in all of professional sports.

--Rteplitsky (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Rteplitsky, please bring this up on the article's talk page. However, generally we don't add "anecdotes" to articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

An old friend?

I came across this in a whole other context just now: [10]— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

alf laylah wa laylah, it's pretty obvious they forgot to log on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop blanking my talk page

Excuse me, but you must stop blanking my talk page. I don't do it to you, so you don't do it to me. Thank you. --Civivlaospei (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Le Grand Bleu

It's good that you reported him. I was on my way to do it, but found you report.

Regards. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

another bad name of users

wikipedia is full of users that using bad names, not their real names.like:User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah , his user name means One Thousand and One Nights.--۝ ۝ (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a great name! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's literally "a thousand nights and a night," but who's counting?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: So based on a note on Drmies' page, I picked up this last night. Should be an interesting read. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me know how you like it. I've only read the Richard Burton translation, which is a little florid, but I love 19th century British prose, so it suits my taste. A modern version could be super-fun too, though!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Goa

Article is now move-protected. Unless User:Portugal Editor Exploration has an immediate change of heart and expresses interest in following Wikipedia policy, I think an indefinite block is near. EdJohnston (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be canvassing

By coordinating efforts to pre-certify blocks with editors with whom you agree. Please stop Scholarlyarticles (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You appear not to understand the policies and guidelines you're attempting to interpret. Please gain a better understanding. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles

FYI, I'm having a similar issue with the same user, although they are not as eloquent with me. But now I just saw that you have noticed it here. You're quick! Fnordware (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I also notice that Scholarlyarticles seems to be putting Chuck Philips in other places. For example, the Biggie Smalls article frequently mentions that Chuck Philips wrote an article about something in the article text thanks to edits like this one. And then this link you mentioned refers to Chuck Philips as "my client." So it appears that Scholarlyarticles may actually be working for the subjects of articles he's editing. Fnordware (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Fnordware, the IP was talking about Jimmy Henchman, not Philips. I don't think Scholarlyarticles has any COI, just deep misunderstandings of several policies and guidelines. By the way, do you mind if I move this conversation to my talk page where it belongs? Lastly, note I mentioned her edit on your talk page here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(Done!) Gotcha, I mis-read the IP posting. But nevertheless, Scholarlyarticles does appear to be spreading the Chuck Phillips name around a lot, for whatever reason. I will admit that my biggest pet peeve is people who use Wikipedia to promote themselves. Fnordware (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Found some more Chick Philips additions in the Milli Vanilli and Tupac Shakur articles. In both cases it's not really necessary to mention which reporter is involved, but Scholarlyarticles really likes to squeeze it in there. Individually the edits are harmless enough, but I see a pattern emerging. Fnordware (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

And another. I'll bet that every Chuck Philips mention on Wikipedia is from this user. Fnordware (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Addition of heading in Subramanian Swamy page

Hi, my query is regarding is on addition of heading in the article Subramanian Swamy, "Views on homosexuality". I have searched on the internet and youtube and have found that his view on homosexuality had come only once as his personal tweet. He had never again expressed his views again in the public press and social media, etc like wise he had expressed on other topics such as Economic and foreign affairs, corruption, religious views,views on Gandhi-Nehru family, etc repeatedly.

My question is that is it right to include his view on the topic, when that view had been expressed only once through twitter only, and not through the electronic media directly. The case clearly lacks proper citation. Isn't it should be counted be as a trivial case and not be counted as a encyclopedic topic being included in wikipedia. This heading also appears a case of vandalism because it was reverted twice.

I have commented the same on the talk page, and had asked for views from other two editors on their talk pages, talk page1 and talk page2 who also had agreed to the same.

Why i am looping you for the discussion because on after leaving the comments on editors talk pages and Article's talk page, no further action has yet being taken. Kindly take proper action. Work2win (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Work2win. As you've discussed and no one has disagreed with you, the proper action would be to remove the text. Is there some reason why you can't perform this action? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the speedy reply. Well i had wanted to build proper consensus before taking any necessary action so that it does not result or show in any form of vandalism, deletion, biases, addition of unencyclopedic information, etc. This consensus method i have learnt while visiting talk pages of topics especially of living people.

Well i am now proceeding with deletion of the heading in the article.Work2win (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

OOOPS

I did indeed have a PC error here and I am sorry, the edit on my part was absolutely an error, my apologiesCoal town guy (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)