This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Ops! sorry received your message late, already made undo with reason on Indian Foreign Service Page. Please feel free to re-edit.
Hello NeilN,
Thank you for your active and prompt interest on my edit on Page- Indian Foreign Service. Sorry I recieved your message late & I had made revision by that time. Please re-edit if you don't find it appropriate. Following points I would like to bring in your notice regarding edit:
1. the count of offices you entered was 3(three) (in first paragraph) ambassador, high commissioner etc. but correct count is 4 four).
2. there are many more important & lesser important post/offices/designation/deputation held by members of this service but the mentioned ones are often associated/recognisable with this service often by masses.
Please feel free to add or remove words/sentences from my edit with view of points I have mentioned above. Again Thank you very
much. Have a good day.
Hi Writereditor009. I have no issue with you adding that info to the article but it needs to be done with a neutral tone. "The Ambassador, High Commissioner, Consul General and Foreign Secretary are most recognisable offices held by the officers of this illustrious service." Illustrious is a peacock term and "most recognisable" needs a reference. I've corrected the count - thanks for pointing that out. --NeilNtalk to me 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello again :)
Yes I agree with you. Please make it "The Ambassador, High Commissioner, Consul General and Foreign Secretary are some of the offices held by members of this service" I am asking you this because I am not able to make edits due to conflict situation. Thank you very much again.
Let's discuss it in the article talk (or in mine, if you want). 24.201.216.214 (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You're one kind of a guy, aren't you? "click" rv, "click" unsourced, "click" people spent hours to write -> into the garbage... Don't filter nada, don't discuss nada. This was the THIRD time I added ПТН ПНХ to that article... Do you work for the Kremlin or what? 24.201.216.214 (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
This navel-gazing took you hours to write? If different editors keep reverting you maybe that's a clue to read why? --NeilNtalk to me 04:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
What is "navel gazing"? Is that sarcasm? 24.201.216.214 (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Adding content to Wikipedia articles discussing Wikipedia matters. --NeilNtalk to me 05:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
And? What's wrong with that? Is this why Wikireality was blacklisted here? 24.201.216.214 (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
It's navel gazing if the only sources that cover it are Wikipedia or Wikipedia-focused sites. Which is why wikireality was blacklisted - it's not a reliable source. --NeilNtalk to me 05:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Sick policy, frankly. There are sometimes important things you would only find in WP (like, our present discussion for instance) that no news agencies will cover. Also, while at it, the article seems to accept the sentence "The expression is abbreviated as птн x̆ло (ptn kh̆lo)." just fine unsourced (only the picture proved it exists), while ПТН ПНХ must necessarily be sourced 200%. Weird. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
If it's not covered by independent sources then perhaps it's only important to a subset of Wikipedia editors, hmm? If you find anything poorly sourced in the article you are free to challenge or remove it. --NeilNtalk to me 05:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a good source to me. --NeilNtalk to me 05:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thanks for catching that
I only log in so many few days now....have seen stuff like that before...usually from within BC.....but it's interesting that that one is from St Louis MO. Could be from a news forum post on some article to do with Ferguson....or not. Quite often I see political POV stuff on Canada/BC from US IPs...last one was from Leavenworth KS. Sticks and stones etc....Skookum1 (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Haider
Is this way to notify some editor that I may be blocked. If you think I copied or like the words in the box office section were too similar to the cited source you can remove it but what is the point in putting such stern claims on my talk page. Its so lame. Arjann (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
@Arjann: It is stern because Wikipedia takes copyright violations seriously. You cannot expect other editors to check if your contributions are indeed copyright violations. It's up to you to not commit them. --NeilNtalk to me 04:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
STOP UNDOING MY CORRECTIONS
You are muslim right? Why do you wish to change my edited to cover up the truth and take up for illuminati and oppressive, war mongering jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.135.18 (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
^^^ That's why. --NeilNtalk to me 22:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Dandeli (page)
sorry it was by mistake i have updated dandeli external link kindly check now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suresh danghal (talk • contribs)
Hi mate. Saw your note at ((User talk:MayVenn)) after posting mine. Doesn't relate to you directly but I read some of the others and decided this needed admin action. So I've taken it to ANI asking that they be closed and he be blocked. St★lwart111 03:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
I would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Roger Federer. I am posting this notice based on this edit [1] and this edit [2], I'm inclined to believe you are not only going against WP:AGF, but you are also now hounding me. WP:BLPN is a disputed policy, some (such as myself and long-term editors and administrators) believe it says to keep the names and identifying information of non-notable minor children of article subjects out. Others believe it doesn't say that at all. What is your plan, to follow me around Wikipedia, reverting the edits that go against your interpretation of BLPN policy? -- WV ● ✉✓ 02:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: Don't be absurd (and read WP:AGF yourself). I've been watching the Federer article long before you got there. [3] And since you made a problematic edit there, I checked your other recent contribs. If I see you making edit that I don't agree with, I will revert them. --NeilNtalk to me 02:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Neil
Hi Neil,
I'm just wondering if there was a particular reason why you deleted my amendments to the Robin Hood page? Have I repeated content, your commentary appears to suggest that I have? If so, please work with me to alter this rather than just reversing my amendments to an earlier edition.
@Siggasonswein: Did you check your version? You duplicated the entire article (check the table of contents). --NeilNtalk to me 15:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Neil,
Thanks for pointing that out... I'll copy / paste what I've revised and hopefully that will sort it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siggasonswein (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Wendy Davis
Wendy Davis[edit]
Hi, can you please tell me exactly where you got this picture? It may be copyrighted. --NeilN talk to me 21:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I found it online. I know the image itself originates in the Texas Senate as taken by the Texas State Government. The photo is available on display on the 83rd Legislature portrait in the Senate Chamber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imurlex (talk • contribs)
Your message to me on the Andrew Rosindell talk page asks for some examples of hearsay - here are several from one article alone
From the article on the British actor and scriptwriter Jeremy Lloyd
He was lauded in America where they loved his patrician upper class depiction of an Englishman. (no reference)
A decision had to be made as to whether he would return to America for the start of the new season or remain in the United Kingdom and marry Miss Lumley. He never returned to America (no reference, Lloyd is listed as living in Tennessee)
Lloyd has been the subject of a persistent urban legend which claims that he had been invited to a dinner party at the home of Sharon Tate on the night that she was murdered by followers of Charles Manson. This was verified as true, not a myth, when the octogenarian was interviewed by Emma Freud on BBC Radio 4 Loose Ends on 10 December 2011.[1] (this is very important as the phrase urban legend is used to formally refer to witness knowledge that has no formal reference UNTIL he is claimed to have said it on a radio programme - suddenly informal knowledge has value !!)
Lloyd appeared in A Hard Day's Night and Help!, two films starring the Beatles, and also had a brief role in The Magic Christian, which starred Peter Sellers and Ringo Starr. Starr appeared in an episode of Laugh-In, recalling the films he and Lloyd were in together, while Lloyd looked at him as a stranger, saying "Sorry, you can't expect me to remember everybody." (no reference given for the quote) CaptPeacock15 (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC) CaptPeacock15 (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello NeilN,
the videos we removed recently have been uploaded by another user. In terms of usage/license, it was fine for us, but we received a lot of requests whether it's really OK, etc. Thus, we wanted to upload it by ourselves to avoid such unnecessary requests – that's what we're actually doing right now.
So, you don't have to revert our changes we'll re-upload the videos today right away.
Anyway, thank you for trying to take care of it, we appreciate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpleshow foundation (talk • contribs) 09:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thanx for helping me @NeilN on the page Hoshiarpur I want ur little help could u please tell me why some pages using wikipedia articles on facebook basically city pages show their country ex: New Delhi, India while the others like Hoshiarpur is just Hoshiarpur without India after a comma — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahilBhaskar (talk • contribs)
Hi SahilBhaskar. Wikipedia has no control over how Facebook displays article information. We only control what articles are titled on Wikipedia. For example, New Delhi, Kolkata, and Mumbai have no "India" after them because there are no other well-known places in the world that have the same name. Places like Karli, India and Lakhani, Maharastra have an additional geographic qualifier because there are other places called Karli and Lakhani. Does that help? --NeilNtalk to me 20:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Swamifraud
Wow ... I did, you're right. I have made so many username blocks that I have completely forgotten about that one. Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Software oversight...
Is the reason why I rollbacked your edit. I was in my watchlist, saw that he deleted a bunch of content (and previewed the edit with POPUPS without leaving the page), and hit 'rollback'. Only, it didn't capture the intended edit, (because you already reverted it) but your edit. Apologies for that. Tutelary (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tutelary: No worries. I figured it was something like that after you thanked me. --NeilNtalk to me 20:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
As you have made so many intelligent comments around,(e.g. [4] - [5]) you deserve this barnstar. Hope to see a lot more from you! Bladesmulti (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello dear user. Could you explain me with more details the cause of your reverting of my edition in Barack Obama article? Thansk in advance. M.Karelin (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Миша Карелин. Please read WP:LEAD, taking note of "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Obama's reaction to the Crimea situation appears nowhere in the body. So the appropriate first step is to draft the body detail and get consensus to add it. Next, see if there's consensus if the material is important enough to the biography of Obama to merit a sentence in the lead. --NeilNtalk to me 00:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Untitled
Hey NielN, I want to say that iM back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacattack4 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The article written on Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky that was trimmed had well sourced information. It is not fair to trim relevant information. Thanks.83.81.39.74 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The text I removed had no relevant sources. --NeilNtalk to me 21:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello: I have provided valid textual reference for ancestry and uploaded the degree certificate for education of this living person. If these are not acceptable, could you please specify what is acceptable. Thanks.83.81.39.74 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I am working on finding a reliable source and I will update the page with a more credible and acceptable source complying to the terms and conditions of the Wikipedia. Many Thanks for your kind feedback.Westcott001 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Swamiblue violating BLP?
Can you see Pramukh Swami Maharaj, I think Swamiblue might be violating biography of living person. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Edit war warning
Just curious why you did not put an edit warring warning on Bladesmulti talk page but you did on mine? I agree that I need to find more sources of a judicial preceding but isn't it a bit unfair to place a notice on my talk page and not the person that is reverting my edit without even talking about it on the talk page? I feel like you have taken sides on this matter and do not feel welcome on this forum.Swamiblue (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Swamiblue I don't have to be curious that why Anthony and Jim1138 also considered your edits to be gossips. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Swamiblue: As Anthony Bradbury said, your text was a WP:BLP violation. Removal of such content is exempt from WP:3RR. --NeilNtalk to me 04:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
He said it after your warning. Swamiblue (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Swamiblue: So? Just because he explicitly stated it doesn't mean others weren't thinking the same thing. --NeilNtalk to me 04:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure because Bladesmulti could have done it himself if that was the case and literally minutes if not seconds after I made the edit, he reverted the edits and contacted you which I found odd. We can move on though. Let's talk about the WP:LASTNAME policy for that article. I read the policy you should do a find and replace. Swamiblue (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Swamiblue: Please add your LASTNAME comment to the appropriate section of the talk page. --NeilNtalk to me 04:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't revert you again because I never had this type of incident before, at least not about a guru or swami. But now I have seen one and I was correct, next time I will try making more than 3 reverts. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bladesmulti: Please remember each situation is different and depends on the content, not who the subject is. If you are unsure, it's best to post at WP:BLPN or ask another experienced editor to look at the situation. --NeilNtalk to me 04:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Links to audio pronunciation
Hello NeilN, this is Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri. Thank you for revising some interventions by GIO.CARELLA, we are moving our first steps here and we have lots of things to learn. Could you tell us why you qualified links providing pronunciation of difficult names as "unneeded"? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri (talk • contribs) 18:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN:Thank you again... Actually we had read that, but it is all about transcriptions. In our case, we tried to provide different information, namely, audio pronunciation, which seems to be useful, and even indispensable to all those (the great majority) who cannot read IPA symbols. Before we post on Village pump, as you suggest, we would like to know: What is your opinion regarding specifically audio, not trascription, of difficult pronunciations? Thanks!
I have concerns about linking to an obviously commercial site instead of uploading the sound files to Wikimedia Commons and linking to them. --NeilNtalk to me 20:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN:Thank you again... Although the website at issue is not commercial and only aims at providing a cultural service, we understand that you are right as concerns the Wikipedia policy, in view of the page you have referred us to. Do you think that a link to that service in the section "External links" instead than in the body of the article would be more appropriate?
The site is not promoting the Pronny the Pronouncer app? The External links section won't work - not enough content. It'll either have to be a reference or a link like what was done here. But again, Wikipedians are inherently suspicious (and some outright hostile) of links going to a site advertising a product, especially when the content could be hosted on Commons. Be prepared for that. --NeilNtalk to me 21:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN: You are right, we will simply remove that App (which has no importance and no commercial function) from the Pronouncer page. As for the info being supposedly not enough for an external link, are you sure? I mean, who can say how much information is an audio file (providing information that cannot be obtained from a written source), as compared to a portion of text? Don't you think that such a link would be better (i.e. providing more useful info) than its absence, in a Wiki page? After all, what is best for users: to get the pronunciation, or not to get it? Thanks for your patience, we need your advice on all these aspects we didn't even imagine in advance.
See WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE for guidelines on links. One question you will have to answer is why you don't simply upload the files to Commons. --NeilNtalk to me 21:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN: Right, we should have told that before: because all audio files are the exclusive property of Pronny the Pronouncer (realized by a team at the University Roma Tre), and cannot be alienated from it. So, the only way to make them available is to link to the Pronouncer website. All in all, I think it would be a loss for Wikipedia not to make such contents available to its users. Very many articles concern persons and things whose pronunciations are puzzling for millions people all over the world, and links to pronunciations carefully controlled by professional linguists would improve the knowledge provided by Wiki on those persons and things.
Okay, then I think the next step is to present your proposal and rationale to the general community. --NeilNtalk to me 22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN: You mean we should post a short explanation and request for opinions on Village Pump, right? (Which was actually your first suggestion...)
Where the hell do you get off deleting my notice that someone has taken info from here and is selling it? Or are you the little ebay bottom feeder doing the selling?
we the cherokee indians origanlly called ourselves Aniyunwiya...the name cherokee was giving to us from the muskogee and pronounced in our language tsalagi. That is why i put real name Aniyunwiya because this is the name we titles to ourselves and not giving from outsiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicfuture12 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[1][2]
@Historicfuture12: You'll have to explain that in the article (as opposed to "their real name") and add the sources. --NeilNtalk to me 23:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
ok real can easily be changed with (original)- meaning first — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicfuture12 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sge! That isn't how it works. In Wikipedia, the article title is the most commonly used name in English for the subject matter. Thus, the article Swedes begins, "Swedes (Swedish: svenskar) are a nation and ethnic group". Nothing about "real name" or "original name"; just "the English for the people; what the people [in this case, the Principal People] call themselves". And by the way, that's better rendered as "Ani-Yunwiya". --Orange Mike | Talk 00:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC) (Inali)
Hey Orangemike. Can't the sentence, The Cherokee refer to themselves as Tsalagi (ᏣᎳᎩ) or Aniyunwiya (ᎠᏂᏴᏫᏯ), which means "Principal People." be expanded to include more details? As it stands, the present content is unsourced. --NeilNtalk to me 00:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Islam
Would you talk a look at the Islam article. A user has added a lot of unsourced, uncited material.Swamiblue (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@Swamiblue: Reverted and dropped a note on the editor's talk page. I see that they added the same material to Quran which you removed. It's helpful, especially for a new editor, to explain why you're reverting them. You can do this through the use of template messages. --NeilNtalk to me 00:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
This page always had some kind of edit conflict, and during the days when Septate edited, there was some controversy about the picture. Obviously, those pictures are the biggest issues on these pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
That user reverted your reverts and mine. See [6]. May need to be have it protected for some time.Swamiblue (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@Swamiblue: Articles aren't generally protected if only one user is disrupting them. The editor usually gets escalating warnings and then blocked if the disruptions continue. --NeilNtalk to me 13:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a mop reserved in your name
You are an exemplary editor—indeed remarkable. You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and you are qualified! You personify an Administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already!
Thanks John. However the community seems to want some content contribution from its admins and I don't have that. I like maintaining articles, helping other editors, and contributing to discussions. --NeilNtalk to me 13:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The vast majority of Wikipedia administrators, at least from what I've seen, aren't heavy on content contributions. You do more than many of them do in that regard. That stated, there are Wikipedia editors who were heavy content contributors before they became Wikipedia administrators, so it's like the "heavy content contributions" aspect helped them get "the mop." Flyer22 (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Neil; I should tell you that I really enjoyed reviewing your account, (contributions, conduct, and care), to ensure for an accurate assessment and an appropriate declaration thereof. There were many interesting things learned, which I look forward to sharing with you when time permits. Since I don't have the time to compile it now, I'm just going to tell you a few of the conclusions reached; and later I'll show you the "wherefor art thous and hows. (1.)You can accept an RFA nomination because you are "fully qualified". (2.)Your RFA will not fail from discovering any or all things that comprise your account. (3.)The review showed you to be even better suited for adminship than what was originally believed. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Apparently I've been welcomed to Wikipedia by the Welcoming committee
(( cherokee origins theories ))neil can u please tell me what is wrong with my editing ..im simply adding an important historic study on the cherokee origin ...the first study of the cherokee origin ...all of our present origins are theories known is proven to be 100 percent factual ...so tell me whats wrong if i posting a theory..importanatly the first theory and study from a historian who studied many native american cultures and people. this is my post upon the theory thats being given - In 1823, historian John Haywood known as "the father of Tennessee history" , made the first serious study of the Cherokee origins and concluded that two nations with diverse cultures in the distant past merged together and formed the Cherokee tribe. The first of these two nations were from Southern Asia, that settled in North Americas' southeastern region. Later a second culture of people arrived from Northern Asia and took control of eastern Tennessee, and gradually merged with the Southern Asians to form the Cherokee tribe that existed when the first European Caucasians arrived A.D. 1540. In some cases it is stated that John Haywoods' conclusion is rejected and replaced with other theories. [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicfuture12 (talk • contribs)
Hi, could you please review the latest changes to Generation Z and make a recommendation? 202.166.22.207 will not go the talk page and negotiate changes there, instead the IP is reverting everything. Also, please see the news intern NPR quote -- is an intern (at NPR) considered a reliable source? Thanks. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
202 needs to use the talk page and I've added to your note on their talk page. As for sourcing, in this case I don't think the position is really important (although I wouldn't call it an "NPR analysis"). NPR published it so we assume it went through their regular fact checking process. --NeilNtalk to me 19:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi MichaelQSchmidt. I made some tweaks here. Also, I don't think you really need that quote. --NeilNtalk to me 13:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Nice tweaks. I think the quote serves to personalize the motivation as they turned the negative of bullying into a positive. Schmidt, Michael Q. 14:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
WOW. I forgot the "R". Ouch. Sometimes the oh-so-very-obvious sneaks by. (chuckle) This is another good reason to ask for new eyes. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It's LIVE, and the errant sandbox is no more. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Behave Yourself & You are neither God nor above Wikipedia
Respected Yunshui雲水,[1] Sir created an awesome article[2] But you NeilNtalk to me[3] are fighting, humiliating, insulting, abusing every one, who provides information on the talk page of [4] You are determined to misuse your authority & you have a feeling that you are above Wikipedia or You are God..I never edited the article..That proves my intentions. :Suggesting on Talk page or providing information on talk page", never edits the article. & It is my duty to provide relevant, reliable & notable information. You might block me..Abuse me..But never forget, there is someone, who is above all of us. Moreover you do not have heart to understand the notability & reliability of the subject of the article. Unfortunately the greatest injustice to the subject is done by your cruel hands. You must be feeling great by using your authority against a disable kid facing death..You must cherish your success of demoting all the credentials, achievements of the helpless kid...You are above god...A Great person is NeilNtalk to me122.161.30.232 (talk)
Please see ref 1, 4 , 5 & 6 of this article, mentioned by Wikipedia for Youngest Patent holder of India. Moreover I mentioned about news & latest book about real life heroes, by providing notable & reliable reference. Do not you feel DNA group is reliable & notable reference as Its page exists on Wikipedia. Do you really believe that, what ever or who so ever provide information for this article is having bad intentions. In your words sock/meatpuppets. Did i asked/suggested anything from you to edit or write. I am a free man to send information & You are a free person to analyse it. Are you above Wikipedia? When ref 1, 4 , 5 & 6 of this article, mentioned by Wikipedia for Youngest Patent holder of India for the subject..Why you speak in bad words...Your words verbatim "Any book or review which repeats the "India's youngest patent holder and the youngest disabled patent holder in the world" claim that Bhati and his supporters are pushing fails as a reliable source." How can you discourage people from sending information, which is relevant, reliable & notable122.161.30.232 (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
First reference by mistake122.161.30.232 (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Sock/Meatpuppet are your favorite words...When you face bitter truth..Do you have guts & patience to listen , understand..Certainly not! Reality is that you are misusing the noble guidelines set by the Wikipedia as weapons & Misusing your powers. 122.161.30.232 (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
"Patience to listen" is not something you and your group should be preaching about, considering you are only here to promote a family member, have created multiple accounts to do so, and insist on making a hash of the talk page. The "noble guidelines set by the Wikipedia" are designed to prevent such things. --NeilNtalk to me 16:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
First of all It was not me who created this article Wikipedia made this article [5] It was not made by me nor created by me...Obviously it was created by Respected Yunshui雲水,[6] Sir. But you NeilNtalk to me are determined to spoil the article. You will never understand that the "Family member" quoted by you is 'Subject of the article in Wikipedia". Demoting/Abusing/Demeaning/Dejecting the subject of the article of the Wikipedia is also a disrespect for Wikipedia and disrespect for the administrator [7] sir If you are that much annoyed with the subject or if you do not find the subject of the article as notable, reliable enough...Why do not you delete this article...After all you are above god...Above Wikipedia...Above administrators. A PIECE OF ADVICE FOR YOU...IF YOU DO NOT CONSIDER THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE [8], NOTABLE, RELIABLE...PLEASE DELETE IT...Why you are bearing this article..Why you are abusing/insulting everyone. If you do not find the subject of the article ..Worthy enough..Go Ahead & Delete it. Otherwise learn to respect the people who respect the subject of the article of Wikipedia. Subject of the article is not our family member..But the subject of the article is related to Wikipedia. My relative or your enemy does not matter..What matters the most is that the Subject exists in the article of the Wikipedia. Obviously the subject is related to Wikipedia..Never insult/demean/deject/demote the subject..It is insult of Wikipedia also..Put a big ? over the person who created it.122.161.30.232 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
And, as usual, you don't understand Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your Facebook page. There is a huge difference between the current encyclopedic article vs. a source of unthinking hype and puffery you want to turn it into. What happened to your desire to "quit Wikipedia officially forever"? [7] --NeilNtalk to me 17:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
See your language first "a source of unthinking hype and puffery you want to turn it into". Only you are the god of knowledge & every one else trying to contribute to this article is a fool..Suggesting/Informing on Talk page is not the interruption of work but purpose of it. Moreover I am/Rather no one will be eager to contribute anything to this article as you NeilNtalk to me are an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent & I am a big fool in front of you.122.161.30.232 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You NeilNtalk to me said "What happened to your desire to "quit Wikipedia officially forever" + "not your Facebook page" etc No one will be having stamina to bear Insults by you. Believe me if this is the modus operandi by you..Not only me/Rather every one will be least eager to contribute to Wikipedia.122.161.30.232 (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
No, not "every one else", as you and your socks have overwhelmed the talk page. Other, experienced, editors have been dealing with your disruption and contributing. I think we're done here. Any more edits by you here, or anywhere else, will simply be reverted per WP:3RRNO #3. --NeilNtalk to me 17:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I want to thank you for reverting the nonsense which an unregistered user posted in my talk page. You know how it is, in Wikipedia there are all kinds. I really appreciate what you did. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem Tony. No one should have to put up with that. --NeilNtalk to me 22:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
My thanks too, for your help a bit ago, and btw,
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Perhaps I jumped to conclusions too quickly. I simply hate seeing huge chunks of text deleted with a vague comment like "unsourced". I know sometimes indeed the text in question is unsourced, but in my honest opinion that's what the {{fact}} tag is for. We're not in a hurry, the milk has spilled already and we won't be able to defend Hobday from ridicule, especially that it's not our role, is it. And sometimes the text in question might really be dubious, but that's what the {{dubious}} tag is for (and the talk page). In my opinion it's always better to wait and go in smaller steps, and remain open to people who do their silly edits, and write vanity articles often in good faith.
The AfD I linked in my comment is a prime example. I'm not "assuming nobody looked for sources". I'm seeing nobody wrote anything at the talk page - and nobody added any citation needed tags to the article, even in the case of theoretically valid statements. And whether the guy meets the notability guidelines is a completely different matter. Perhaps you went an extra mile to help the editor learn how to improve the article, and to repair the article yourself. Perhaps, but it's not visible in the edit history or at the talk page. //Halibutt 18:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Halibutt: I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. For BLP's, yes, we are in a hurry to get the unsourced stuff out. The history is still there and old content can be re-added if it is deemed relevant and sourced. And our role is to try to ensure Wikipedia articles themselves are not the prime factor for a subject's ridicule. If a notable subject does something stupid and it's documented in their article then that's one thing. But for a low profile person, WP:NPF should be adhered to with an eye to protecting the subject's dignity and privacy. Incidentally, you had no reason to check, but after I added this to the initial author's talk page, I received a thanks. --NeilNtalk to me 18:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Italy
You deleted what you couldn't fight.Really intersting).Wikipedia is really too low for my level of knowledge.Lost time talking to other people.151.40.0.107 (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Socks of blocked editors don't get to continue their disruption. --NeilNtalk to me 22:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
My culture is better than what i saw there.Be sure).151.40.0.107 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
St Paddys Day in North Korea
I dont think its spam, the Irish Indo reference would be good without the primary from their website, but "although not celebrated by locals, tourists have the opportunity to visit the capital and take in the attractions around the city, as well as participating in a pub crawl", its not really a celebration, just a bunch of Irish (and presumably others) going on a session on Paddys day in North Korea. Not really what the section is about. Murry1975 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Murry1975. It's obvious from the editor's name that she's linking to her company's website and the tour guide profiled in the article works there too. --NeilNtalk to me 19:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I didnt see the YPT as anything odd, until you just pointed it out. Old age creeping in. Murry1975 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
A bit of help
Hey! I'm still a bit confused on how to make my wikipedia page meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. Does it mean I need to explain why this artist is important? If so, how would I do that?
Hi HeavyDecimation. You need to provide published sources that show the subject meets any of the criteria listed at WP:BAND. Do you have any sources that do so? --NeilNtalk to me 16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
hi can you return my edits please? I spend hour making them. Old version is humiliating, abusive, confusing and incomplete, please change back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Ms1 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Alexandra Ms1. The old version is merely a dispassionate recitation of an historical fact. Are you taking such offense because it's your name or is it something else? --NeilNtalk to me 04:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
first of all, it is mine. Then it is also name for millions and millions if people. Very often, especially meeting new people, I go online to check the true meaning of their names, if I like them - it is like zodiac, even more important. This is a part of personal brand. I can not believe in Wikipedia this is the description if this beautiful name. It is a shame and Shane that people do not see how awful it is to include such descriptions. Who came up with it in the 1st place? Don't you think it is disgusting if your new friend looks at your name and sees the similar history/meaning????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Ms1 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thanks for letting me know about the policy. I am not meaning to be doing any warring. All it was is that it was not clear to me what the background is and the motivation. I fid discuss this with each editor. Which I will have to continue doing keeping in mind that sine others will be trying to change and I have to limit to 3 per day. Please could you send me the reference to this "community" thingy where u can reach more people abt this issue? It's first time I registered with wkpda today, so can appreciate some guidance. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Ms1 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Alexandra Ms1, as Wikipedia is an academic resource, it describes the history of a name from an academic viewpoint as does not consider such factors as the zodiac and does not consider a name to be "beautiful" or a "personal brand". If you want the picture/text changed, you should make your proposal on Talk:Alexandra. Please make sure you click the "New section" tab to create a new section at the bottom (you've been posting at the top of talk pages which is the opposite of what we do). --NeilNtalk to me 05:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I edited the "tAlk" section - could you now please update? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Ms1 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I've replied on the talk page. --NeilNtalk to me 05:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
No, sorry, but it doesn't work like that. It's {{WP:BRD]] not WP:BDR. The onus is on the editor proposing the changes to make her case. It's important! I think if instead of WP:BRD we had the policy "changes are assumed to be acceptable, the onus is on the person wanting to reject the change to make his case" we would have a very different, and not necessarily better, encyclopedia.
So let's not edit war over this. That is frowned upon here. I know you will do the right thing and restore the article to its previous state and make the case for any changes on the article talk page. I've opened a thread just for this purpose. This would, I think, be the collegial thing to do, and we can discuss this like reasonable people, I hope. Herostratus (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Herostratus: Sorry, no, I won't be reverting to a version which is mostly unsourced. If you want to go back to the older version and provide references and explain why a list of examples is encyclopedic then of course I won't revert. --NeilNtalk to me 04:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Thanks for stepping in with the Yeon-mi Park article! You definitely deserve a good dozen of these. (Unless you dislike them, in which cause you deserve the snack treat of your choice.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikolas.Sudarpo. Articles are added to my watchlist (currently at over 27,000 pages) rather organically. Subjects are mentioned on a noticeboard or talk page, or another editor asks me to keep an eye on one, or I'm cleaning up after another editor, as they make dubious edits to related articles. For example, I've got a whole bunch of articles on my watchlist centered around Telangana as editors disrupting that article sometimes move on to its politicians and articles detailing its history. --NeilNtalk to me 09:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Feedback on the Cosby change
I provided new wording as per your request on the Bill Cosby allegations here:
Sorry about this, I wasn't sure what you meant when I undid your edit. Now I realize that Ducey won't be sworn in as governor until January so we have to wait until then to add him to that page. Jinkinsontalk to me 03:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
@Jinkinson: Thanks. Was just about to post to your page. :-) --NeilNtalk to me 04:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
You got mail!
Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 19:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks for participating in the discussion about Laverne Cox. I appreciate your interest in transgender rights issues and think that you made a positive impact on the discussion. I hope that in the future you participate in other controversial disputes because getting more good comments like yours leads them to resolution. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Bluerasberry. I've been editing here for quite a while, including edits related to transgender topics, but the recent attacks and your question as to my intent this morning had me wondering what was up. --NeilNtalk to me 15:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Violation of Twinkle policy
NeilN,
You are utilizing Twinkle in a manner that violates its end user terms. Please discontinue the roll-back of good faith edits, such as you did on the page Meryl Streep. Labeling a user as a sockpuppet without due process indicates unprovoked malice towards the user and will not be tolerated. Furthermore, it would benefit you to re-read the Twinkle terms of use at your earliest convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.21.51 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll get right on that. --NeilNtalk to me 19:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
IAC
Ya dude, what you want discuss on talk ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplonSimon (talk • contribs) 07:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes you are misusing the Twinkle to my edits. You have commited offence you can read here "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used". So what you mean by talk ? 07:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)SimplonSimon (talk)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "India Against Corruption".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Mdann52talk to me! 08:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
SimplonSimon blocked as yet another IAC sock. [8] --NeilNtalk to me 14:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Neil. I am trying to remove the name "Helen" from Elizabeth Garrett's Wikipedia post. Elizabeth (Beth) Garrett is a longtime friend of mine and has asked me to make sure that her Wikipedia entry is correct and up to date. Beth's full legal name is "Helen Elizabeth Garrett," but she has never used "Helen," and prefers to be called "Elizabeth" in formal contexts such as this. If you wish, you can email her at <redacted> to verify this. Thanks!
Hi Eftonpark. Wikipedia typically includes the full name if published in reliable sources. In this case, CNN and White House biographies are reliable sources. [9] --NeilNtalk to me 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Your supercilious tone
Hi
On Talk:Ganges you've posted Irrelevant. We use tools designed specifically for Wikipedia
a) I remind you that 'Wikipedia' is a generic term including many non-English projects.
b) Your usage of "We" is presumptious and demeaning. I verifiably edit at several other English language Wikis powered by Mediawiki, which includes contributions there on the river 'Ganga'. MonaPisser (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@MonaPisser: As you are editing the English Wikipedia here, you should be assuming that references will be to English Wikipedia tools, policies, and guidelines. --NeilNtalk to me 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
My bad, I had completely forgotten that "We(e) folk" don't differentiate between the English language Wikipedia and the mythical English Wikipedia.
BTW, I've replied to your suggestion And are you suggesting the river stopped flowing in India or Bangladesh? with this [10] fact. MonaPisser (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Politicians can name things whatever they want. As I and others suspected, all your efforts boil down to an end run around against previous move discussions. --NeilNtalk to me 22:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
A honest request
Dear Mr. Neil hi,
As you can view that lots of communication has been made to administrator to correct the true facts based on references. But from last three days Articles and images of Gurjar wikipedia has been removed. I am writing on Wikipedia since last 8 years. I can tell that without facts, i have not posted a single article or information. I hope you will understand the this matter.
Regards,
Gurjeshwar (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Gurjeshwar: Eight years on Wikipedia should have made you aware of WP:3RR. I gave you the chance to self-revert. You didn't take it. --NeilNtalk to me 03:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Neil, This article was absolutely right 5 days before, But some writes has changed the whole contents and relates Gurjar Caste with other caste. This is objectionable, but instead of that conrent removal, admin stitush has removed all images related to Gurjar people like Sarat Mihir Bhoja, Sardar vallabh bhai Patel. Please do understand that these persons are not related to particular political parties. Mihir Bhoj was king and Sarad Vallabh bhai Patel was freedom Fighter and well known Gurjat peronality. When other caste detail write their famous persons name and images on Wikipedia then Why this discrepancy is being used for Gurjar. I am ready to debate for relation of these personalities with Gurjar People, But without asking or knowing the facts and removal of these contents from wikipedia is really not good for those who really wish the Wikipedia as unbiased source to get the whole information.
I will appreciate your kind act. I will continue to write on wikipedia with my honest efforts.
I hope you will try to solve this matter honestly
Thanks and regard
Gurjeshwar (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
NeilN, the gentleman has extenuating circumstances in his favour, should he care to use it. Like most of literate India, I suspect he was misled by a mischievous, incorrect and unrebutted report in India's leading newspaper that the other disputant is an Admin at Wikipedia. Hence his confusion. I have advised him to apologise. MonaPisser (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Trolling
Pretty sure MonaPisser is simply trolling right now (see this or this for latest), and testing how long it takes for us to admit the obvious, and block the account. In the meantime, given that we have already addressed the "points" the user raised at Talk:Ganges, I don't believe we need to offer even more fine-grained explanations till the user concedes that they understand (which, per definition of a troll, will be never). Best to WP:DENY unless there are new and genuine points to respond to. Cheers. ( Pinging @Mfield, Serialjoepsycho, Bishonen, Anthony Bradbury, and Sitush: some of the other editors who have extended AGF towards the user so far). Abecedare (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. They're not going to get anywhere on Ganges with their current points, anyways. --NeilNtalk to me 23:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind if they had raised a genuine issue, and we ended up renaming/splitting the article as a result. My point is that the user doesn't even care if they got their way, since their very aim is to waste as much time, and step on as many nerves, as possible, before they are inevitably blocked. Surely as an experienced user (which they are), they know that vandalism on F&f's userpage will be quickly reverted; yet it offered them an oppurtunity to spin stories of fictional emails; retracted nominations; promotional username; poor English etc... each of which issue, at least one of us patiently responded to (just as you and I responded to their concern about article size at Talk:Ganges). AGF stretches only so far, and our time and attention can be better focused elsewhere (on or off-wiki). Abecedare (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPA, WP:AGF please. My discussion with User:AshLin on my talk page, evidences the emails and the withdrawn nomination for F&f. That mailing list incidentally is for all Indian Wikimedians and all Indic Wikis.MonaPisser (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Your dubious actions extend beyond that single issue. --NeilNtalk to me 16:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with User:Abcedare, the agenda of this user is to sully an absent editor's name & another's reputation by misrepresentation. Nothing in the genuine interest of Wikipedia will come about from this reader's editting. AshLin (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you dispute the essential facts. The recent Emails to a list, nomination by a non-Indian, protest by Indians, renomination by an Indian, withdrawal of all foreign names. etc. Do you also seriously suggest that 7 Indians sitting together constitute the "Indian Wikimedian community" to publicly bestow a "National" honor on foreigners which incorporates / desecrates the Indian flag in its "rosette" ? Read the flag code 2002, pleaseMonaPisser (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you'll find the number of other Wikipedians on here who care about whatever you're going about up above to be approximately zero. You've been told not to touch the user page. Drop it. --NeilNtalk to me 18:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. As Bish said, very gratifying catch. --NeilNtalk to me 23:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleting material capriciously
Would you please stop deleting partially complete edits of NEW material.
You may want to read the material before you delete whole sections of text.... again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.239.21 (talk)
Please get consensus before adding NEW material. You don't have it. --NeilNtalk to me 03:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Security News Desk
Hi NeilN - ref you message about online Newspapers and my post in the examples section - this is not meant as self promotion but to inform using 2 relevant examples - advice as to how to reword it to meet Wiki rules would be appreciated.
@PhilipIngram65: Your first step would be to write an article on Security News Desk to show notability. However since you have a conflict of interest (which you should disclose on your user page), I strongly recommend using the Articles for creation process to create a draft for someone else to review. --NeilNtalk to me 11:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I noticed this discussion when checking up on refspamming by PhilipIngram65, adding content on The Security Institute linking to the source website by way of his own site (instead of linking straight to the source) to attract visitors to it, so I thought I'd add my 2p to the discussion. Security News Desk seems to be a website that re-reports news from other news sources, as opposed to providing own unique material, so there's IMHO very little chance of them passing the notability-threshold and getting an own article here. Thomas.W talk 12:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I can assure you you are 100% wrong - the vast majority of the content in Security News Desk is original and written by the Security News Desk editorial team. This is unlike most other publications that support a particular industry by just reproducing PR. So forgive me but your 2p worth is worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipIngram65 (talk • contribs)
(Since PhilipIngram65 posted the same comment both here and on my talk page I'll reply on both pages, but further discussion should be kept here...) Then why does the page (on your web site) that you linked to only link on to the website of The Security Institute? If you wrote the article you ought to be able to publish the content on your own web site, instead of just linking to another site. Thomas.W talk 12:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
For the simple reason that that is how The Security Institute asked us to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipIngram65 (talk • contribs)
@PhilipIngram65:In that case you should have linked straight to where the material is, i.e. The Security Institute's web site, and not by way of your own website. I'm moving this discussion to User talk:NeilN, so please keep the discussion there, and please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~~~~ ) so that everyone knows who he/she is talking to. Thomas.W talk 12:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
No you miss the point - Security News Desk has a greater reach and audience - The Security Institute requested it be done this way so their message would get out further - please do not try and educate me on something you have not been party to
If you actually look at Security News Desk you will find it full of original content and look at the News Paper Tab and Media Tabs to see even more original content — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipIngram65 (talk • contribs)
@PhilipIngram65: The bottom line is that you want to add Security News Desk to a list or two. For that to happen, an Wikipedia article on Security News Desk should exist to show it's notable by Wikipedia standards. Using the AFC process is the best way to go once you gather independent published sources that have covered Security News Desk. --NeilNtalk to me 14:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@PhilipIngram65: Which has nothing to do with what I wrote. Reference links should always point straight to the source material, not to another website that then links to the source material, the way you did (in an obvious attempt to attract visitors to your website). Thomas.W talk 14:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
First Attempt at Wikipedia Edit
This is my first attempt/experience at editing a Wikipedia article. I’m still trying to figure out how it all works. So perhaps I should first apologize that I started with yours. Lol. I imagine you are probably thrilled to have inexperienced editors to your page [sarcasm intended].
I attempted to edit the page on Fundamentalism. Specifically, I was hoping to remove a particular bias in the article. The use of the phrases “orthodox theological doctrines,” (orthodox literally means “right teaching”), “classical theological beliefs of Christianity,” and “reaffirm key theological tenants” are phrases that bias the article toward a belief that Fundamentalist Christian Doctrine is the “right” and “classical” (hence RE-affirmable) Christian teaching.
A couple of examples of why that position is problematic include: On Inerrancy, Martin Luther (the so-called father of the Protestant Reformation) claimed he saw no evidence that the book of Revelation was written by the Holy Spirit, and that he thought the book of James was a “strawy epistle” full of law and absent of grace (See Martin Luther’s Introduction to Revelation and James). On the doctrine of atonement, for the first one thousand years of Christian history, the "orthodox" doctrine of atonement was Christus Victor (e.g. Augustine). The sacrificial theory of atonement didn’t appear until the middle ages with Anselm (Read Gustaf Aulen’s Christus Victor, which is about the history of the three main Christian atonement theories).
Again, my goal is simply to remove the bias so that it doesn’t appear that the peer-reviewed Wiki-Community thinks that Fundamentalism is the authentic, right and classical Christian teaching. Rather, Fundamentalism is an interpretation of classical Christianity, and it is an interpretation that is both historically and theologically problematic for many Christians.
Hi MdivstudentBriteDivinity, welcome to Wikipedia. Always happy to help new editors out. You bring up valid points but the best place to discuss article content and changes is on the article's talk page (Talk:Fundamentalism). By posting there, your points and reasoning will be seen by any editor who is interested in the article. --NeilNtalk to me 17:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
How was an Article about Guerilla Marketing not a resource. Especially when Google's Android just teamed up with Kit Kat to launch a guerilla marketing campaign. where there is a link in the references section of this page that has nothing to do with Guerilla Marketing http://www.media-street.co.uk/marketing/— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBVolcom (talk • contribs)
@AndyBVolcom: A PR release written by a marketing company to shill for their services is nothing but spam. I've removed the other refspam you pointed out, thank you. --NeilNtalk to me 19:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Racism in Canada
Hi, me and User:Introspectress are planning on adding history to the racism in Canada page. We're new editors and we'd like some suggestions on making our sections sound less like a university essay, instead of undoing our changes. AboriginalAbel (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for your assistance and we will definitely utilize your critique! AboriginalAbel (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Please reconsider General Authority issue
The position of general authorities is not an occupation, it is a position of leade4rship. We have articles on Catholic Bishops that lack sources that even have the depth of description that we have on Latter-day Saint General Authorities. The whole campaign is being driving by PBP's claim that Mormon sources are by definition "unreliable". This to me seems bigoted. If he were to try to delete articles on African-Americans because he claimed African-American sources were "unreliable" or on Jews because Jewish sources were unreliable, he would be called out as the bigot he is. This campaign privaleges sources that are antagonistic to a group, and works to restrict the groups ability to be presented as it sees itself in Wikipedia. This is the antithesis of the principals of broder inclusion that Wikipedia aims for. It privaleges certain cultures over others, and leads to a narrow and skewed narrative of groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
JPL, if I may, my premise of unreliability is based on two legs: a) Church websites are not independent of church authorities (this holds true for any church; it holds true for non-churches too; you can't source a rock band member solely from a rock band's website); b) Church websites are not peer-reviewed and therefore not as reliable as books or academic journals. This view doesn't privilege antagonistic sources; it actually privileges sources that don't side one way or t'other. And it is nothing like African-Americans or Jews, sorry. The equivalent would be an African-American college professor being sourced solely from his college's website; or a Jewish businessman being sourced solely from his business' website. pbp 20:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert: You're twisting Purplebackpack89's rationale to suit your own purposes and insinuating some very ugly things. Some comments:
"The position of general authorities is not an occupation, it is a position of leade4rship." -> It does not matter. "Leaders" are not exempt from notability requirements.
"We have articles on Catholic Bishops that lack sources that even have the depth of description..." -> If you find an article with no independent sources after doing a WP:BEFORE, I'll put it up for an AFD myself.
"The whole campaign is being driving by PBP's claim that Mormon sources are by definition "unreliable"." That's not what he (or I) said. Our position is that sources owned by the Church cannot be used to fulfill the notability requirements for a member of the Church. As I said in another AFD, a newsletter distributed by GM to its employees and partners cannot be used to show notability for an engineer featured in that newsletter.
"...works to restrict the groups ability to be presented as it sees itself in Wikipedia. This is the antithesis of the principals of broder inclusion that Wikipedia aims for." This is completely misguided. No group should be able to dictate how it is presented on Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors use secondary sources to interpret and weigh most of a subject's views; they are not presented without analysis or have their notability unquestioned.
The article 'islam' when referring to 'zakat' makes no mention of the requirement of 1/8 of zakat to fund fighters/jihad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt13046841 (talk • contribs)
Hi Matt13046841. What is your source for this? I can't see anything in zakat that supports your statement. --NeilNtalk to me 20:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Residences
I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy listing sources in the small, right-side (shorthand) bio box for public figures. I obtain my data from public records, and it is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammsl (talk • contribs)
Hi Grammsl. We need a link or a cite to a published source per our policy on verifiability. The current residence is sourced in the article body. --NeilNtalk to me 20:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Secondary sources for navier-stokes-first-exact-transformation
5.Проблема тысячелетия (millennium prize problem) для уравнений навье – стокса разрешима классическими методами математической физики козачок А. А., Киев, Украина
http://ru.convdocs.org/docs/index-2701.htmlAlexandr (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Alexandr. You should list these sources on the article's talk page where subject matter experts can discuss. --NeilNtalk to me 20:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You can see the “list these sources on the article's talk page” . Therefore I hope you will begin to discuss these sources as other editors are silent.
--Alexandr (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello NeilN. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Discussion of Natty4Bumpo at ANI: [12]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
On Kannada Language Edits
There is a new section opened in Kannada page and some vandals are removing entirely sourced section (please verify all links) so that I reach 3 reverts and block me.
Also talk page contains a huge number of anti-kannada and pro-tamil comments and are derogatory and racist in nature.
I request a protection tag for the article and also cleanup of talk page.
And yes why are you removing the complete edits? Aren't you vandalising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karnāṭa dēśamaṁ (talk • contribs)
That's what I was doing. Read the article. Please learn to read better. The article needs to make reference to "liberty" and "humans rights activist" or it's a shockingly poor and incompetent article. There's no excuse for such blatant incompetence and inaccuracy. KyZan (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)KyZan — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyZan (talk • contribs)
@KyZan: The article or the talk page doesn't need to become a soapbox proclaiming how great the subject is. Making sure the article has a neutral tone is not the work of "vandals and trolls". --NeilNtalk to me 17:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN: I repeat: please learn to read better. Calling Michelangelo a "painter" is not an act of "proclaiming how great the subject is." It's accuracy and competence. And repeatedly deleting such a reference for obvious reasons of bias clearly is the work of vandals and trolls. Park is a full-time human rights activist. It needs to be mentioned. I know what a neutral tone is. You do not. A neutral tone is precisely what your comments lack. Evidently you lack the ability to think and comprehend. Fine. But please stop spamming me. And please stop vandalizing the Park article. KyZan (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)KyZan
@KyZan: What's the first sentence in the article? "Yeon-mi Park (also stylized as Yeonmi Park) is a North Korean defector and human rights activist currently in South Korea." --NeilNtalk to me 17:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
Your recent editing history at Barack Obama shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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. You need to read Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_78#Legacy_of_first_term_.2F_Evaluations_of_first_term again (or look up the definition of WP:CONSENSUS)
You appear to be baiting and edit warring with new editors. Please stop. There is a Talk page at Obama which you appear to be ignoring. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@FelixRosch:Competency is required on your part as usual. Why do you insist on copying warnings to you here? And I'm assuming your edit summaries on Barack Obama are your poor analysis rather than purposefully misleading. --NeilNtalk to me 22:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment.
Interesting that, a non-sensical rant. You must be an encyclopedian. How about if you self-appointed subsidized boys and girls obtain some formal education, instead of spending your time on a known social psychological experimental site, that has a reputation of NOT having any clear directivity whatsoever, AND filled with fast levels of schizofrenic gestalts. Wikipedia, is a subsidized instance subsidized by and through philanthropical drain end accounts, most any of these accounts, being defacto a fast inflation creating instance.
Perhaps you should send in a complaint to the sponsors, and have the board fired to add deterministic directivity, instead of allowing that board to sponsor half-ashed articles in fast opinion, most of a political or propagandistic nature.
Read the NOTE: A FAST majority of articles ARE dyslexic, have NO clear directivity, ARE haphazard, and have more in common with an institute and asylum for those with forms of demencia, then much anything else.
Stop sprouting the wants of some subsidized think tank, do some needs.
Ahhh, neil,
Piss off fellow, go see a psych, you´ve been handling psychopatic literature to long.
Hollyscoop IS a reliable source. It's a NEW MEDIA Hollywood news source. Are you familiar with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk)
It's an online celebrity gossip magazine whose quality (or lack thereof) is shown by the page you linked to. Plus, Wikipedia articles don't follow the style of celebrity magazines. They don't document who's dating who unless the relationship is significant as documented by reliable sources, not gossip sites. --NeilNtalk to me 17:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I haven't been editing in a bit but I would like to get back into the swing of things. I remember you as a helpful and fair admin before, and hope you don't mind if I come to you with any questions or requests for assistance or advice. Thank you for your work!
I enjoyed the following exchange:
I wonder if there is a competition for edit #499999999 and what the prize is? I sure could use a vacation. Obotlig☣interrogate 17:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Obotlig, welcome back. I'm not an admin but will certainly help where I can. --NeilNtalk to me 13:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
STOP UNDOING MY PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED EDITS AND SETTLED ISSUES
This is about the living persons page for Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky. We discussed issues of name-dropping earlier and substantiated the claim as requested. This was a settled issue that was brought back again. This should kindly stop. Thanks.
Heheh well done! But I suppose you contribute in a different way than most to this project. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. LennyBernstein (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Roger Federer. I am posting this notice based on this edit [1] and this edit [2], I'm inclined to believe you are not only going against WP:AGF, but you are also now hounding me. WP:BLPN is a disputed policy, some (such as myself and long-term editors and administrators) believe it says to keep the names and identifying information of non-notable minor children of article subjects out. Others believe it doesn't say that at all. What is your plan, to follow me around Wikipedia, reverting the edits that go against your interpretation of BLPN policy? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
