User talk:NeilN/Archive 22

Hey

You must note that the section I posted was not the sock puppets content it was someone elses.The sock puppet just did a copy paste style editing and added a new section.Hand snoojy (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you making fun of me?Hand snoojy (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to deal with suspected sockpuppets as little as possible. You can make your case at WP:3RRNB. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What does it matter if some content was added by a sock pupet or not.It's news and basically you are trying to be politically correct and try to face facts.Hand snoojy (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

HEY

The information you have been putting is outdated. I am not putting any information on the basis of future estimates, all info that i have been putting is of year 2015 which is present and not the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.67.107 (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

2015 numbers are future estimates. 2015 has only begun - at least in most people's calendars. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

N. T. Rama Rao Jr.

Hello, Neil. I have seen your contributions to Jr. NTR, and they are pretty impressive. But, I am asking a small favour here. Can you help Jr. NTR's page go into the good articles category, or adding a few information about his career, personal life etc.

Thank you, Mohanlalkafan (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mohanlalkafan. I've tried to keep the worst excesses out but the article suffers from enthusiastic editing from the subject's fans. For example, count how many instances of the word "huge" are present in the article. The first step is getting rid of all the puffery (and making sure it stays out!). If that can happen then we can start fixing the other issues afterwards. Have a look at Ranbir Kapoor to see how a GA should read. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Corrupticut

Hi Neil,

I live in Connecticut and I can tell you that the term "Corrupticut" is not obscure. Its firmly entered the lexicon and certainly more well known than "The Provisions State". You'll very easily find news citations going back to 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.170.246 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi 24. The source given isn't that great. If you can provide better sourcing, I won't revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This good enough? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/28/nyregion/the-nutmeg-state-battles-the-stigma-of-corrupticut.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.170.246 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Robertnarracci (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, The same New York Times giving propos to the New Haven Independent. Its a respected source. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/nyregion/18towns.html?scp=13&sq=New+Haven+Independent&st=nyt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.170.246 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Robertnarracci (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robertnarracci, that looks like better sourcing, yes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathy cured hundreds of humans before, why isn't it considered a valid medical technique by NeilN? Hello sir .., i am shubham agarwal from palwal .. I want to write my biography on your site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.210.84 (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate username possibly?

Hello NeilN, I am not sure if you are an admin but you seem familiar with the workings of Wikipedia. I am here in regards to the user Ahmadikafirkabaccha who has been conducting personal attacks. However I would appreciate your help with user's name itself. "Ahmadikafirkabaccha" means in Urdu (or possibly Hindi); "Ahmadi is the son of an apostate". How do you recommend, this be dealt with? Regards Mbcap (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mbcap. I expect that account to be blocked today. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Company article

Thanks neil about your comments from Kornukopia. I guess the issue is what comes first the chicken or the egg. I am still scratching my head as to how most of my other competitors have made it and I have not. If I reference news articles about us, would that satisfy the notoriety? Thanks, John Shine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornukopia123 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kornukopia123. If you look at their articles they should contain independent sources that cover them. You'll need the same (and not brief mentions about your products - company profiles would be good). And, as Cullen mentioned, you need to be very aware of your conflict of interest as that makes it harder for you to write about your company neutrally. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

General sanctions on articles about the Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

If you add a warning/information such as this to a new user's page, please include the template {{subst:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification|sig=yes}} from the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page and also add the name of the editor you have informed to the list on the sanctions page (one does not have to be an administrator to inform editors of these sanctions using this template). Once that is done, it makes it easier for administrators to check that an editor has been informed of the sanctions if that editor breaches them in future either for a 1RR or some other infraction. -- PBS (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: General sanctions, discretionary sanctions... there has to be an easier way of keeping track of all this stuff. Sigh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

My suggested solution was/is to create a new wikipeida newspaper (or new page) called the "Gazette" (such as the London Gazette that the British Government publishes), which listed all this type of stuff and once informed on the user's talk page of such a gazette existed then it is the user's responsibility to keep an eye on the Gazette for official announcements such as new sanctions removal of old sanctions etc. As it stands at the moment with the current system editors take the notifications to be warnings and (with justification) do not like such notices if they have not broken any rules. The whole thing is currently too bureaucratic. -- PBS (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: Yes, I wasn't too thrilled at getting a BLP notice a couple weeks ago when I've been working at WP:BLPN for years. There should be a way for editors to self-notify - here are the sanctions I'm aware of, no need to notify me of them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not just notify yourself, which is what I did before editing on an Eastern Europe article (the other editor was miffed they had been notified earlier and since a) I know about the sanctions and b) all it is is a bit of text and it might cool down an annoyed editor, why not self notify.

Is there any reason not to make a sub-page of your user page and post self notifications or list notifications received? JBH (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The subpage thing is a good idea if the "check if editor has been warned before" functionality supports it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have set up a sub-page for DS/GS notices. I am not sure how the check functionality works but since I have been editing BLPs go ahead and post that notice there and see if it works. You can try the EE notice as well since I likely did not self notify properly, I just took the notice you put on Tikva2009's talk page and posted it to mine. Please let me know how it works out. JBH (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Oh I'm sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phamlinh341564 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 21:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Harris

Having a degree or writing books for a popular audience doesn't make someone a philosopher or a scientist for the same reason that having an MBA and writing about business administration to a general audience doesn't make someone a business administrator. Being employed in the respective profession makes you a member of that profession. Second Quantization (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Second Quantization: Not really. How are you employed as a "philosopher"? Muhammad Ali is no longer employed as a boxer. Does that mean he's no longer a boxer? We go with what reliable sources call him. See these discussions: Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#Philosopher.3F_Neuroscientist.3F_Neurophilosopher.3F and Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#RfC:Should_Sam_Harris_be_called_a_philosopher.3F. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Being described as a philosopher by more than a dozen high-quality reliable sources makes you a philosopher on Wikipedia. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What's sad is that you probably really think that is what makes someone a philosopher. Second Quantization (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"How are you employed as a "philosopher"?" If you don't know how someone can be employed as a philosopher then you don't know even the rudimentary basics to have a meaningful conversation about this topic. In the same way as all other philosophers have been employed since the professionalisation of philosophy and science. Specifically having an academic position and being active within the specific philosophical or scientific community which specialises in your area of interest. Harris satisfies neither. Writing about philosophy or science for a general audience doesn't make you a philosopher or a scientist. If you don't even know how someone can be employed as a philosopher why are you making edits such as this?

"We go with what reliable sources call him." Context matters for determining reliability WP:RSCONTEXT. Considering you didn't know how a philosopher could be employed, I severely doubt you can determine the correct context for that determination. Please explain your method for ascertaining that sources are reliable for characterising the profession of someone? By the same reasoning these monks: [1] really are experts and employed as academics. You must show that the specific sources do represent professions well (and consider that this is also a designation Sam Harris himself doesn't use).

I see there was an RfC on the issue though, with clueless arguments apparently being given weight by the administrator, as I would expect to occur in an encyclopaedia of this quality. So I will leave it at that. Second Quantization (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you can be employed as a professional philosopher. However professional employment or even a degree is not required for a person to be regarded as a philosopher, snobbery notwithstanding. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well duh, nothing is required for anyone to view anyone as anything. Sure, someone could be regarded as a surgeon without working as one but it's pretty meaningless when they aren't and that's not just snobbery; it's pretty apparent that you need to actually do the thing your job says you do. If you claim someone is a philosopher or a scientist but it turns out they don't actually work in either area, then it's pretty damn misleading. Second Quantization (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether they "actually work in either area" is not for editors to determine with their arbitrary criteria. For example, I knew a surgeon who never practised (he was paralyzed from the waist down shortly after qualifying). However he taught, consulted, and wrote papers and was still referred to as a surgeon. In Harris' case independent sources have looked at his work and determined he can be labelled as a philosopher. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What's sad is that you probably really think that is what makes someone a philosopher.

No, I really think that's what makes someone a philosopher on Wikipedia, as I said above. As to what makes someone a philosopher outside of a Wikipedia article, well, that's a philosophical question, and I'm not a philosopher on Sundays or Tuesdays. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Evolution article

NeilN could you clarify why you closed my discussion and labeled it ´nothing to see here´? As I said, I am open to discussion. 4444ED (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@4444ED: The fact that you think that the Answering Genesis website is a credible scientific source or contains valid criticism of scientific theories shows your understanding of scientific theory needs to be greatly improved before you can bring up credible points for discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN In other words, you are saying I need to be an evolutionist. Please back up your statements reasonably.4444ED (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN I was not attacking the evolutionary theory, if that is the problem. I was trying to improve the article by suggesting presenting it in a neutral point of view. 4444ED (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN Also, explain why you think AiG is not a credible scientific source. I believe you closed the discussion because you do not like the fact that I am presenting solid evidence and because you do not like my viewpoint. If you had any scientific backup you would not have closed the discussion, but presented your evidence in a civil way. Furthermore, I think you would benefit from actually reading the AiG page. 4444ED (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Rather a moot point now. Not interested in debating someone who thinks the Bible is a scientific work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that the Christian group that preaches that dinosaurs and humans coexisted? "Scientific"? Yeah, right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's one of several Christian groups that preaches that non-avian dinosaurs and humans coexisted together without any evidence, yes.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: And they came off Noah's Ark 4,300 years ago (I kid you not). Quite entertaining for about five minutes. I'm debating adding this to my talk page edit notice in big red letters: "Because... SCIENCE!" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

One of my friends visited their "museum" a while back, and posted a lengthy and amusing review on Facebook just a couple of days ago. Quite informative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware that Answers In Genesis has a notorious reputation for having a blatant anti-science agenda, and that simply pointing out that anchoring your arguments to what AiG says is not a wise decision is not incivility. Furthermore, insisting that we rewrite the article of Evolution to be more sensitive to the feelings of Creationists and other science-deniers will neither create neutrality, as that would unfairly skew the article towards Creationism and sciene-denial, nor would it improve the article, as it would entail deliberate introduction of misinformation into the article. And having said that, NeilN closed that thread as per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN I think you are being quite unreasonable; you have not presented an unbiased reason why the evolution FAQ page shouldn't be modified to avoid attacking Creationists, or why the article shouldn't be modified with things such as 'according to the theory of evolution'. And apparently you have no notion what neutral POV means. Furthermore, just so you know, answers in genesis does NOT have an anti-science agenda. AND, you are not using civil discussion, as you proclaim. If you don't want to open your mind to see outside the box and actually check out the website and INVESTIGATE for yourself, and you don't want to talk with me about this, then DON'T close the discussions. The article talk pages are for posting opinions and improving the article. Since your opinion differs from mine, you abused your admin privileges and closed the discussion. You are being very biased.4444ED (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@4444ED: If you look at my comments above you'll find that I did peruse the website and found it full of anti-scientific claptrap. And Creationists are not being attacked. We simply point out their arguments are basically regarded as garbage by scientists. The wording is more polite of course. The talk page is not for posting personal opinions or theories rooted in quackery. It's for discussing content coming from legitimate scientific sources. BTW, I am not an admin but you obviously missed the note at the top of the page: WARNING: This is not the place to discuss any alleged controversy or opinion about evolution and its related subjects. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, which is about evolution (not creation science, not creationism, and not intelligent design to name a few), and what has been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN I am not talking about opinions. I am talking about improving the article by implementing neutral point of view. Neutral point of view, as I mentioned in the discussion which you closed for biased reasons, is giving each worldview a fair and equal standing. That happens to include Creationism. Neutral POV is NOT labeling Creationism 'anti-science quackery'. Apparently, you either do not know what neutral point of view means or you prefer to promote evolution. Either way, the evolution article is biased. If you do not want it to be neutral POV then keep doing what you are doing. I can't figure it out. Have a nice day. 4444ED (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@4444ED: Neutral point of view has a unique definition on Wikipedia. Giving each worldview equal balance would create a false balance as the vast majority of accredited scientists working in the field consider creation science as pseudoscience. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here - After reading this and related topics here you inspired me to dash this off Because science.... It is a first draft and I sure it could be improved but I think it gives a reasonable, short way to address the crap the Discovery Institues, AIG and others are spouting. JBH (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: You may be amused by the Project Steve article if you haven't read it. One thing your essay alludes to but doesn't explicitly cover is that the Creationist arguments are attractive because they're simple to understand. Everyone likes to think they're capable of understanding logical arguments so when presented with a simple paragraph of seemingly reasonable assertions it's easy to nod and say, "yes, that makes sense." Evolution, however, combines concepts from a variety of specialized scientific fields so if you come at it from a skeptic's point of view, and require proof for everything, you're looking at a huge body of primary and secondary sources that you have to read and understand. Much easier to say, "god-did-it". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I like Project Steve. It shows that the NCSE can keep up a sense of humor while they bang their heads against walls of ignorance. Your point about why creationist arguments can be intellectually comforting to some people is spot on. Do you mind if I make use of it? JBH (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Not at all. Go ahead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. JBH (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I read the 'because science' and it sounded pretty good...until I realized I had read nothing but assumptions, speculation, mockery and false claims. Not a single scientific statement in there. It's even worse than the FAQ in the evolution article.

Guys, why are you acting like I am your enemy?? I am simply trying to get you to consider neutral POV in the evolution article. 4444ED (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@4444ED: I am sorry that you did not take the opportunity to at least explore the links in the document and learn why those creationist claims are false. I absolutely refuse to engage in debate with creationists, someone is either capable of, and willing to accept scientific reality or not. Objective reality is objective reality no matter what you believe and anyone who resorts to super-natural claims to explain the natural world has willingly given up on all of the intellectual progress we have made since the Enlightenment.

You are welcome to your beliefs but the point of view you espouse will never be included in modern scientific discourse or represented as legitimate alternative to evolution here on Wikipedia. The article is neutral. Creationism is absolutly and completely wrong in every particular with respect to evolution. No argument you can possibly make can ever outweigh or even bring into question the scientific theory of evolution. The only way that will ever happen is if God comes down from on high and simultaniously tells every biologist, geologist, palentologist and a dozen more types of -ologists "Hey guys I was just screwing with you". That is the weight of evidence there is for evolution. I recognize this is a blunt statement but you seem not to be understanding the subtle ones.

Since this is NeilN's talk page and I expect he wants a long and fruitless conversation on it even less than I wish to engage in one I will take this chance to wish you happiness in whatever your next endeavor might be and bow out. Cheers. JBH (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me add to what Jbhunley said. I happen to be a Jew and an active member of a synagogue, and we spend over two months each and every year studying and pondering and debating every single word of the Book of Genesis in both Biblical Hebrew and English. I happen to be a past president of our synagogue. We study Genesis as part of our heritage, as a religious and literary work that challenges and engages us, as a book of moral teaching, as a great work of myth, and as a symbol of our identity. But we most certainly do not see it as a work of either history or science.

As a Wikipedia editor, I say no, no, a thousand times no to allowing any fundamentalist religious group to have any influence whatsoever on the content of our articles on science. As for you, 4444ED, I do not consider you my enemy. I am entirely happy to leave you alone with your fundamentalist religious beliefs that you are entitled to hold under the First Amendment. Enjoy yourself. But when it comes to this encyclopedia, I will do everything in my power as long as I breathe to keep your religious beliefs out of our science articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition, you might have missed what I wrote above. Any short scientific explanation of evolution is going to contain assumptions. If you want to dig deeper into these assumptions, into the actual science behind these assumptions (not stuff like " the Bible Is—and Must Be—Its Own Ultimate Proof" - that's a direct quote from your "scientific" source), then you need to read and understand mounds of primary and secondary sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What?

What was this whole thang regarding? MaRAno ^FAN 16:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: This was not vandalism and when Chasewc91 properly tried to correct your error you templated them for harassment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you notice, the template was not for vandalism. It was for unconstructive edits. Which it was, it really wasn't constructive. Have another look at it. My only problem is that Chase is continually templating me in different situations despite my {{DTM}} template. Please help me get rid of this Wiki::':: stalker. MaRAno ^FAN 16:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Okay, unconstructive editing. Only changing header levels is not unconstructive, it's a matter of style. And "constantly templating"? I see one other warning template (for a similar issue). The rest are file deletion notices which are perfectly fine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not fine. It is bothering me. They browse through my contribs and delete files, simply because they are uploaded by me, as "unsourced". While hundreds of such files stay on Wikipedia for decades and decades. If it bothers me, it is harassment. It doesn't specifically have to be abusive words (which they have by the way used "bullshit"). MaRAno ^FAN 16:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: They have notified your four times about files. One was deleted, one was removed from your user page, and the other two are up for discussion with valid deletion reasons. If you make problematic uploads, monitoring your contributions is not harassment - you feeling "bothered" is irrelevant. Hosting problematic images "bothers" Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

They would also simply oppose anything I support. I wake up everyday literally to 5 or 6 warning templates. Also, I really don't understand why you are arguing their side. Are you both friends? In that case, I am talking to the completely wrong person. Anways, Have a great day! Regards, MaRAno ^FAN 17:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're getting so many warnings then you might want to actually look at your editing behavior. Example A I gave you a non-templated note because it seemed you would better listen to it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@MaranoFan:

1. You put up the "don't template me" banner at 15:08, 9 February 2015. If you actually looked at your page history you would notice I haven't even gone near your talk page since then. The only templates you get are in regards to files being orphaned / DI'd / FFD'd – it is considered polite (and, in some cases, required) to notify the uploaders of these files and I do it through Twinkle without even looking at your talk page. When a user asks not to be templated, it is generally accepted that they are referring to user warning templates, such as this one you left on my talk page despite my request that users not warn me via template. (Practice what you preach, no?)
2. I'm not going to apologize for calling this warning you left bullshit. It was. You've been warned several times previously about abusing warning templates, assuming bad faith, and labelling constructive/non-vandalizing edits vandalism or unconstructive. At this point, you're just ignoring the sound advice of other users. Quit biting other editors, and quit leaving harassment templates over every little thing you find even somewhat offensive.
3. Neil and I are not friends; in fact, I barely interact with him at all on here. I'm not sure why you're tattling on me to him, but if you have a problem with me you should probably take it to the dramaboard instead of inconveniencing others with your whining. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Swift Invite

You have been invited to join the Taylor Swift WikiProject, a WikiProject on the English Wikipedia dedicated to improving articles and lists related to Taylor Swift. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants. Thank You.

On a similar note

On a similar note to the discussion above, surely this [2] and this [3] is a violation of some sort in regard to [4] and "excessive unrelated content"? At the very least it is disruptive and could be considered a form of WP:UP#OWN. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Yes it is but I expect they'll remove it once they've settled down. It's funny they're complaining about templates when they toss out inappropriate ones [5] and complain about the word "bullshit" when they use "fucking". I think there a little bit of article ownership at play here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've considered whether or not to bring Marano to ANI, but at this point it's only a matter of time before they start a boomerang thread. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield

How can we chat about this article?

I would just like to add information regarding corrections to the BMJ articles that are cited on the page. The BMJ has disclosed a conflict of interest, and since it is relevant to the claims on this page it should be included.

Thanks

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1678 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.87.205 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi 24. You can use Talk:Andrew Wakefield to discuss the exact wording but we don't use phrases like "The BMJ should have..." (unattributed opinion) and "For further information see..." in articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I see.. I was actually quoting the BMJ correction itself! -->

"The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues (BMJ 2011;342:c7452, doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452). The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines. For further information see the rapid response from Godlee (www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1335.full/reply#bmj_el_251470). The same omission also affected two related Editor’s Choice articles (BMJ 2011;342:d22 and BMJ 2011;342:d378)."

BMJ 2011;342:c7452: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c7452 (Published 06 January 2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.87.205 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to make it clear it was a quote. Something like, The BMJ stated that "<quote>". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I added the details to the talk page for the specific article, and I'll think about how to reword it for the article itself! Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.87.205 (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Amnesty International

It is difficult to get citations on information that has been scrubbed. I am a personal resource, as someone who came out in 1975 and was aware that Amnesty International would not help us. I am glad this policy has changed, but do not like that this evolution is washed out of the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockrooky (talk • contribs) 06:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rockrooky Wouldn't the change in policy be documented somewhere? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

hi neiln..can you please explain unsourced and see note? thanks..

hi neiln..can you please explain unsourced and see note? thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelr (talk • contribs) 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Conversation

Sumedh Tayade (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Dear NeilN Bro,I am a citizen of Kalyan City from the last 20 years and i have just indicated the name of Kalyan in its official language i.e. Marathi, how can you say it as disruptive editing from my side? All Kalyan Citizens have great respect for Marathi Language so please stop deleting Marathi name

@Sumedh Tayade: Can you please stop edit-warring across articles and read WP:INDICSCRIPT as you have been asked to do multiple times? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ganges

That link is NOT a blog. But a site full of photos. Those photos are reliable and are the true ones, they are not CGI images or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's all user-generated content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for addressing the issues. I mentioned to Arjayjay that the blanking was not intentional, that was a slip of the application that is being used. There are facts that deserve to be on the page and some that are fabricated. Eatprayswimm (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Eatprayswimm: I strongly encourage you to use the article's talk page to outline your specific concerns and evidence of inaccuracies. Wikipedia editors are intensely interested in getting biographies right but we need something to go on, not just someone saying, "this is wrong". Does this make sense? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN yes, it does. Every edit that was made with this persona was done so with a reason in parenthesis. Cantonhonhun and TayChaTLC came behind every edit and removed the information. Reputable sources were requested, reputable sources were provided by eatprayswimm, and those sources were removed by the other two personas mentioned above. Eatprayswimm (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Eatprayswimm: I think you are misunderstanding. Edit summaries are not discussion. Use Talk:Taylor Lianne Chandler to talk about and discuss article content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN, you are correct, my misunderstanding. As information, all of your posts on the page have been undone as well by TayChaTLC. Good luck with wiki, today's events have proven once again why wiki is not popular among institutions. Allowing falsified information to be posted to the page is an insult to Wikipedia. Appreciate your time with this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatprayswimm (talk • contribs) 20:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN, I found the talk page, thank you! Eatprayswimm (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Clash

I appreciate the feedback. However I have already been through mediation after being accused of plaigairizing my own work by Moxy. This was absolutely false. I have requested that someone check my original post along with the post cited by Moxy through appropriate software. This has not been done. Essentially Moxy has engaged in libel and this was backed up by the mediator. My reputation will not be sullied in this way.

I went through mediation last night and today. All efforts to resole this matter have been exhausted. The latest issue is another user now contends that a self-published book is "soapbox".

I am left with no option but to resolve this matter elsewhere and will no longer seek resource here. Unfortunately, it has proven to be completely fruitless.

Regards,

Kathy DiTondo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathydi1977 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to thank you for addressing my posts in a civil manner. The aggressiveness of other editors/admins on the wiki site is rather disheartening. The posting of false information and the use of less-than-reputable sources may be something that becomes second nature to wiki-admins, but it is beyond an acceptable and disturbing level for those who are not accustomed to reading or participating in those media outlets.

Wiki is very cumbersome and difficult to navigate. I look forward to participating in other articles, it is a shame that the one I have been addressed with, and learned a few do's and do not's, is Taylor Lianne Chandler's story.

Again, thank you for taking the time to address my posts with a mild tone and with civility.

EPS Eatprayswimm (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eatprayswimm. There are a variety of topics on Wikipedia that generate a lot of heat, transgender issues being one of them. If you want to dip your toe into editing, there are about four million other articles which will be easier to edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN you are probably correct. It is a topic that is near and dear to my heart, and my words are a compilation of many emails received, not just my own. There is a bigger story here, but possibly one best left off of Wikipedia and left to the proper authorities. Eatprayswimm (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Accidental overlap

I think our edits got caught in the crossfire at Nicholas Alahverdian. Apologies. EricJ1074 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If we are keeping the article, we should probably get it reprotected as that's how it was to be until Feb. 22. Per Callanecc, "Protected Nicholas Edward Alahverdian: Violations of the biographies of living persons policy ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 04:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 04:53, 26 February 2015)" EricJ1074 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@EricJ1074: I've made a request at WP:RFPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. EricJ1074 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

I don't think I broken the 3RR and I've given my reasons in the edit in the summaries. Did you warn the other party as well?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nadirali: You haven't broken 3RR but you are edit warring with the addition and then two reverts. There are two editors contesting your addition. Please follow WP:BRD and use the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

More than patient

I feel that editors have been more than patient with User:Ritsaiph, seeing he/she just cursed you out and seems to be WP:NOTHERE I would bring the issue to WP:ANI. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Knowledgekid87. I gave them a warning. Let's see what they do per WP:ROPE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so far since I left this message the editor blanked the article's page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, I'll start preparing the report. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I tried to explain our policies but when I saw the editor accusing editors of having a pro Russian bias and cursing others out I could see no evidence of an attempt to work things out or discuss. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

AE seems to be overkill

This fellow is toast, one way or the other. He has been concurrently reported at AE, AN/I and AN/EW. AE seems a bit overkill. A clear case of WP:NOTHERE, and I imagine he'll be summarily indeffed in short order. RGloucester — ☎ 04:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, while it was a good faith attempt I could tell it was a WP:NOTHERE case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, oops. I clicked submit on the AE report before I saw you reported him to ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Corona del Mar High School

Excuse me, but if Dalton Hird can say "I agree" I cannot say "I disagree"? And I cannot give my reasons for it? The encyclopedia would be better served if the focus was on improving the article rather than the editors. 72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The other editors are discussing sources. You added a conspiracy rant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No, a rant is long and irrational. I added a comment that referenced earlier discussion pages that have been relegated to the archives. I also expressed disagreement in general. Wikipedia offers templates for general comments and they are even more appropriate in the talk pages.72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Rant: "To others reading this page: CdM high school has been targeted by political progressives because CdM students are largely white, conservative and financially secure. Their families owe their success to traditional American values of hard work and competition, not class envy. They oppose confiscatory taxation and governmental intervention in social matters. Due to demographic changes in California, however, the school is surrounded by millions of third world immigrants, gay rights advocates, feminists, wackos, unemployed college graduates with unmarketable degrees, and progressive socialists." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not wild or impassioned at all. Factual. And you removed more than the above: I told the other editors I disagreed with their recent edits which make the article biased, and referenced the archived talk pages. Those comments were entirely proper, even by your standards.72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If they're "factual" then you can find reliable sources that state the school "is surrounded by millions of third world immigrants, gay rights advocates, feminists, wackos, unemployed college graduates with unmarketable degrees, and progressive socialists" and they are targeting it because "because CdM students are largely white, conservative and financially secure [and] their families owe their success to traditional American values of hard work and competition, not class envy". I've restored your comment but redacted your rant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Request

Dear NeilN, Can you please describe about whose opinions are considered relevant in the Consensus? Sumedh Tayade (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sumedh Tayade: The opinions of any editor in good standing (i.e., any editor not socking or violating their topic bans) will be taken into account. The weight assigned to the opinion will depend on how well the opinion reflects Wikipedia's policies and guideline. For example, "I know best because I have personal experience with the subject" will be ignored as that contradicts verifiability. Similarly, "Only people from x should edit x" contradicts WP:OWN. One of your posts contained, "what is wrong in having pride for the official name and its indication in Wikipedia's article." This will not be considered relevant because of not who you are, but because Wikipedia articles are not for showing off the "pride" of a city's natives. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't edit anything???

I haven't edited Wikipedia pages other than stuff for television shows (generally grammatical errors or they use the incorrect names for characters) in... I'm pretty sure it's been years. I don't share this computer. I haven't even BEEN on the Misandry page simply because I'm well aware of Lewis's Law - although I took a glancing look once you mentioned it. I know a lot of feminists are getting banned from editing on Wikipedia, but I'm not one of them. Now, if you got angry that I edited Yu-Gi-Oh! Arc-V names back to the original Japanese instead of the 4kids revisions, then you'd have yourself a fair point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.186.66 (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP address your computer is currently assigned changes. The person using a computer which was assigned your current IP address made some unproductive edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy endings

It is not often that there is a happy ending to a report at ANI but the Indic scripts seems to have worked out that way. One for the record books, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, perhaps. I'm still not convinced that WP:INDICSCRIPT will be accepted if we start removing the editor's additions. I've refrained from doing so at this point. Another issue are infoboxes. There's no way script should be entered for "other name" or "nickname". Native name should be the only possible place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: Sigh....... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy Beginning

Sitush Bro, myself Sumedh Tayade (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC) would call it as a happy beginning. i would take Consensus as the first priority before making any important edits and not engage in edit warring, I have understood my mistake and the 3 Revert Rule of WP and WP: Indic Scripts.

Thanks...

...for reverting the nonsense on my talk page. Cheers, and have a nice weekend! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 06:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome and you too! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear NeilN, Thank you for your reply and clarification, I liked and appreciate your content specific approach, Your opinions and suggestive guidance about the edits and consensus would be welcomed and considered by me in the future. Sumedh Tayade (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Britain First vandalism campaigns

The other day, through googling my user name, I found this https://www.facebook.com/Exposing0Britain0First/photos/a.1426634540936171.1073741828.1423096294623329/1432250710374554/ encouraging vandalism, and one user even goes as far to admits that he posts libel. They also seem to jump at the idea of returning en masse once the protection is lifted

It came from 11 June 2014, a day where the views - and the vandalism - on the article were at a spike. It got so mad the page was fully protected for a day.

The page has barely been off semi-protection and I think for BLP reasons it's got to be indefinite if there is a next time. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

'''tAD''', thanks. I'll keep a close eye out when the semi expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

M. S. Golwalkar

Why are you editing changes in M.S. Golwalkar when it is written in my statement and reference is appropriately given ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VibrantBabhan (talk • contribs) 07:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@VibrantBabhan: Because it seems like a self-published source. Also, see the discussion I started: Talk:M._S._Golwalkar#New_content --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: It is a content from book The Saffron Swastika, published 2001, isbn:978-8185990699. Creditibility can be checked on page of Koenraad Elst on wikipedia.

@VibrantBabhan: Please make your case on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thank you Buddy or Buddy Sir or Dear Sir, im really confused, Your guidance on the teahouse would be of great use to me and those who want to really upgrade wikipedia without vandalizing it. Sumedh Tayade (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sumedh Tayade, what are you confused about? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ayman Mohyeldin

I guess no one cares that Ayman's statement-which he contributed to sources as journalists do - have resulted in several weeks of verbal abuse and harassment on social media including death threats against him? If this were anyone BUT Chris Kyle this would not be an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.201.61.235 (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You had your chance to discuss this on the talk page rather than violating 3RR. Please stop evading your block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

My source for the quote on zmohyeldin and Tadros being the only 2 western reported inside Gaza in 2008/2009 is Mohyeldin himself, plus it's in the documentary of their coverage. So how do I "source" this when its verbal wording? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokiechicklet (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Just an FYI I am NOT the anonymous user that edited this page a couple of days ago. Have gotten a couple of not so nice msgs about it. It wasn't me. Hokiechicklet (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)hokiechicklet

Sure Buddy.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Reliable sources: Self-published blogs and other user generated content are not accepted as sources on Wikipedia." What about the Dictionary? Try first to look up opposite, then, evolve, then try to find, the opposite of, evolve. It should be sayed, cf. Truth. Practice Science not Silence. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kaptinavenger: You know no one will take your exhortations seriously when you state you believe in creation not evolution. Practice Science, indeed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I do believe in the some definitions of the word Evolve, I do not believe in fish to frog. A guy once said, "the primary revelation is the universe itself - the creation of the cosmos of which we are all a part." I am trying to be nice, and I get deleted. You argue with recitation, ad hominem, and ultimately ignoring the issue. Dogma, you have trained well, it shows. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kaptinavenger: Those threads were deleted because you could not be bothered to clarify your incoherent ramblings while hypocritically accusing people of ad hominems and hypocritically ignoring what other editors were trying to tell you.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The water is falling over Multnomah falls, as my mother used to say, any excuse will work. Clear, sure, Silence thru Delete. As if the Dictionary, doesn't work. cf. Dogma the only article I think I've linked to in days I already know for sure what It says. I have spent to many years surrounded by Dogmatic, Liars. Silence and Truth are not Synonymous --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Not an excuse, you really are incoherent. "My science on this matter rather is pointing towards, the author of Job knowing not only trying to teach the roundness of the earth but also the creators affinity towards the tools of carpentry. I am filled with joy from the research you have inspired." [6] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

To paraphrase what was said earlier, no one will take you seriously if you babble incoherently while hypocritically simultaneously ignoring people while accusing them of being liars for not eagerly praising you as some sort of sin-free truth-teller.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros:"Sin" free is Your words, not mine. You sure can silence a discussion fast dude. Not to mention since when has a Dictionary not been a good ref? @NeilN: Good job studying but to what avail? Your looking for trouble. But that would be expected from a dirt throwing professor of Ex nihilo. A dogs gotta eat. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We're not "Junior's First Encyclopedia". For scientific concepts, we're going to look at how scientists define the concept. Practice Science, dude. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That, and there was, no, is no discussion to begin with, Kaptinavenger: only you babbling while ignoring whatever we say. I mean, if there is a discussion, then how come you can not be bothered to clarify your position beyond making incoherently pointless tangents while scolding us for not kissing your ass?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

cf. Discussion English, which point have I not made clear? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

All of your alleged points. You babble on and on about pointless tangents. You demand that we give undue weight to fringe points of view, while you deliberately ignore people's explanations about how technical articles require technical terminology. And you hypocritically accuse people of using ad hominems against you and trying to censor you, while you simultaneously accuse us of being dogmatic liars and "dirt-throwers." What is your point? That we're all evil morons because we aren't busy kissing your ass?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sir's if I may, you are implying insult where there is none. I am not mad at you. Though you seem mad. I am the new guy and answering and asking lots of questions, I am not meaning to lie or WP:GAME, just talk about a topic, with text code, on said topics "talk page".

You two, have tag teamed me, with the fastest delete I have seen yet. Forgive me if it seems, Hmmm... I dunno cf. Dogmatic --Kaptinavenger (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If you would go back and see.

I started by asking for some Basic English and You are demanding that I explain what I mean. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

When did I ask for undue weight? I rather Asserted it, sir. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

On a Talk Page. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are not insulting us, then why do you continue to accuse people of using ad hominems against you, or call us things like "dogmatic liars" and "dirt-throwers" or accuse us of trying to silence you? If you are here to discuss, then why do you refuse to listen to anyone when they explain to you how technical articles require appropriate terminology, or explain to you how one can not make profound changes to articles, such as giving undue weight to unscientific nonsense in science articles, without appropriate, reliably truthful sources? And yes, you are asking for undue weight whenever you demand that we post your nonsense about the "opposite of evolution"--Mr Fink (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

And yes, we're demanding that you explain what you mean because you are incoherent, and you insist on refusing to get to the point, while hypocritically insisting we use "Basic English," while also calling us "dogmatic liars" and "dirt-throwers"--Mr Fink (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If you require Basic English then again, Simple English Wikipedia is for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The Two of you type faster than me.

Ok one more time, just for you, In good faith, I really don't give a shit guys. But here..

I Suggest changing the introduction to Line Two of the Evolution Article, from; "All", if it is a direct quote, then, To, saying who says. If Not a Quote, Then, adding, A half a line of "softener".

I don't mean to deny, nor imply, nor infer but rather to be clear.

Also I suggest Continuing to examine or perform continued science in the structure of the article itself, to more fairly reflect other well research topics.

If you don't understand a well researched topic try Flat Earth. ok. There is lots of tools there. Please be creative. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:ASSERT. "When a statement is a fact (e.g. information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution." Comparing an article on an archaic belief to Evolution is of little use. Practice Science, dude. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Flat earth e.g. information that was accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute. Also the opposite of a thing can be important to understanding the truth of a thing. It doesn't matter, you guys deleted it already, you win, go team! Because a team of Dogmatic Professors know how to WP:GAME, a classic WP:BITE simple deniers. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Always amusing when people don't read the article they're pointing to. Flat_Earth#Declining_support_for_the_flat_earth. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

With all do respect you sound like Uncle Paul sir. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If you claim that you don't give a shit, and that you're not intending to insult anyone, then why do you insist on continuing to call us dogmatic liars and cheaters because we aren't bending over to kiss your ass? Isn't that hypocritical of you?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

cf.Babbling,

filed neatly under debate

--Kaptinavenger (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A gift.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I crafted this for you:

"When you come to battle on the field of words, be sure to study the Word."

Thank you for contributions to Wikipedia, well recorded in the cloud of the world. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"When you come to battle on the field of words, be sure to bring reliable sources." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Priceless, High beam it. I Bow. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

NeilN's Gift --Kaptinavenger (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

More and more, I'm thinking WP:NOTHERE applies. Four edits to articles out of 240 edits total. Why are you creating a subpage in the userspace of an editor who hasn't edited since 2010? [7] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Uh.. mybee 240 Edits might also mean I am new... cf. NeilN's proud +72,000 Edits!! et Dogma --Kaptinavenger (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"et" = "see that's how you get" cf. EnglishJerk --Kaptinavenger (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You missed the point about four edits. Do something constructive instead of wasting everyone else's time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Millennials page

Please stop edit warring as you did today on the Millennials page. It's in policy to add a word that means the exact same thing (as a quoted word) -- to a quote -- using parenthesis. Please take it up on the talk page. Thank you. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Millennials:

Adding a word to a direct quote

The question is: Can Wikipedia editors add a word using parenthesis (into a direct quote) if the new word means the exact same thing (or helps clarify the quoted word). Under the Millennials terminology section see the quote "In 2012, Ad Age "threw in the towel by conceding that Millennials is a better name than Gen Y".

The proposed word to add is "name" after "placeholder" because it clarifies that we are not talking about a placeholder that means any of the following things:

1) One who holds an office or place, especially as a deputy, proxy, or appointed government official.

2) In a mathematical or logical expression, a symbol that may be replaced by the name of any element of a set.

3) In the decimal form of a number, a digit that is not significant.

Given that three different editors disagree with you I suggest your application of policy is off. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That may be the case (for you) but you can't preclude an editor from doing so according to Wikipedia guidelines.104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR is policy. You're at three reverts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you broke the 3 revert rule first -- see the history. The other question for you is: why do you care about this? As you know, many articles (if not all) have text that is written by the editors of Wikipedia. In fact, if we look at your edit history we'll find examples of your original wording you've added to many, many pages. So back off and let others do the same (if it's within Wikipedia policy). 104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You think incorrectly - I'm at two reverts. And there's no need to mangle a direct quote. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line is it's within policy. So get over it.104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, WP:CONSENSUS is policy too. And since three other editors disagree with you, it seems you don't have it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying WP:CONSENSUS supersedes a legitimate edit? Where is the policy you're relying on here -- that says consensus -- supersedes a legit edit? Don't just make stuff up. Thank you. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You think your edit improves the article. Four Five other editors now disagree with your opinion. Any edit can be discussed and is subject to the consensus building process. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You still have not pointed to the policy about Consensus trumping a legitimate edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the Consensus process as you say. It is NOT a voting process:

Consensus on Wikipedia "must involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns.

Here is a direct quote from WP:CONSENSUS

"Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines".

Using parenthesis in journalism "indicates that the material inside the parenthesis has been added by the writer". See https://books.google.com/books?id=BN1S9PwMZQAC&pg=PT305&dq=parentheses+in+journalism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=haLiVJeZIo6pogTgpYDIAg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=parentheses%20in%20journalism&f=false

and, this source says to "use parenthesis in a DIRECT QUOTE to impart words which are NOT the speakers". See https://books.google.com/books?id=41yv2iSBDpMC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=parentheses+in+journalism&source=bl&ots=ye8A_R0F_p&sig=dM2X1faxh7qB29bF4ZsCf0BLong&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KKLiVNLvLcPZoATI3YIY&ved=0CB0Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=parentheses%20in%20journalism&f=false

104.173.225.10 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You recall wikilawyering did not go so well for you the last time you tried it? To summarize from policy:

• After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.
• Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense;
• A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached.

I see agreement between five editors and only you disagreeing. Your assertion that the edit is within policy so that trumps everything is also odd given your editing history. Why did you remove this content which was "within policy"? [8], [9] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Diana Gurtkaya

why Gurtskaya is common name and Gutskaia not? These is only different romanization of language without Latin alphabet. დიანა ღურწკაია is her native name. please see article: Romanization of Georgian--Gaga.vaa (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gaga.vaa. We use the name most commonly used in English language sources. Gurtskaya vs Gutskaia --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent page revert

Hi, i understand what you were saying about making changes to articles based on views, however, have you seen the Britain first facebook page, website or general articles all over the news about them? they are very known to be a racist group, also, the part i added at the end about native inhabitants of the UK was true.

Scott28280 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Scott28280: You can add criticisms of the party provided they are well-sourced (try to use high quality sources like academics) and conform to our WP:NPOV policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

RELATED TO GENUINETY OF THE WRITTEN MATTER

SIR I DO ACCEPT YOUR THOUGHTS ABOU THE AAM AADMI PARTY. BUT KINDELY LET ME KNOW ABOUT THE GENUINITY OF THE WRITTEN MATTER. BECAUSE I'M USING IT FORM MY STUDY AND THEREFORE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO KNOW ABOUT ITS GENUINITY. I HAVE DONE MANY EDITS BEFORE THIS BUT I HAVE RECEIVED NO MESSAGE ?

PLEASE TELL ME THE STEPS WHICH YOU TAKE TO ACCEPT THE EDITS DONE BY ANYONE.

THANK YOU SIR.

FROM- Ankitsaranp20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsaranp20 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ankitsaranp20, simply put, stop copying and pasting text from other websites into Wikipedia articles. You must rewrite the text in your own words. And please don't post in ALL CAPS. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Name

The user named Sunanda Tayade is my mother Sumedh Tayade Maharashtrian (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sumedh Tayade Maharashtrian: Please read Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Urgent help needed on the article Kumhar

Respected User, A huge traffic of i.p. users is continuously tempering with the sourced contents of the page. Their intention is merely caste promotion to which they actually belong, and it can be well verified by their conversation on the talk page of this article. They are continuously adding the self opinion based, unsourced contents removing the sourced contents. The article is continuously being de-shaped. Immediate attention and needful action is needed to protect the page. Who can understand better than you that it takes a lot of efforts to build a fully sourced article and it is not good when it becomes victim of disruptive editing just for the sake of advertising or promoting caste based ideas. Please interfere, i humbly request.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 14:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mahensingha: I agree with you and have endorsed your request for semi-protection. If that's done, we can then repair the article and the socks will be forced to use the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice. I request you to please visit the talk page of article Kumhar the discussion made by the people in the interest of their caste. Few days before few pictures to promote an existing shop and shop keeper were embedded in the article. Once again, thanks a lot for the help.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 14:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

You're an awesome editor! Kitano-san (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kitano-san. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Because my question was answered and there's nothing else to say, so I figured I wouldn't clutter up the talk page with it. Maybe I should've archived it instead, or left it be. Either way doesn't matter to me. — Hunter Kahn 19:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hunter Kahn: It'll be automatically archived by a bot when the time comes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did to List of Rajputs, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

the citations are already exist in Isa Khan page of Early life section itself. alas, if it should be added then i will add along with its citation

Peavey Electronics

No conflict of interest, just hate to see all the vandalism by user Trojan654 and was trying to clean it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.248.64 (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a complete coincidence your IP geolocates to the same town as the headquarters of Peavey Electronics and you're removing negative but sourced info about the company. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I am interested because a local business is being attacked online after appearing on TV this week, and I correctly guessed that people would be attacking their Wikipedia page too - that is not a conflict of interest. My changes were reverting the page to the way it appeared before the episode aired. I am sure it is a coincidence that Trojan654 has made all of the unsourced changes he has made this week - they appear completely neutral. Your page has been vandalized, but you do what you want. (Edited to remove rant) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.248.64 (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What is unsourced? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi! I am a new Wikipedia user and I saw that you were the last person to edit the Taylor Swift page. Just thought I'd say hi!!! She is honestly my favorite person ever and people who share a common love for her are automatically people I get along with! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trish 100 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Trish 100! I hope you like it here on Wikipedia and if you have any questions, just ask! If you're going to be editing the Taylor Swift article two important things to remember is to provide reliable sources for any additions and to edit from a neutral point of view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Email

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.

~ P-123 (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Shocked and suprised

I have registered with wikipedia with a properly validated email address and an confirmed account just 1 day ago, Sockpuppet and Meatpuppetry are none of my businesses Prakash Tayade (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Similar name, same article, same types of edits. The SPI will sort it out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please help me.....Kindly remove untouchable word from pasi(caste),they are not untouchable.

I am asking, why do you not asking proof of this caste by Uattar pradesh govt and india govt. State govt has so many proof of this caste which has not been putted over the internet.Please sitush, kindly remove UNTOUCHABLE word.

I do agree pasi are in schedule caste but they are not untouchable.

for better information of pasi kindly visit on www.pasi.in,if you know hindi language.in this website everything its clear.

In validation in world famous book Gazetteer of the province of Oudh.VOL. 2, till H to N, year 1877, Imperial Gazetteer of india vol. ii 1908, District Gazetteer Khiri-1979, Unnao District Gazetteer, UP District Gazetteer Volume 10101053.

It wrote on page 4 in Gazetteer Rampur 1974 k, pasi are posterity of Ahar, Ahir, Barmar, Beria, Bhuihar, Chauhan(except rajput who is not rajput) Dalera, Khaujar, Nut, They cleaned forest and maked useful for human.

R.V. Russell Belived, "Pasi are brave kaum" all details of R.V. Russell in book "Tribes and cast of the north western provinces and awadh/oudh". wriiten by William Crooke.

famous English connoisseur sir C Iliyat and R.V. Russell agreed with evidence ancient ruin, fortress, fort, primitive coin and primitive uninstalls, vestige after study to another thing Its clear that distric lakhimpur and arround it on all state till 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th pasies they had established so many state, In 12th & 13th century, pasi king they had faced some critical situation with their contemporary king. contemporary king had burnt to pasi culture and historical legacy.--Sachin8p (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sachin8p: Please stop canvassing and use the article's talk page: Talk:Pasi_(caste)#More_sources_needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Citation

My friend had told me that on wikipedia only properly cited and referenced data is published so i thought why not the definition of Operating System itself be cited? Ok, i am studying this course of Operating System in my engg degree, can i add content from the book 'Operating Systems Concepts' by author Galvin by Wiley Publications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSMAX20 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@OSMAX20: That's not the tag I was asking you about and please read WP:Verifiability: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." We don't need cites for saying Paris is in France or a computer runs software. And yes, you can certainly add content sourced to that book. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Punjab, India

govt of india never conduct any survey on drug addiction problem in punjab so how can u say 70% of youth are drug addict — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenthink (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Citizenthink: A reliable source has, "Although the SAD-BJP combine is tearing its own government report on drugs, which was quoted by Rahul Gandhi while saying 7 out of 10 youngsters are drug addicts in Punjab, another document of the state government, included as part of 'state disaster management plan', has emerged wherein the government acknowledged that "some 73.5% of the state's youth between 16 and 35 years are confirmed drug addicts". If you wish to dispute this, find other reliable sources that say otherwise, not your personal opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

what a political vendetta against punjab.. I am not saying drug is not an issue in punjab but kindly not defame the people of punjab as drug addict by saying 70% of youth are drug addict only on the bases of some individuals opinion. kindly give a reference of any government report or survey done by any government agency and not give statement of some political leader as a reference. why you never say 70% people of delhi as rapist ?... delhi is rape capital of india.. why you never say 70% people of j&K as terrorist ?......J&k have very good record of insurgency why you never say --% of people of jharkhand , chhattisgarh are naxalite ?...these states have also very good record of naxal activities and youth also participate in these activities why he never say 70% person of uttar pradesh as BANDIT or DACOIT ...uttar pradesh have very national record holder dacoits such as Phoolan Devi (Minister) Abu Salem Daku Man Singh Nirbhay Gujjar Munna Bajrangi all these peoples came from gandhi's home state — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenthink (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Citizenthink: You're still not reading the source:

• "its own government report on drugs
• "another document of the state government, included as part of 'state disaster management plan'"

So, not "the statement of some political leader." If you can find sources for your 70% claims (which you 99.9% probably made up), then you can add them to those articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

if u have reference link of any government report then provide on page. otherwise never defame the youth of punjab as drug addict..i am requesting you. i am totally agree drug is an issue in punjab.but not as much as you mentioned. kindly check the performance of punjab in 35Th national games.. punjab ranked 5th among all 30 states and 7 union territories 35th national games held in kerala in feb 2015. punjab improve his performance punjab is on 9th place in 34th national games can only 30% youth of one state defeat another 26 states and 7 union territories in national games? if yes then may be other state have more drug addicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenthink (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Citizenthink: Instead of wasting your time making nonsensical links between drug use and performance in a sports tournament, you would have been better off following my first suggestion and doing some work to find contradictory sources like this one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ayman Mohyeldin

What is not sourced on the edit on this page? Interesting that I have been editing this page for over a year without any issues, and now all of a sudden everybody and their mother has an interest in what is on this page due to the whole Chris Kyle issue. No one touched this page in a long time, until I did and now I'm in the wrong?Hokiechicklet (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hokiechicklet: Unsourced with misleading edit summary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoa..

I'm just telling the truth, OK? GatorfanWill2 (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@GatorfanWill2: No, these edits are not ok. [10], [11] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hi, It seems that you have deleted page I created for "Pahawe Manache". Its disheartning to see that Although I am not the owner of Pahawe manache, It was assumed that I am the one. Also I was just trying to add the information which I had collected after much of the efforts :(

I repetedly asked which section of the page you need citation or reference, I can try to get the same or simply delete that perticular section. But removing entire Page is discouraging

Regards, ऋषिकेश — Preceding unsigned comment added by ऋषिकेश (talk • contribs) 03:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

ऋषिकेश, I tagged the article for deletion, an administrator deleted it. There are lots of notes on your talk page telling you why. Here's one: "This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, I am not able to explain as the website is real new thing in that language. Since It is not english may be there is gap in understanding. Its more like mix of "imdb, Blogging nd Rotton Tomatoes" in Making in a foreign language. Its important Milestone in web-sphere in India, as almost 85-90% Indians communicate in their regional languages although everyone knows English. This is opening of new market. Anyways, may I added that at very early stage of the website. My intention was to highlight this. Sooner or later it will anyway come as innovative experiments. Till then I will wait.

Thanks any ways. You gave most exact response till now other than just giving links

I dont think wiki is cup of my tea.

Good bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ऋषिकेश (talk • contribs) 05:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sleep Apnea & Acupuncture

I want to fix the article on sleep apnea. I don't understand why it is being reversed. Please contact me at somazx@gmail.com either chat or email. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somazx (talk • contribs)

@Somazx: Please read our WP:MEDRS guideline. "Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. Many such sources represent unreliable information that has not been vetted in review articles, or present preliminary information that may not bear out when tested in clinical trials."

In other words, we don't cherry pick individual studies (primary sources). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I did read it. Which citation wasn't acceptable specifically? All three? One is published by the same journal cited in the didgeridoo citation a paragraph lower (BMJ). All citations were to peer reviewed journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somazx (talk • contribs) 05:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Somazx: New thread opened here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Sleep_apnea.23Alternative_treatments. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

PUNJAB

another document of the state government, included as part of 'state disaster management plan'" PLEASE PROVIDE LINK OF THAT REPORT..THEN I WILL SAY SORRY TO YOU..NEVER HESITATE PARTAKING IN NOBLE DEEDS WITH NO FEAR AND WITH FORTITUDE. WHO GAVE RIGHTS TO MAKE PERSONAL ATTACK ON SOMEONE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.153.178 (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Before you start yelling and making up false accusations of personal attacks, read User_talk:NeilN#Punjab.2C_India. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My YouTube page Suggestion

Hello NeilN,

I saw your message about my YouTube page suggestion. I agree that it is lacking in reliable sources, but I'm a little confused by what you meant when you said "seemed to be a test." Could you please elaborate?

Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark SRAW (talk • contribs) 08:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mark SRAW. You made a subsequent edit (adding a speedy delete tag that seems to be a test. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN After having posted my original suggestion, I realized that I had not officially requested it as an edit. I added the speedy delete tag to my original suggestion, a comment on the Talk:YouTube page, after having created a better-written (to me personally) suggestion in the form of an actual "edit request" in order to eliminate redundancy.

After making these changes, I saw that someone had replied to my original comment on Talk:YouTube. I apologize for not having seen it in the first place. If by "seemed to be a test," you were suggesting "seemed to be a test for fellow Wikipedians," I'm sorry for the misunderstanding that came from my actions. I was not trying to test Wikipedia. I only meant to make a better suggestion and request it through the appropriate channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark SRAW (talk • contribs) 09:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mark SRAW: I mean it seemed like adding the tag seemed like a test edit on your part. Speedy delete tags are for articles not talk pages. The only reason why talk page posts are deleted is if they contravene Wikipedia policies (are very obscene, defamatory, contain copyrighted material, etc.). See WP:TPO and WP:REDACT for more info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN Thanks for the help! I understand now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark SRAW (talk • contribs) 00:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Stevie Ray Vaughan

Actually I have proof on the Stevie Ray Vaughan thing because I'm Samantha Claire Vaughan as in stated in the close family. So I know that because my grandfather Thomas Hugh Vaughan always told me stories about him and Stevie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pajamismai (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pajamismai: Actually you are an anonymous user who is vandalizing the article. [12] If you actually want to do something constructive, do some research using published sources and then add new cited content to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Talk page watcher

A tag has been placed on Template:Talk page watcher requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Talk page watcher

Template:Talk page watcher has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Graham Jones article

Hi -

Good work on the SGJ article, which really needed that trim. Can I ask you to hold back on adding material to it (even if you were planning to)? I'm putting together a wikithon on Native literary topics at an event at which then man himself will be present, and was hoping to use this article as a showcase for wikiediting. Let me know if that's a problem. Vizjim (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vizjim, no problem. You'll have proper, independent sources, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, not looking to do primary research. Don't know how much we'll get done at the event itself, and certainly there'll be much still needed afterwards. Vizjim (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Revert

Hey NeilN, you have started an Anti-Marathi Campaign? In the past too, you had reverted the marathi scripted version of Kalyan city by some editors, why dont you focus on other cities as well? Why dont you help in enforcing WP:Indic Scripts for every city in India, You are behaving like a Anti-Marathi Monarch seriously Sarita Narvekar (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sarita Narvekar: Kalyan is on my watchlist and lately it has been infested by sockpuppets (cough, cough). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Everyone

If u really serious about WP:INDICSCRIPT, then start removing all indic scripts of the starting sentence of any city not only in Maharashtra, because your reverts somehow convey that either you hate Marathi language or either you are an immigrant from some other Indian State having no concern for Marathi. Marathi is the official language of Maharashtra, You should not revert the indic scripted version because its not causing any harm to you or your contributions Sarita Narvekar (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Cough, cough. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry , But..

Sorry, if i did anything wrong. But after doing a minor change , i was put to a ref. link, where i just input the url , from where i gathered the information. If this is wrong, than sorry. If not, than .. Please correct it. Mikil Narayani 27/2/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikil narayani (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Mikil narayani, please read WP:LINKSPAM. Linking to stores is heavily frowned upon. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

dude

dude,

i am kurd. my family is kurdish for thousands on years.

turkey is establish as country in 1923. prior to this it was

ottoman empire. in the ottoman empire there were only kurds, jewish,syrians,bulgarians, greeks and armenians.

you blocked me for a month, bcoz i'm helping you to correct an article?

kurds are fighting for independence. we are going to have free country, independent and free. why you are blocking me to tell me that i'm nationalist?

dude, you are not going to win a noble peace prize you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And now three months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Discouraging

NeilN Sir, your style of reverting any contribution of new editors shows that you are keen on discouraging new editors under the roof and misguide of WP:So and So. Please stop this, Today is Marathi Day in Maharashtra 27th Feb Sarita Narvekar (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"New editors" should follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Natwest

can you tell me why you have deleted my edit for natwest bank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy thompson amt (talk • contribs)

@Andy thompson amt: This.

Add a "State" headline below Goa

NeilN, with respect to your recent edit of the Goa Article. You have reversed my edit.

My edit had the "State" header which is now missing. Its just below the main article headline, the original article of 2014 had it. Its there for all Indian states Article written as "States of India"., Pls add this to the Goa article as someone has removed has its gone missing. I had put it now but u have revered it.

Pls do the changes,

regards qwerty3594Qwerty3594 (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Qwerty3594: That's not what your edit did by a longshot. Repeating what I put on your talk page, "I strongly suggest you not blindly revert the article to your preferred version, wiping out the improvements of others. If you wish to make changes, incorporate them into the current version." There's no need to work on an older version of the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

NeilN Ok I got it. Now regarding the article, will you add the "State of India" headline below Goa or shall I put it Qwerty3594 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Qwerty3594: It's already done. The info was already in the template but not showing because the first parameter name ("name") was incorrectly capitalized. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NeilN. Reagards Qwerty3594 (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Mobile edits

Hey. This is Jaywubba1887. My apologies for the editing errors. I have been using the Wikipedia mobile app and for some reason when I edit some articles, the app, once it saves and processes my edits, will delete large sections of the article by itself. I have no intention of deleting the sections and will edit on the full version of Wikipedia from now on, so this won't happen again. I feel like it is a code error or something on the app version of Wikipedia. Additionally, I'll be more specific with the edit summaries on the regular version of Wikipedia from now on. Sorry again for everything. Jay (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jay. I figured it was something like that. My fat fingers have clicked the wrong link more than once during the rare instances I edit using my tablet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding NeilN. I'll stick to the full version from now on. Happy editing! Jay (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Odyssey 5 "cause" from Pantherslair

Quote: "For the thousands of advocates of [some cause] we need a link to [some advocacy site] to publicize [some cause] as we're not getting the attention [the cause] deserves." --NeilN ^{talk to me}

I take it from your "title link" you wanted me to "Talk to You" about this? You can assist with our cause? The thousands of fans or advocates as you put it, do not ask for much, just a way in which we can generate the support we need by giving the fans easy access to our cause. I admit, I am not an expert in the usage of Wikipedia, so any help on how to prepare this on the Odyssey 5 page would be appreciated. I also apologize for my earlier passionate posting, but this means an enormous amount to the fans and the 12+ years of frustration have taken their toll on many of us. I look forward to your feedback. Pantherslair (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2015 (AEST)

Hi Pantherslair. The "talk to me" link is equivalent to your "talk" link. I think it's been made clear to you by now that Wikipedia articles can't be used to generate support for your or any other cause. The best was to proceed is to get an independent published source to write about your cause and then we can summarize that info in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Goa

What is wrong with this article about GOA:

(transclusion of a version of Goa removed)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugal Editor Exploration (talk • contribs) 12:31, 1 March 2015‎ (UTC)

NeilN, I hope you don't mind that I took the liberty of refactoring the above user's comment, when he dumped 80k worth of his preferred version into your talk page. I've also mentioned his conduct at Talk:Goa—and refactored a similar version dump—and I've added Goa to my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks C.Fred. Both edit warriors have returned to the article after a couple months of inactivity so more eyes would be welcomed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

pic copyright

so what's gonna happen with the photo i uploaded... i need some help about how to make licenses... in that specific case it's Lily Aldrige's personal pics from her facebook account... i'll apreciate the help...

--Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Leo Bonilla: The photo will be deleted. You cannot "make" licenses. For pictures of living people, you must find a source that explicitly states the photo is in the public domain or has a free license. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Can a url works? or if I specified where or how the pic was taken... and for what?

--Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Leo Bonilla: No. We only accept public domain or a freely licensed photos. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

the pic's still in Commons... should I delete it or maybe someone is fixing the copyright issues??

--Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Leo Bonilla: I tagged it for deletion a while ago. An admin will delete it within a few hours or less. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

eyesonchrist legal threat against you

I'm just letting you know that Eyesonchrist has made a legal threat against you after being blocked indef for making other legal threats. As a result, I have blocked him from editing his talk page --04:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLeon (talk • contribs)

Thanks. That was quite... something. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow. LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, NeilN, I would like to bake a cake for you. A cake with a file baked in it. I will deliver it to the prison where you are being held for all those crimes you have committed. So, what flavor? What kind of frosting do you like? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I find it's usually easy to distract the guards by offering them some nice Troll House Cookies. EEng (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Chocolate frosting of course, to go on my Devil's Food Cake. I did some googling on the names mentioned - pretty crazy stuff from one particular person. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

EEng is clear that it was all just a misunderstanding. After all, the guy did state "trail," LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

All levity aside, that diff should probably be oversighted as it contains some serious accusations against living people. WikiLeon, what do you think? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, go for it. --w^{L<speak·check>}

WikiLeon, I was talking about a regular admin revdel. It's okay, I'll ask at ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The Wolf of Wall Street

Hi Neil,

I'm new to this so please verify - what I write here is just between you and me - it's not posting anywhere - or is it?

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.254.74 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi 173. Anything you write on Wikipedia can be viewed by anyone in the world. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Greets!

Happy Holi!!!......Happy Holi!!!

Hello , may you be surrounded by cheers, pleasure, peace, success and happiness on this Happy Holi and through out the year 2015. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Holi, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Happy Holi 2015. Happy editing, -- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 07:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?

Please don't undo my edits because I am trying to fix a Wikipedia:NPOV problem with the page Naturopathy.--67.80.218.118 (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:PSCI: " Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathic medicine is not pseudoscience. It is considered alternative medicine, so WP:PSCI will not take effect.67.80.218.118 (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)--

Might want to actually read the article. Mainstream science considers it pseudoscience and Wikipedia classifies it as such. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, why do naturopaths have fewer clerkships than conventional doctors?--67.80.218.118 (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't care. If you want to argue that Naturopathy is not a pseudoscience you can do so on the article's talk page. Good luck with that - your irrelevant questions won't get very far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice try. "Don't care" is NOT a proper argument here on Wikipedia. Neither is "irrelevant" or "won't get very far". 67.80.218.118 (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC) --

It is when you ask irrelevant questions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you read what I just said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.218.118 (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I discounted it. Your question is about as useful as asking, "Naturopathy cured my mom, why isn't it considered a valid medical technique?" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Discounted?! Stinging nettle is used to cure hay fever!!! -- SERIOUSLY?! 67.80.218.118 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Lots of plant extracts contain compounds which are scientifically proven to have medical benefits. Tossing in stinging nettle alongside some music and aromatherapy to alleviate hay fever doesn't mean my method isn't pseudoscientific. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Stinging nettle's ability to cure several medical conditions including cancer when used with other herbs is something naturopaths rely on to cure diseases.--67.80.218.118 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You still don't get it. First, you need to provide a WP:MEDRS to support your rather sensationalized and misleading claim that "stinging nettle cures cancer". Second, using some scientifically accepted techniques does not mean the rest of the pseudoscientific techniques are suddenly okay. Applying pressure to stop bleeding is accepted. Playing music so the wound heals faster is not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturopaths DON'T play music to cure diseases, NeilN.--207.241.247.150 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. "Showing the color blue so the wound heals faster is not." Better? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, I have never heard from the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians about them using chromotherapy. 207.241.247.150 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The article isn't solely about one specific group of naturopaths. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I am telling the admins about this problem. --67.80.218.118 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Admins don't decide content but knock yourself out. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG for your WP:3RR violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

WE DONT ACCEPT THREATS!!!!! --67.80.218.118 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Who's "we"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedians, to be exact. Don't force an edit war, NeilN. --67.80.218.118 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't push their personal beliefs in fringe medical practices into articles and ignore sourcing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathy is not a fringe medical practice. I will source the edits and all of that stuff.--67.80.218.118 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Naturopathy cured hundreds of humans before, why isn't it considered a valid medical technique by you? --67.80.218.118 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.218.118 (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

My opinion on naturopathy counts for squat. If you can find literature reviews or systematic reviews published in peer reviewed medical journals saying naturopathic practices are scientifically valid then I would totally support putting those in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You are ignoring my question. Please visit www.naturopathic.org for your reference, and check the WHOLE site. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Because your question is irrelevant. My opinion on naturopathy doesn't matter. Your opinion on naturopathy doesn't matter. Only what we can find in WP:MEDRS matters. And that website is not a WP:MEDRS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

IP, NeilN is correct. Just follow the WP:MEDRS guideline and you will be fine on this matter at Wikipedia. Well, unless you cannot accept the WP:MEDRS guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(Redacted) I am REALLY SMART. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Also, there are several sources in that website that are considered WP:MEDRS. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Young Naturopath 01: It's not a great idea to reveal your age here - see Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Please provide the exact links to the pages you consider WP:MEDRS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Consider reading Dr. Mercola's articles.--Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Neil can do whatever he wants, but I suspect he knows that Mercola's POV on just about anything is very misleading. You would be wise to avoid his articles. At Wikipedia, his opinions are only allowable as documentation for his own opinions, but never as documentation of truth. He's a horrible source of information. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I suspect you and NeilN are BOTH MDs in disguise. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And such speculation is forbidden here. It's considered a personal attack. Otherwise, thanks for the compliment, but, although I'm a health care professional, I'm not an MD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, you consider the "MDs in disguise" comment both a personal attack and a compliment? I'd just consider it a compliment and shrug. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a smiley for "irony" and "sarcasm"? The NPA policy considers it a personal attack, and that was obviously the intention, and I was jokingly noting the irony that being considered an MD was an unintended compliment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Young Naturopath 01, if you're REALLY SMART then I'm not sure why you can't tell there's a gigantic gap between literature reviews or systematic reviews published in peer reviewed medical journals and a person whose views and practices have been characterized as "relying on slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics" and "unsubstantiated claims [that] clash with those of leading medical and public health organizations and many unsubstantiated recommendations for dietary supplements." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, I suspected that because of your behavior, and also, I now found out that Kww is the ringleader of this "anti-nature" campaign that is wrecking the POV of pages related to natural healing. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Dun Dun Duuun!! - NQ (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Something you might find interesting

Fossil pushes back human origins 400,000 years If you are interested in the papers mentioned and do not have access to Science I have them. Jbh (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: I saw anonymous edits to some Wikipedia articles yesterday that referenced this finding - cool to see IP's helping with that. I'm no means an expert in this area so the Science summary is good for me, but thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Very good to see people coming in to edit like that. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

God

Zxuiji (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)zxuiji 22:55 6 March 2015 (UTC) In regards to you're 'answer' for my edit request [13], I hardly got halfway through the first paragraph before I realised you were out-right denying rock solid logic and instead choosing to believe that logically proving God's existence is misplaced belief and is not worth giving every reader a chance to save their soul from eternal damnation when God decides their time has come. I pity you and all the people that will not be saved because you refused to add a small snippet to the existence section of God's wiki page.

@Zxuiji: Please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Urgent Deletion of Article on False Claims

Please it's urgent review the talk page of this article that has been created by you. [Rajaraman]

Please it's urgent review the talk page of this article that has been created by you. [Rajaraman] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjoy64 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Jr. NTR

Hi, Neil. Can you upload an image of Jr. NTR. That old one was identified by a bot without copyright. I am just a beginner, so I don't know how to upload.

Thank you, Maheshreddy2 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Maheshreddy2: If you can first find a photo with a free-use license then I will help you upload it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Am I dim or what?

Please explain how you consider that I have "violated the three revert rule". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The text is a warning against edit warring. It does not explicitly state you have violated the three revert rule (note the "if"). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

So your edit summary "Warning: Violating the three - revert rule on Islamic calendar" was just intimidation? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you need to be warned before being reported. If you revert again, then you can't say you were unaware of WP:3RR if you are reported. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

So now you're saying that one more revert will be a breach of "the three - revert rule". How do you work that? If you can't answer it's pure intimidation. Note that all your edits are a breach of WP:NPOV. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Currently you have four pointy edits to the caption in less than three days. That is edit warring. Per the warning, "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." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

A warning that you are about to breach 3RR isn't intimidation, it's intentionally worded strongly to avoid having to block people who need the notice. Please remember that edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion and consensus-finding on the relevant talkpage. Until a consensus emerges on the talkpage in favor of your proposed edits, you should confine your edits on that subject to uncontroversial matters. Not getting your way on the talkpage doesn't entitle you to breach 3RR. Acroterion (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is intimidation. Four allegedly "pointy" edits in less than three days is not "about to breach 3RR". NeilN needs to explain himself because intimidation is blockable. Note that only NeilN claims the edits are "pointy". Other editors would say that removing sourced content breaches WP:NPOV and other editors have every right to reverse that. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I have explained the warning appropriately as has Acroterion. You'll get no more from me on that matter. Your current edits are a continuation of what you tried to pull here and discussed here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just to clarify, there has been an open thread on the talk page about this for weeks. NPOV is one of the five pillars. That is non - negotiable. If NeilN wants to argue that his version is kosher, fine, but I can assure you that other editors will interpret silence from him as an indication that he doesn't have an argument. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Naveen Jain

Welcome back. Thanks for reviewing and responding to the situation there. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ronz: You're welcome. Given his stance against COI editing, I found Jimbo's comments and unfounded accusations puzzling to say the least. I am glad that previously uninvolved editors like CorporateM did their own research and identified no major issues with the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I find Jimbo's comments shocking. I can understand his getting worked up once when called upon by personal acquaintances to intervene, and so taking their side without a proper review of the situation. However, this second time he seems to be taking the side of a coi-editor with an axe to grind. I guess this gives some insight into why Wikipedia has been so slow to address conflicts of interest properly. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ronz: WTF. That's all I can say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales

It was a reference joke; not the right place for it. I apologize. --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I got ya back my brotha --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Arise again, Arisedrew!: Thanks but a simple question should clear this up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Somebody is doing some nice work! Yash! 16:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Yash!. Appreciate that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit removed?

Hi, NeilN. Why did you remove the information I provided about Zoe Saldana? Thank you, -Brent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentcox (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brentcox. Articles are encyclopedic in nature and not the place to add the "trivia of the day". Do you think anyone will care about Saldana's comments in a couple weeks or will they have any notable impact on her life? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I do understand that concern, so help me understand the right way to frame the information, please. Or are you saying there is no right way to frame this so that it's relevant? On other Wikipedia pages we find references to anti-semitic comments made by other actors, for example, or anti-gay comments by other actors, but we don't dismiss these as mere trivia. They're important statements that give insight about how the actor views others and certain issues.

How can I include Saldana's comment that boycotting D&G over their anti-gay comments would be 'stupid' because it would compromise her wardrobe? If she had made such a comment about calls to boycott an openly racist diner, would that be relevant enough to add to her Wikipedia page? -Thank you, Brent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentcox (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Brentcox: Take a look at Mel_Gibson#Alcohol_abuse_and_legal_issues. His anti-semitic remarks were widely publicized and had an impact on his life and career. You need to find sources that say how this is going to affect her life or career. Again, actors are quoted every time they open their mouths. Very little of what they say is important enough to include in a biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, thank you. That does clarify. I'll hold off and wait to see if this evolves. -Brent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentcox (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

NBA All-Star Game

how is it not a reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidClutch26 (talk • contribs)

Hi KidClutch26. The website's disclaimer has "This website is not affiliated with the National Basketball Association or any other organization." and there's no indication who runs it. Have you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

actually if you scroll all the way to the bottom of the page it says source National Basketball Association (NBA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidClutch26 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@KidClutch26: That's where it claims to get the info from which doesn't make it a reliable source. It also has links to a couple of webpages that Wikipedia has blacklisted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

i'm a rookie at this so that's why i'm being a little stubborn in my changes. if that's what you believe is right so be it and will look into, but i wouldn't mind for an admin to look at this if i need to find new sources that will be fine too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidClutch26 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@KidClutch26: The reason why I would get an admin involved is because, aside from the reliability issue, it links to some pretty dodgy sites. Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive873#NBA_All-Star_Weekend. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

so what exactly is the url they are talking about — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidClutch26 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@KidClutch26: It's on this page. I can't add it here because it's blocked. As an aside, please don't create new sections every time you post. Edit the existing section for a topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

so sorry i keep on annoying you, but really see nothing wrong with it. it takes me to the right events the only issue i had it would open a spam window or it might just be my computer. i more of a visual person so if you can show or give me a walk through of what your trying to get at that would greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidClutch26 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@KidClutch26: The people who run the site that starts with "allstarweekend" falsely claimed they were the NBA's official site and threatened to sue Wikipedia if we didn't let them add their link to articles. But again, the site you're using is not a reliable source, irrespective of what links it hosts. And again, can you please stop adding new sections and instead click the "edit" link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

what you said now makes sense, but now can i see it in the fine print. also i really had no clue on hitting the an edit link as i said i'm a rookie at this you can at least cut me some slack on that i will keep that in my for future edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidClutch26 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@KidClutch26: I've moved your post again. When you read this page do you see [edit] beside the NBA All-Star Game header? Click that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

oh i see so sorry about that told you i'm a rookie, but anyway sorry for giving you such a hard time i looked into it and you were right thank you for the help and sorry i was so stubborn. you don't need to get an admin i'll use a more credible source like NBA.com, but if i have any further questions is cool if i comment here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.205.189.56 (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@KidClutch26: Hey good, you've posted in the right section! Wikipedia has a fair amount of policies and guidelines to help ensure articles are of good quality so if you have a question, just ask here or at the Teahouse. The next thing you can try doing is signing your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end of them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Zeus is the God of incest.

Zeus was married to his sister, which is incest considering he had 70 children in his lifetime. So why not make Zeus the god of Incest, its not like he would be stealing anyone else's divine incest powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron9028 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cameron9028: Because we don't make stuff up here. You'll need to find reliable sources that discuss Zeus as the god of incest. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AbuseResearcher

Regarding this, what I stated about the other accounts, I suspect that User:AbuseResearcher is User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte (etc.). I recently commented on that editor at the Child pornography talk page. I am discussing him via email with a former Wikipedia editor who easily recognizes him, and that editor pointed out this edit by User:AbuseResearcher; I'd overlooked focusing on that edit. But looking at it combined with the other edits that User:AbuseResearcher has made, I am more convinced that he is User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte (etc.). So if I seem tense around this editor, that is why. I'm not sure if I can get a WP:CheckUser to look into this matter this early into the stage, unless it is Alison, but I do know that, if this is that WP:Sockpuppet master, this editor keeps trying my intelligence as far as recognizing him goes. One would think he would have learned by now not to create fully-referenced, WP:MOS-compliant Wikipedia articles right out of the gate, or almost right out of the gate, since that indicates his editing experience, and, in that regard, especially not articles that concern sexual aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Good grief - here comes a sock army. And yes,  Confirmed. Hold on ... details coming - Alison ^❤ 19:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Confirmed socks:

• AbuseResearcher (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SecurityAnalyst720 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Restofyourlife (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wiki142699 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Avastsava (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PeachBush (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kod Peas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mammoth Kod (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• K LeFet (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Orkney Springs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Victoria Crescent (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I've also gone ahead and contacted ArbCom to let them know, as he's banned, and deleted most of his cruddier articles. You might want to pick through his edits for pro-pedo POV-pushing - Alison ^❤ 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Holy Batman! Flyer22, you bring me such lovely articles to add to my watchlist :-j --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the check, Alison, for deleting most of his articles again, and for contacting WP:ArbCom about this. I'd hoped that since his User:Ferberson account, and previous accounts were globally banned by WP:WMF, this meant I'd have to worry about him less; I was under the impression that his IP ranges are blocked long-term. They likely are. But, of course, he can get assigned new IP ranges if he has a dynamic IP or moves to a different city or country, and he still has the option of using WP:Proxies. Because he keeps showing up under a different user account to create a Wikipedia article (and, obviously, to make other edits), I think it's an excellent approach to revert his edits and delete his articles...no matter if the edit is valid (unless it's vandalism or correcting a blatant error) and no matter if the article is decent. Otherwise, he still gets to contribute to Wikipedia each and every time. So per that, and per what I've stated at WP:Med about his Vaginal laxity article, I also think that the Vaginal laxity article should be deleted. Perhaps you or Euryalus will delete it? If you two would rather not, no worries; I don't mind seeking the deletion elsewhere. I also considered that Banglange (talk · contribs) might be User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte (etc.), as seen from this "future reference" diff-link (though the inclusion of transgender aspects in his editing would be a change from his typical editing style), and I questioned that editor's newness, but your check above indicates otherwise as far as the editor being User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte (etc.) goes.

NeilN, LOL. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Article deleted per WP:G5. It might benefit from being replaced by a redirect, but will leave that up to others to work out the best target page (or if that's worth doing at all). -- Euryalus (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Improvement intended on the page on Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses

Hi Neil, I received this message from you:

"Hello, I'm NeilN. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! NeilN talk to me 23:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)"

The piece I removed was the following: "BeDuhn also stated that whilst there are "a handful of examples of bias in the [New World Translation (NW)]", that "most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers." He concluded that "the NW and [another translation] are not bias free, and they are not perfect translations. But they are remarkably good translations ... often better than [the other six translations analyzed]."[294]"

This is evidently a piece of propaganda formed by the ingenous citing practices that Jehovah's Witnesses use to manipulate points in favor of their standpoints. Since the page is called "Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses", I judged that the sentence in question is not relevant to the page. JW have enough space to defend their views on the main Wikipedia page: "Jehovah's Witnesses".

Therefore I would like to ask you kindly to restore my edit.

Greetings, Casper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.189.67 (talk)

Judging from your words, it seems a pointer to WP:NPOV is in order. "Criticism of [subject]" articles aren't one-sided hit pieces on the subject. To present a neutral point of view, rebuttals are also presented. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. But what if the rebuttal is based on faulty citing of another author's work (DeBuhn)? Just look at the content of the citation. It is basically a creation of cut-and-paste remarks glued together and ripped out of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.189.67 (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Or do you want me to go as far as to look up the specific page in the book to proof that the actual sentence and context are saying something different? --195.240.189.67 (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you need to use the article's talk page to explain why the article text is a misrepresentation of the source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

the username confusion and pages

ok noted. sorry. the instructions are really confusing tq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.92.146.62 (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Political Bias in Wiki amung you and other senior editors

Hello I am wondering why you and the other admins/major editors on Wikipedia have a blatent biased political stance. I see this all the time in relation to articles on countries that are not alligned to Israel/USA/NATO.

For example I see you and other editors change articles on Wiki to have a pro Ukrianian stance in the articla of the 2014 Odessa Massacre. I looked at the history and there is a clear poltiically motivated aggressive movement of various editors to change the massacre to cut out any information showing that the massacre is a massacre (editors claim it was an accident even when there is proof presented it was deliberate), as well as editors trying to downplay the fact that Ukrianians chased the victims into a building, lit it on fire, and shot anyoen escaping. All issues that have been shown in media, including through undisputable video evidence. There is a very clear political bias here.

This bais is shown all over Wikipedia. I see this in many articles and I have seen many discussion boards all over the internet discussing the blatent polticial bias in wikipedia. I am wondering why you people destroy wikipedia and do you get paid for it or is it a very deep rooted poltical bias against, in the previous exampe at least Russia?

Why is the overall political bias in Wikipedia not addressed? Are the oldest admins politically linked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCouchsky (talk • contribs) 00:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

McCouchsky, let me adapt my answer from here. People like yourself who advocate for a particular political stance or wish to use Wikipedia as a soapbox are generally going to be unhappy with articles that don't reflect that stance or when their "my side is good! the other side is evil!" edits are reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

YOU are the one that is making wikipedia politically biased. Not me. I don't even edit it. I'm here to point out that YOU are the one who has made Wikipedia regarded as a joke. Ask nearly anyone anywhere outside of the little box here that you live your life in and there is now a concensus: Due to its nature the political biases of the senior editors reflects most articles, espcially ones that are political in nature. Now you are mad and you claim I am using it as a soapbox...for one thing YOU are the one making the edits, I'm here to point out you (senior admins) have destoryed and made a joke if Wikipedia from which it will never recover. This was initially a place to learn and is now a punchline. Secondly when I try to bring the attention to the fact it is SENIOR EDITORS that make the politicaly motivated changes you get angry/scrared of the issue being brought up and you try to use the age old tactic of projecting your biases onto me..a person that doesn't edit wiki just sees that it has a huge corruption issue...ugh..I wonder if you people feel good knowing you can spread your own prejudices and political biases onto the less informed and children...at the expense of making Wiki a farce to anyone even half educated or serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCouchsky (talk • contribs) 00:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

McCouchsky you don't edit Wikipedia? [14], [15] And this destroyed and joke of a site is the sixth most visited website in the world, partially because we try to keep religious/ethnic/political/pseudoscientific biased nonsense out of articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok I made my account 1 hour ago and made an edit to correct political biases shown by an editor..I then proceeded to see in the history that on many of the articles, including the one I edited, there are very serious very aggressive actions by senior editors to guide articles into a very biased stance, for example one that is pro american/nato/ukraine in question. I'm not even russian..i'm a polish canadian and i dislkie russians yet i'll call a spade a spade at least when it come to massacres..I have some respect for the truth unlike you, clearly.

DO THIS AND COME BACK: Look at the title of the article an consider a hundred people got herded into a building and then it was lit on fire, and anyone escaping got shot. THIS IS ALL ON VIDEO all over the internet...the deaths...the fires...the murder...100% on video. Go watch the videos begnnign to end if you ahve the stomach, then re-read the article in question, then come back here and tell me again there is no biased stance in your edits and in Wikipropagandia.

The fact that the site gets hits doesn't mean anythign about its reputation. Do you honestly think people do not know that its inherent structure makes the articles biased towards the views of the most senior editors ? Seriously? I didn't think it was possible not to know that. There are topics here that may not be biased due to their nature, but when it comes to anythign political the articles are edited in such a biased and ridiculous fashion they make CNN, RT, and Alex Jones blush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCouchsky (talk • contribs) 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@McCouchsky: Sorry, when you compare this site unfavorably to Alex Jones, you lose all credibility with me. 2_May_2014_Odessa_clashes#Trade_Unions_House_fire looks to be properly sourced and balanced and written in a non-sensationalistic manner (unlike what you have above). If you wish to present other reliable sources (not random Youtube videos) then use the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess you won't go see the videos and then compare to the bias in the article. You wouldn't want to see that you've wasted ten years editing just another propaganda site..fear and ego are big drivers so I can understand you not wanting to put yourself through seeing videos that crush the world you built up around you

Anway if you think Wikipropagandia has more credibility than Alex Jones (who makes arguments based on selective evidence as well) then I feel sorry for you. I hope you enjoy knowing you spent 10 years on a site that has such blatent biases and propganda that it has become a punchline. Heck, even mainstream media has numerous articles claiming you, THE SENIOR EDITORS, have turned it into a sensationalist politically motivated rag. Enjoy the next ten years well wasted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCouchsky (talk • contribs) 01:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I find it hilarious in a very sad and pathetic sort of way that, whenever some Young Turk whines vociferously about "Wikipedia having an intolerable bias," it is because Wikipedia is not biased towards aforementioned whiny Young Turk's personal agenda.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What personal agenda? That I want aricles to be neutral and not biased? Why is it that every article here on Ukraine is blatently pro natio biased? I'm not talking about having it pro russian I'm talking about it not even being neutral. It's ridiculous! The sources cited that are anti-russian are fringe blogs and guys with cameras filming themselves. Whenever someone with a half decent source posts something contrary to the official State Department narrative it is deleted, or worded to sound illegitimate. You know exactly what I'm talking about. It's not just the Ukrainian crises either, seems to be many articles everywhere are very left leaning instead of neutral.

Whatever. No point in arguing with some wikipedia senior editor, your life is only existant on an online pseudo-encyclopedia so I have a hard time thinking any of you will ever take contructive criticism without your fragile egos exploding. The fact this is your hobby/life just goes to show how out of touch with reality most senior editors on wikipropagandia are.. You are clearly some (Personal attack removed) keyboard warrior that will defend his biases and not address issues that do not fit your own personal agendas. You and I, and everyone else, knows this. Who else would live your life of making a biased pseudo-encylopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCouchsky (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@McCouchsky: In all your rants, you have not presented one single link to a specific source you'd like to use ("look up videos" is not a source) or a link to a source you find dubious. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There is obviously some confusion here as to what constitutes a senior editor. What editing Dan are you NeilN? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the dog™, there's also the misapprehension that "senior editors" can agree on anything. Even the color of the sky would be up for debate ("it's blue!" "not to birds, you homo sapienist!" "that'd be placing undue weight on birds, insects outnumber birds" "that's just silly" "you all are a bunch of idiots. the obvious solution is to create a sourced list article that lists all animals and how they perceive the sky and link to that") --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Followed by the obligatory RFC, ANI posts, and request for an Arbcom case, of course. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I am wondering why you people destroy wikipedia and do you get paid for it...I can see that Wikipedia is about two years behind on sending me my checks. I'm losing interest on that money, Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Nazi party

Hi there, could you possibly respond to Talk:Nazi_Party#Pseudo-scientific regarding your recent revert to the article.

Thank you.--Hashi0707 (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for talking

nice to meet you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohinisinghaliya (talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Taylor

See here. Sorry, I don't know how to ping people. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Jill Kelley

the edits by nicvampure are vandalizing and unnecessary Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennsington (talk • contribs) 23:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kennsington: Their edits were in no way vandalism. Your reversions however, falsely labeling them vandalism, are disruptive. Please stop and use the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I should also add you called my edit vandalism. [16] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Daniel DC Caldwell, I

I read your disruptive editing warning and think this is what the guidelines tell me to do.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Daniel DC Caldwell, I. 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. DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

DCdanielcaldwell, the best thing you can do is stop attempting to use Wikipedia for your election campaign. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you support letting it be and call it fair if I start a comparable subpage stub for each of the other candidates, too?DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alwaysremember: No. You don't seem to understand. Wikipedia is not an election hustings. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:, I hear your accusation of WP:COI. I was hoping that the goal "to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia" and WP:NPOV would be served by balancing the Incumbent advantage in at least this one forum. So much for Fairness and proportionality *sigh*.DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The changing landscape of Private Equity

We are very busy trying to define things but by the time we have defined them they have changed, that's why i love Wiki and indeed your note saying you have removed my link on Private Equity, i am sure its an auto remove and so saying it was inappropriate was down to the fact that i added a link. Sorry, i just want to get my message out there the best way possible, yes its commercial but its also needed. Private Equity has changed, Crowd Funding is going to change everything beyond what we think the market is now and i am doing something that sits between those worlds with Quoted Private Equity and the European Stock Exchange.

Edward Fitzpatrick European Stock Exchange

Please read the conflict of interest note I left on your talk page. Wikipedia is not here for you to get your message out there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)