This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Revert
Hi Neil, According to Twinkle that[1] shouldn't of happened - It was something to do with the protection which was why it apparently couldn't be nominated.... so not really sure how or why it then done it ?,
Anyway thought I'd say thanks for quickly reverting :) –Davey2010Talk 04:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Davey2010: You've also nominated Human and Frozen. What the heck? Keep pranks away from content. --NeilNtalk to me 04:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
They're allowed providing the AFD tag isn't on the article...... –Davey2010Talk 04:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Davey2010:You're putting them on the article. Adding them and then deleting them is not the way to go. --NeilNtalk to me 04:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly I'm deleting them .... Not leaving them on there .... therefore it's fine..... –Davey2010Talk 04:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Davey2010: All right, let me be clear. Do it again and I'll take you to WP:ANI. Create the AFDs by hand and don't tag the article at all. --NeilNtalk to me 04:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Take me to ANI I really could'nt give a flying toss - I've apologized for the above but what I'm doing is acceptable here and I'll carry on regardless. –Davey2010Talk 04:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Davey2010: It's not acceptable to be messing about in mainspace. You can do what you want without using Twinkle. --NeilNtalk to me 04:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Neil It's perfectly fine to use Twinkle - Providing you immediately remove the tag from the article there is no problem at all, If you really wanna take me to ANI for essentially having a sense of humour then please be my guest (I appreciate some people hate this sort of thing but others like myself see it as a bit of fun and proving you follow the rules and don't be a complete idiot (like some at the AFD log!) then there's not really a problem), Anyway Happy Editing. –Davey2010Talk 04:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello sir i am Jasmeen Kaur .I am a girl and lives in India.
i want a help from you .Someone is editing inappropriate content without any references on article Siege of Sirhind please visit its talk page.
Jasmeen-229 (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Celebrate
Yoor Know Phool
Have a humorous day filled with lots of PHUN on this April Fools Day 2015. Any annoyance is purely coincidental. Bfpage |leave a message 10:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI
Hello N. Just wanted to let you know that I reported Pinkelvi at UAA just before your AIV report. It will be interesting to see which one is acted on first. Speaking of "first" enjoy the rest of your April one. MarnetteD|Talk 15:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how I am violating copyright when the copyright for that photo of Dr. Kent Hovind is under the CSE 2011 Free Distribution Copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalvarez4Jesus (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jalvarez4Jesus: What's a "free distribution copyright"? Do the terms allow modification and resale for commercial purposes? And the other picture you uploaded - where did you get that Hovind "allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted."? --NeilNtalk to me 00:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Look yourself, even if facebook is highly volatile, this information will not be changed any sooner. Because you change my information in couple of minute, I assure you that this would last longer than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maulakhan (talk • contribs) 04:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty synthy. You really should have a newspaper or magazine stating that. --NeilNtalk to me 04:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok! got it! thanks.Maulakhan (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Ghostwriting Page - re Remuneration and Credit
I re-inserted text several times last night and today about Manhattan Literary (ML), a ghostwriting firm, under the Remuneration and Credit section of the Ghostwriter page. KWW keeps undoing my edit, and NeilN intervened in what is called "an editing war." I was not aware of the rule but will respect the 24 hour rule from now on.
Similar information re ML's pricing for books was on the page for a long time, but it got removed. I feel it is useful and specific enough to warrant inclusion -- especially since many of the entries here are so generic ("Co. X charges within this range..." -- without any clue as to why the price would vary.)
This is factually false. It is supported. (Why is KWW so tenacious here in repeatedly undoing my edit, and so vague?)
A reference and a citation are given for my editorial additions here: a) the ML website itself, that cites projects they have done with notable clients; and b) The Washington Post interviewed ML in June 2014 and asked about the PRICES it charges.This is specifically relevant to the section. I explained this in the edit summary -- and added that the editorial additions I inserted are new, specific, and reported by an expert in the field. No why does KWW get off merely writing "no directly supported by source."
I am a professional in this field.
Further, this ML related information on the prices of ghostwriters was formerly in this section and had been deleted by someone -- I could not find the deletion in the history -- I would appreciate knowing who did it and why -- since what was added after is merely generic info about other firms prices.
The new content here explains WHY the cost can vary. This is both interesting and probably necessary information for the potential client researching the topic.
Again, these additions about pricing policy at Manhattan Lit are substantiated by references to the ML website -- which shows a long track record in the field with some notable clients; and The Washington Post recognizing the firm as expert in a June 2014 article.
Hi Mariwiki77. This sounds a bit too much like advertising for ML to me. The best place to discussed proposed wording is on Talk:Ghostwriter. --NeilNtalk to me 18:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Mariwiki77 Responding here just to keep it in one place. I "get off merely writing 'not directly supported by source'" because everything thing you say must be directly substantiated in the citation you provide. You only provided a link to http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/who-wrote-that-political-memoir-no-who-actually-wrote-it/2014/06/09/8e89ccae-f00a-11e3-9ebc-2ee6f81ed217_story.html , which doesn't contain material which directly supports statements like "Statistically, only about half of all clients come to ghostwriters with a draft" or "the firm stresses that any effort by the client that saves the writer time and work, or gives the project a push forward, should save that client money". The promotional tone in your edits is pretty strong as well.—Kww(talk) 21:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Kip McKean
Hi Neil, I have good reason to believe that the IP editor who keeps adding stuff like this, this and this is user Qewr4231. I have an open case at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Qewr4231 about him and he probably thinks that if he logs off he'll escape scrutiny. He's been on a 4+ year mission to throw shade on Kip McKean and McKean's churches. Thanks for your quick reverts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for the heads up. I've also collapsed some problematic material on the talk page. --NeilNtalk to me 20:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
No probls. Thanks for your assists. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Recent revert to a user page
Hi. Can you please explain this edit to me? I really don't understand your revert here. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@MZMcBride: Sure. The user was blocked and was complaining on his talk page that others were editing his user page and harassing him. I reverted these edits as they came in and suggested the editor ask for semi protection which was eventually done. --NeilNtalk to me 19:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, okay, thank you for the quick clarification! I hadn't realized he had been blocked. I re-tried making the edit here. (This comic aside, I'm pretty sure he wants "affects" there.) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@MZMcBride: I agree with you but the editor was upset enough as it was without discussing proper spelling. BTW, as for the semi, it's not uncommon - an admin semi'd my user page years ago and there was minimal disruption. It actually helps a bit as newbies have to post to the right page and don't risk having their posts overlooked. --NeilNtalk to me 19:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Rajneesh NPOV and Primary Sources
Hi Neil,
The good faith edits including primary sources are allowed by wikipedia, where the statement is direct and verifiable and obvious, especially in the biography of persons, with the published content used to describe details of what they spoke about. The policy is here WP:PRIMARY. There are no interpretations in the article, based on primary sources.
I believe this leads a balanced NPOV, since critics are usually secondary sources allowing for interpretation, but any factual errors used in interpretation can be corrected using primary resources, which is the case here. The result is a balanced critique, as critiques are woven in with correct facts.
"Born in a village in India, to a free rebellious childhood, and undergoing transformative experiences with death and meditation, he reported spiritual enlightenment at 21 years of age. An autodidact, and exceptional debater..."
"On 24 Sep 1985 he made a press announcement that the investigating team instead of tracking the absconded criminals, were bribing people with immunity in exchange for statements to indict and remove as many key organizational people as possible through false charges in an attempt to cripple or destroy the commune. By Nov 1985, he was accused of immigration violations of which he accepted two minor violations upon his attorneys advice and entered an Alford plea asserting innocence but conceding the jurys ability to convict him legally."
"Osho's return to Pune marked a resurgence in new techniques of meditative therapies and discourses focussed on Zen, and the ashram expanded. His health declined, and he left his body on 19 Jan 1990 and is said to have left his body in a very aware state after giving away his personal items."
You need to look at WP:NPOV and WP:GEVAL. Your proposed changes clearly put the Rajneesh-approved version of events front and center. --NeilNtalk to me 17:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The first point is necessary for coherency to show significant spiritual events or happenings, in the life of a spiritual leader. Just like we would show childhood prodigious nature of a artist/savant.
The second point describes internal events that was especially relevant to the charging of immigration violation, a huge event, leading to the collapse of commune which is the primary subject of that paragraph. For a neutral pov, both versions need to be present especially when you are negating the views of the person who this article is about. Silencing the Rajneesh-view on every issue itself is a POV. Especially when accusations and counter accusations flow, a neutral space is where no ones voice is silenced. So you may not like the Rajneesh voice, but it should not be silenced for a balanced pov.
What is your problem with the third. new therapies, zen discourses etc are well known.
I disagree that this is a Rajneesh-approved pov, since Rajneesh wouldnt advertise his arrest, commune collapse, highlighting of just the controversies about his teachings in the lead, and yet I have left them all in the lead, to reflect the opposite pov. Neither viewpoints should be silenced. WP:GEVAL does not apply to this article, since it is not a minority opinion or extraordinary claim of article, and since both views are significant to understanding the subject at hand.
This is the primary effort of NPOV...
Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
WP:GEVAL being invalid for this article, should not be used discourage NPOV.
@Julianraymondk:WP:GEVAL certainly applies for this bit of puffery: "to a free rebellious childhood, and undergoing transformative experiences with death and meditation, he reported spiritual enlightenment at 21 years of age. An autodidact, and exceptional debater." WP:EUPHEMISM applies to the third point - he died, nothing else. And the second point is basically inserting a press release for the subject into the lead. --NeilNtalk to me 18:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
And now you are edit warring to keep this puffery in the article. Wonderful. --NeilNtalk to me 18:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
John Tormondsen
Sorry about the edit conflict; I had no intention of deleting your deletion proposal. Cheers, 2602:302:D88:CFA9:BC9E:B1CF:D269:DFFB (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem, I restored your addition. --NeilNtalk to me 21:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for correcting my edit on the death panel article.
I meant to only look at it, but I guess I hit the wrong button and changed it. I appreciate that you brought it back to where it should be.
How Buddhism in Nepal since Buddha was born in Nepal.
Hi NeilN,
Can you please write about how is Buddhism in Nepal since Buddha was born in Nepal. I can see mostly focus in other part, I supposed Nepal also have to be done about something am I right??. I want to see whole world know the truth. tks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.164.59.241 (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you really intend to revert this with your last edit? JimRenge (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@JimRenge: Are you talking about this? Yes, but I can see a case for its inclusion so if it's reinserted I wouldn't protest. --NeilNtalk to me 16:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I see what you mean. No, I reverted too far. Fixed. --NeilNtalk to me 16:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I is ready fo mah edumacation
How does one confuse Manet with Monet and Monet with Manet? Should we add a distinguish tag to Chocalate for people looking for Chocolat? I admit I do not understand this. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Viriditas: It's pretty easy in verbal conversation when you mishear or the speaker has sloppy pronunciation. --NeilNtalk to me 02:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Double Negatives
I received a message from you stating that I ought to cite use of double negatives; however I disagree since language shouldn't be cited because it's existential all around us. Infact, I was removing the hostility towards double negatives which had enough bias by creating a balanced argument. Indeed it's not cited, but neither are many other aspects within the article and of language in general. Remember, language does not belong to the few, but to everyone. How it changes ought to be accepted regardless; there's no such thing as 'X is not allowed in Y language'. Removing my contributions will only expose your own bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs) 01:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Vormeph: The assertions and opinions you are adding need to come from reliable sources. Just because other unsourced content exists does not mean that editors get to add yet more unsourced content and personal opinions. --NeilNtalk to me 02:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: There are countless articles on Wikipedia whereof not even half within are sourced. Why is that out of those articles you pick the 'Double Negatives' article? You clearly have some form of hostility towards double negatives in general, otherwise you might as well wipe out many articles on Wikipedia for being unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs)
@Vormeph: I have some form of hostility to editors adding their own opinions to articles. As I alluded to before, fix the unsourced stuff, don't add more to it. --NeilNtalk to me 14:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Kakatiya dynasty
I've long known that Kakatiya dynasty was a poor article. I've been delving into it since The Blade of the Northern Lights semi-protected the thing and I'm amazed that, yet again, we have an India-related article where there was so much edit warring about pov stuff and so little attempt to introduce the mass of other material that is actually out there. It takes me back to Nair, which was the first Indian article I dealt with and which had similar issues. That one should go to WP:GAN some time, and I rather suspect that the Kakatiya one would in due course easily make the grade also.
Seeing all these opportunities for even basic improvement lost in vanity battles is quite disheartening sometimes. - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Sitush: Wow, what a cleanup! I don't know if the issue can ever be curtailed or solved. Even if WMF campaigns to attract editors pound the need for sourcing into their heads, there's enough poor sources out there that support whatever cruft they want to add. The problem is compounded by the fact that most editors on the English-language Wikipedia cannot tell the sources are poor. --NeilNtalk to me 13:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, RS and NPOV are the problems even if V is resolved. - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Since my name was mentioned here, I'd just like to say that I'm available to use my admin tools wherever necessary. Don't ever hesitate to ping me, someone needs to handle this area and it might as well be me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there I noticed you reverted a change someone made on Gino D'Accampo regarding his middle name of Sheffield. I have made a section on his talk page if you could read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdfwedits (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Cdfwedits: There was a horrendous amount of idiocy going on. Now that the article has been semi-protected, rational changes can be made. --NeilNtalk to me 21:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for your all your efforts in maintaining our encyclopedia. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 23:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Yamaguchi先生. Appreciate your posting at ANI - got the job done faster than RFPP. --NeilNtalk to me 23:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Content Marketing.
Hi Neil,
I posted an informative info-graphic at fundraising - obviously it had my company's logo and contact information on it for credits. We have created such educative info-graphics for the purpose of informative content-marketing - these info-graphics contain our contact information but are informative at the same time. Do you have any guidelines for posting such material? Should our Logo/contact information be smaller? - Can it include our logo if not contact information? Can the page say something about us also - as it has some information about our competitors. We want to contribute more information to Wikipedia - and at the same time get credits for it - I am sure there must be some provision for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startups Paradise (talk • contribs) 04:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Startups Paradise. Any notion such as "content marketing" is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. We are a neutral encyclopedia and help market nothing. There is no exception to this. You have a gigantic internet available to you for marketing. Do whatever you want elsewhere, but marketing is not allowed here. Cease and desist. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328. The editor is blocked but I've left a reply here. --NeilNtalk to me 04:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
That could have been handled better... There's a real person behind that account that genuinely didn't know what he was doing was unacceptable. He probably walked away joining the droves of marketers that think Wikipedians just attack them for no reason and is now more likely to use astroturfing tactics than before. In the long-term, this kind of thing is counter-productive. In a majority of cases, people can be persuaded to abstain of their own accord and even spread the word of abstinence to their colleagues and clients after being thoughtfully informed. CorporateM (Talk) 15:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I should have looked at it more closely before commenting. That image is clearly spam/advert and not content marketing as the editor so euphemistically put it. It is not even an "infographic" because it doesn't actually have any information on it. Sometimes I open my big mouth (or keyboard or whatever) sooner than I should have. Please allow me to rescind my complaint. CorporateM (Talk) 15:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello!
If you need help, visit my talk page. Writer freak (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Writer freak. Another editor posted to your talk page but used my signature. Not sure why. --NeilNtalk to me 18:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Remove article 'Cameronism'
I have raised my concerns regarding the article Cameronism because it is nothing more but a sampled biography of David Cameron, current prime minister to this day. The only mention of 'Cameronism' is in a BBC article which was cited. I also think that this article has too many recursive sources, namely from those of the BBC, which is owned and controlled by the British Government. The article itself, given the fact election campaigns are underway, could seek to legitimise David Cameron's own policies and thus make the article a potential platform for implicit political campaigning. I propose the article be removed and some of the sections merged with the wikipedia article David Cameron as most of what is in the latter is only a biography just as what is read from Cameronism. The article I propose for removal does not even mention any of Cameron's policies nor talk about them. It's possibly drawing influence from the Thatcherism article which too talks about Thatcher's policies. A big difference however is in that Thatcherism as an article was created after her tenure as prime minister; therefore it would only be a suitable course of action to have Cameronism reopened if Cameron does NOT win the 2015 general election. All this is to prevent the article from being misused by Tories. I have already mentioned my concerns in the Talk page thereof, and hope for your opinion regarding this to be conclusive. Regards, Professed Reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Vormeph: If you want the article deleted as a WP:POVFORK you'll need to follow the steps listed at WP:AFD. --NeilNtalk to me 19:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Page of Samina Peerzada
Hi Nieln,
I do not understand what makes you conclude and label my edits on Samina Peerzada as "disruptive"? Will you please be kind enough to explain. I have put relevant external links to validate the edits I did. Still if you have any concerns about any information, please let me know and I will provide you enough proofs.
@Connect2nidhi: You messed up proper wikilinks for absolutely no reason [3], you introduced original research, and you deliberately removed an unfavorable assessment of one her movies. [4] You have an obvious conflict of interest[5] so you should not be editing the article at all, let alone edit warring. In addition, you are required to disclose if you are being paid for these edits. From the TOU:
These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
a statement on your user page,
a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.
Firstly, I am not being paid by anyone for any contribution on Samina Peerzada. Second, I did not remove any unfavorable assessment of her movies or any other work. Third, I have no interest in edit warring. Once and for all I would like to clarify to all the members of Wikipedia team that I have no interest whatsoever in engaging in any kind of edit war with Nieln or any other contributor. My only concern is to present factual information about Samina Peerzada.
If my contribution is being unfortunately percieved as an edit war I will happily like it to be escalated and decided through administrators. As mentioned earlier, all well endorsed proofs by concerned authorities can be provided if needed from our end for information validation concerns.
Thank you.
@Connect2nidhi: Please explain these statements: "I am here to assist Ms.Samina Peerzada (actor, producer, director from Pakistan) to publish her factual WikiPedia page.", "Absolutely correct information through one-to-one interaction with Ms.Samina Peerzada herself.", "As mentioned earlier, all well endorsed proofs by concerned authorities can be provided if needed from our end for information validation concerns." Also, you changed (twice) "Subsequently, she directed the less well-received commercial film Shararat." to "Subsequently, she directed another commercial film Shararat (2003 film)." --NeilNtalk to me 05:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@NielN
Sure! "less well-received" is a subjective assessment. Based on what facts is it being pronounced a "less well-received" work? What is the benchmark? Where is the reference link validating "less well-received" Where as stating that she directed "another commercial film" is free of any judgements(neutral) on anyone's behalf. Going by your argument of me "removing unfavorable assessment" it can be contested that some editor has "added unfavorable assessment" of her work purely based on ones own views and not facts.
Also, I will appreciate if you can let me know why the information regarding her awards is being reverted when external links validating the same are being provided?
Please feel free to ask for further clarifications or information.
It is always amusing when a single purpose editor declares their conflict of interest when trying to gain the upper hand in a dispute about article content, and then later denies their conflict of interest when called out on it. Yesterday, the color was black, but today, the color is white. Sorry, reality does not work that way. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Hold on, I thought you and I were soft on COI editors? --NeilNtalk to me 05:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Only in the minds of dogmatists who think that any article which has had any significant editing by COI accounts should be deleted forthwith. One can only hope that such editors will study and internalize the concept of editorial judgment. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Connect2nidhi: This is why you should not be editing the article. You now admit to removing unfavorable information and can't see the exact same reference used to source "critically acclaimed" (which you have no objection to - no surprise there) is being used to source "less well-received". You added a number of social media links - this is not the subject's home page. And you added the awards in the same edit that messed up other stuff, introduced unsourced info, and removed the assessment of her second movie. Plus, you still have not explained your comments I quoted. --NeilNtalk to me 05:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Cullen Will appreciate if you can clearly state what you are trying to communicate through your statements.
@NielN @Cullen As far as my understanding of Wikipedia as a medium of information goes, we are here to contribute and provide "correct/factual" information and not enter into wars or arguments of any kind showing each other down or trivialising the purpose of wikipedia which is to host absolutely error free information about the subject it discusses.
I will be happy if you can guide me to the right way to provide detailed and factually correct information to the readers about Samina Peerzada instead of anything else.
I hope that communicates my purpose clearly. Please feel free to write to me in case of any doubt.
@NielN
Only when you do and err that you learn. No one is born expert. I hope you will agree with me on this at least.
There is always "subjectivity" involve in judgements based on anything but numbers. So if you think just because it came from same reference and I quoted one but omitted another, the only thing I can say is there were "awards" to justify the critically acclaimed movie but nothing to validate less well received movie. If there were box office numbers, I would have treated that as a fact.
Social Media Links: I did read wikipedia policy relating to the same. It does not explicitly say that this is prohibited or illegal or anything like that. In fact I have seen pages where social media links have been provided on wikipedia pages. Please correct me if I am wrong here.
Unsourced information: Can you please point that out specifically?
Explaining what I said:
"I am here to assist Ms.Samina Peerzada (actor, producer, director from Pakistan) to publish her factual WikiPedia page. "Absolutely correct information through one-to-one interaction with Ms.Samina Peerzada herself."
As I am in touch with her I can validate the personal or professional information provided about her. One example: Her date of birth '9-April was incorrectly mentioned earlier. She asked me to see what can be done about anything incorrect being published about her on wikipedia and how it can be corrected.
"As mentioned earlier, all well endorsed proofs by concerned authorities can be provided if needed from our end for information validation concerns"
If you feel that what I am stating can not be trusted, let me know what proof will suffice.
Let me know if you have any other query and also what is needed to get the information I posted back on her page.
Thanks.
Hello there, Connect2nidhi. Please sign your posts, so other editors do not have to do detective work to figure out who is commenting. Thank you. Here is what I am "factually trying to communicate": You declared that you have some sort of special relationship with the subject of the article that gives you special insight into the "facts" or the "truth". All that means nothing to us on Wikipedia because we summarize only what reliable sources say. Cite what reliable sources say, and all will be well. Rely on your personal relationship with the subject of the article, and experienced Wikipedia editors will push back strongly. We do not give a damn about your relationship with the subject of the article. Not in the slightest. We care only what reliable sources say. No more, and no less. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Connect2nidhi: Can you please start signing your posts? You do this by typing --~~~~ at the end of your posts. The proper way for you to contribute to this article is to use the talk page Talk:Samina Peerzada with the conflict of interest edit request template detailed here: Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Making_requests. Be specific and succinct with each request, provide published sources with each request (not your opinion, not private communications), and let others make the edits if they are acceptable. --NeilNtalk to me 06:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Precisely my point. I am not underscoring my personal relationship with the subject to make my case in any way but only for validation through the most reliable source, the subject oneself. If you feel publications/information sources mentioning wrong information about the subject are considered more reliable sources then what can I say!
Also, if that be the case, why were the edits I did were not considered reliable enough when all of them had external links clearly mentioned? Kindly share.
Also, as far as definition of reliable sources goes, we can keep arguing about it. I feel, specially for pages of biographical nature giving a damn about the information coming straight from horses mouth is quite like damning wikipedia itself. But I understand!
@Connect2nidhi: The horse naturally does not want to turn into horse meat and will often try to showcase its abilities in the best (not always accurate) light possible. --NeilNtalk to me 06:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank God the horse is not dependent on Wikipedia in any way for its bread...I wonder if it would have been allowed to stand on its own legs or even survive! No offense!
GHOSTWRITER PAGE, RECENT ISSUES AS OF 11 APRIL 2015
START Mariwiki77 COMMENTS:
The (restored) Manhattan literary reference to pricing of a book existed as early as March 25, 2012 and got deleted somehow from this 'Remuneration and Credit' section of the Ghostwriting page. The firm is authoritative and a good source for accurate pricing. The current reference (as NeilN requested/suggested) is The Washington Post, from a 9 June 2014 article on Ghostwriting itself.
Seo-Writer and Ghostwriters Ink are self- referrals from the sellers' own websites.
They should be removed, according to this rule that secondary sources need to be used as references and not the seller's own site, until they can provide such a source.
Now, let's please resume the discussion here. Please do comment on the above evidence from the current page. Italic text
I have done other work on this page that I thought was careful and informative, only to have it deleted. In fact I was threatened. I am experienced in American publishing -- for over 2 decades I've worked in it in various capacities.
I am new here as an editor, so bear with me, but I am fairly stunned by the environment. For example, a man -- who, in his profile, says he started college this year, and recently did over 3000 edits in one month (this is given in his statistics; obsessional?) -- also recently deleted me and accused me of vandalism. When I wrote a defense he had nothing to say. I won't lose sleep, but what kind of operation is this? Wikipedia could be a good thing. I do understand your concerns, NeilN. You are clear when you write. I'm just looking for consistency.
Mariwiki77 (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mariwiki77. I'm a bit unclear on what you'd like me to do here? I don't have any real issue with your latest edit. [6] --NeilNtalk to me 06:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
NeilN, are you an admin? You seem to have a substantial track record on Wikipedia. Frankresduto, over the last few days, merely deletes whatever I put up. He offers no edit summary, seems to follow no rules in particular in relation to the above discussion about secondary sources, has no history of contributions. He undid my last edit with no explanation -- the one you find no objections to. How can someone mediate this, rather than he and i engaging in an edit war. Would appreciate it. I am beginning to understand how this process works, being new to it. 38.109.98.242 (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not an admin but admin's don't decide content. The best way to proceed is to use the article's talk page. I've opened a conversation there: Talk:Ghostwriter#Manhattan_Literary --NeilNtalk to me 19:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Olympic Animal Sanctuary
Hi, thanks for checking the article.. :-)
The Board of Directors is listed in Part IV, on the "IRS Form 990-EZ." It has been re-referenced due to the expiration of the previous reference. The current link posted is working properly.
@Rsmith127: That is a WP:PRIMARY source. Also, it seems the names of these people are being added to cause some embarrassment to them. If that is the purpose, please stop. Reading WP:NPF would be helpful. --NeilNtalk to me 16:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You are Incorrect:
The director's information is public information, widely available to anyone wanting to do research on OAS. (I'm assuming the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information for people's research...???)
Unlike claims of, "Some People" who think I have a vendetta or I'm trying to embarrass the board, it is not true. I don't actually know any of the people on the board and I'm not making any attempt to embarrass them. The root of any possible embarrassment would caused by the poor operation of OAS, not by the fact an article was published on Wikipedia.
All information in this article is 100% factual and well sourced from several different and reliable sources. It does not contain any sort of vendetta, just the unfortunate facts surrounding the operation and closing of OAS.
@Rsmith127: My pointers to WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPF still stand. If you wish, I can raise the matter at WP:BLPN where others can examine the situation and your edits. --NeilNtalk to me 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I read the WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPF sections. If you were more aware of what actually happened, you would agree they are not applicable in this situation. Markwell is not a Rock Star but he is not some unknown private person either. There were articles in People Magazine and the LA Times written about him and he received dozens of kudos from many less known publications, legal firms and animal organizations. It was even planned to have him as the opening speaker at a special showing of, "Guilty 'Til Proven Innocent" a movie about pit bulls, until OAS protesters convinced the movie maker it would be in poor taste to have him as a speaker.
For now, I'll leave it up to you to replace the BOD names or leave them out.....??? It still seems like relevant information to me.
@Rsmith127: The Board of Directors are unknown people. No one is arguing about taking Markwell out. --NeilNtalk to me 19:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You are incorrect again:
Matthew Randazzo is a semi-well known author. There has been numerous articles written about him regarding OAS and other work he has done related to animal organizations and political work. Look him up on Wikipedia... "Matthew Randazzo V"
Speaking of Randazzo, some of what is posted about him on Wikipedia appears to be total BS. It seems to be completely made up by the source listed in the Wiki article, stating:
"Two of Randazzo's books have been purchased for television and film adaptation. Breakshot: A Life in the 21st Century American Mafia was optioned by producer Henrik Bastin and sold to Fox Broadcasting Company for development as a weekly hour-long dramatic series with Oscar-winner Robert Moresco attached as producer/screenwriter."
This was posted on Wiki many years ago and there is zero evidence a TV or film deal on Randazzo's books is in the works...???
Diane Hawkins is Markwell's mother and the owner of the truck shop building that housed OAS. There was a large amount of publicity in San Juan Capistrano, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Seattle WA, regarding planned protests at the private school where she worked. She either resigned or was fired from her job at the school, apparently due to her connection to OAS.
Granted, Jason Ross is a little known person.
Many organizations tout their boards, as Markwell constantly did when OAS was in operation. As I previously mentioned, the board member's information is well known and widely available through several sources.
I'll leave it up to you to replace the BOD names or leave them out.....??? It still seems relevant to me.
I got your message regarding my recent edit in the sports section of Pune. I wanted to add skateboarding into it & let people know that even Pune has skateboarding culture.
You said that the information wasn't verifiable, can you tell me how I'm supposed to do it & what information is required.
Hi TheWrenchMate. You need to have newspaper or magazine articles that verify the content you want to add. Do you have any you can link to? --NeilNtalk to me 04:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The skatepark constructed here is getting inaugurated soon & it will be covered in the newspaper but recently it was covered in the local news channel on TV
As you told earlier that for the proof we need a newspaper article, well i do have one about the pune skatepark, can we publish it now on the Wikipedia?
So, should i edit the page & update it? If yes, is it allowed to use facebook as reference along with the article & also help me on how to add a reference
TheWrenchMate, you can add that to the page using the news article as a reference. Facebook is not an acceptable reference. To see how referencing works, please see Help:Referencing for beginners and then come back here if you don't understand something. --NeilNtalk to me 13:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I have edited it, please check & let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkshayGore (talk • contribs) 14:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I have edited it, please check & let me know AkshayGore (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Niel. You changed some of my content on Montreal Canadiens. I added true facts that were just announced today. What was wrong with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedude061899 (talk • contribs)
@Thedude061899: Did you read the notes on your talk page about adding your personal commentary and unsourced material to articles? Plus, according to Vezina Trophy, at least one thing you added was flat out wrong. --NeilNtalk to me 05:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Neil, the season just ended today, I'm not sure if you watch hockey, and he is the top goalie in all statistics. And the top goalie gets the trophy. It is official that it's him but is not officially given to him until the Nhl awards in June
@Thedude061899: Please read the article. "At the end of each season, the thirty NHL general managers vote to determine the winner." --NeilNtalk to me 05:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Price won. Please refer to this websitehttp://espn.go.com/nhl/trophies
That website plainly is a laundry list of predictions, which are bolstered by the "other leaders" lines. The Ross, Richard and Jennings Trophies are the only ones that are automatic (for most points scored, most goals scored and fewest goals allowed respectively). Ravenswing 06:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Reported at AN3. Didn't mention AIG where he is at 3RR including his restoration of text he added that was later removed. Do you want to comment about his editwarring there? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Where he thinks I'm hounding him. I did explain to him before he kept on that consecutive reverts count as 1, but he's ignored that in his comments at AN3. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I see Ed semi-protected the page until May 12th. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Not Notable Reverts 12 April 15
I noticed at Ark Encounter you reverted an edit that cited an opinion article from a city council member published on a reliable news source because it was not notable yet you let remain an opinion article that was not attributed to an author. How can that be notable while an opinion of a council member in the community in which the project is being built is not? Can I delete the reference to the unattributed opinion?Veraci-nullatenus (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It was your last edit and I am referring to footnote 90 as the unattributed opinion. Frankly I don't care if either opinion is included, I just want to know if we're not being consistent here.Veraci-nullatenus (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Veraci-nullatenus: That seems to be an editorial in the newspaper's voice which should be given the same level of importance assigned to a NY Times, Boston Globe, etc., editorial. I wouldn't remove it but won't revert if you do. --NeilNtalk to me 18:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Point well taken. Wouldn't an opinion in a newspaper from a city council member carry the same weight as an unattributed opinion? Veraci-nullatenus (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Veraci-nullatenus: Not for me but I realize this is a judgement call and other editors might have different opinions. --NeilNtalk to me 18:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Jordan Spieth
Hi NeilN,
Thanks for your help and advice on the proper way to ask for an article to be semi-protected. Chunkylefunga (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Invitation
I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
AIG Fringe Revert
Hi NeilN:
Can you elaborate on why you deleted the following as a "fringe claims" please?
The Courier journal reported Answers in Genesis said that after granting preliminary approval to the project last summer, state officials caved in to pressures brought by "anti-Christian groups" who objected to Answers in Genesis' "statutory right to limit its hiring to people of the Christian faith, and to the content of the messages that will be presented in the Bible-themed park." [1]
These are allegations setforth by the developer/plaintiff in a lawsuit and reported (from what I can tell) by a reliable news source. It seems hardly fringe when the accusation is coming from the organization suing the state. Now if the allegations came from a Christian-right person in an editorial I suspect you would be correct, however, this entry appears valid.167.131.0.194 (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It's an unsubstantiated allegation from a press release in a section that's already too long. The Ark Encounter section is already as long as the History section. --NeilNtalk to me 21:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Neil for watching out for me and the community about that possible copyright issue in the "Court" page. I am someone who is relatively new to law and was just wondering where it does state that descriptions of fact are copyrighted in this sense. Court citations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappel1992 (talk • contribs)
@Kappel1992: Think of it this way. A soccer game is full of facts. Arsenal beat Manchester United 2-1. Walcott scored the winning goal. These are basic facts which cannot be copyrighted. But when these facts are strung together in a specific description - Arsenal beat Manchester United 2-1 in a night game with Walcott coming off the bench in the eightieth minute, immediately taking a pass from Sanchez and scoring the winning goal - that description is copyrighted text. See WP:FACTSONLY. --NeilNtalk to me 04:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I can see your viewpoint. Thank you and will try to avoid circumstances like this in the future.
Wondering the difference between spam and a website?
Hi Neil,
Thanks for emailing me on Wikipedia about deleting the citation. I wasn't aware that I added a spam link - I've seen GWI on that Wiki page as an authority for years, I believe, and only recently deleted with a bunch of other links that were later added by others.
I was trying to balance out that section which was mentioning prices in Canada and Germany, but not any American prices for hiring a ghostwriter, which I felt was valuable info for American readers of Wiki. I didn't refer to the company by name, only a link in the reference section (again without any name). Should I not do that? Would it be viewed as spam to add any link to a reputable firm?
Hi Joseph cabo. In most cases, adding a link to a website that sells a service/product related to the article would be seen as spam. The website is also probably not a reliable source as it has a vested interest in the topic. One exception to this is if the article is specifically about that firm's product/service (e.g., Apple Watch would link to Apple). Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources like newspapers and magazine articles. --NeilNtalk to me 15:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
And by "vested interest," we mean "conflict of interest," i.e., that their point of view is possibly deliberately skewed in favor towards the topic, what with their own livelihoods depending on more customers gaining interest in the topic.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Painting of the Muhammad (P.B.U.H)
Thank you for the message, i am trying to remove some disturbing data from the article named Islam, writer should know that there is no concept of painting in photos in ISLAM, By posting such things in the wiki articles can create some serious troubles to the Muslims, and can confuse the readers kindly have a glance on the Painting in the Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topword (talk • contribs)
@Topword: Again, see WP:NOTCENSORED. Article content is not tailored so it doesn't offend a particular group. --NeilNtalk to me 18:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
An interesting study here]. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Re: your recent revert shown here, I doubt it is a coincidence that Tripathi is an alternate spelling for Tiwari. I'm still wracking my brain to recall who is the master of puppets in this scenario but I am pretty sure there is one and it has some connection to the long-running saga at Bhumihar. - Sitush (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Sitush: Too many socks for me. I'm certain that Ankush 89 is Sumedh Tayade returned but they seem to have damped down on the disruption so I've left it alone. I don't get paid enough to track caste socks. --NeilNtalk to me 03:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Demographics of Islam in lead
I give up seriously. This new user is putting it as fact in a lead which should only give the basics that Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world. He has two sources which say that with no foundation, one source which doesn't say it and in fact has figures to the opposite (which he tells me to ignore), and a study for the future which doesn't support the present and fails WP:CRYSTAL, as the third-party CNN source even admits. The demographics section doesn't even say anything about this growth, which makes me think that this is just promotion of his idea for the lead. I don't even get a valid definition of "fastest growing" - is it by percentage or absolute numbers? In what timescale? You told me to go to talk, but it's just me versus him, and apparently his version sticks. '''tAD''' (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
'''tAD''', I've looked at the talk page and both of you have valid points. The other editor is blocked for edit warring on another article (and you're very lucky you haven't been blocked) but when their block expires, you have various options you can use to help resolve this dispute - WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RFC. Or, if both of you are willing, I will try to mediate between the two of you. --NeilNtalk to me 15:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
about the CS Article..
so I have come back.. this time.. to look to you for this matter on Cassandra Saturn Article.
the matter on how the Article was handled, I personally feel this was an little bit of feeling not welcomed on Wikipedia, when I only have edited a little on this Wikipedia. not even much experience I have right now. even when I felt sad about it.
so I'm wondering if an Article of Cassandra Saturn can be done by other editors instead of me. I don't want to edit on Wikipedia because of problems here I had in past. so i'll just watch from now on. I would love to see the article back up with different revision as done by other editors. I would be happy to give them sources and information, what other else they need to make it an article worthy. that's all I have to say. CassandraSaturn (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi CassandraSaturn. First, please read what was written about sources in the deletion review.
See reliable sources for wht is meant by sources. Your own pages are at best self published primary sources and so not of use for us to base an article on. If you want to just have said what you say about yourself, then that would make the encyclopedia article little more than a personal vanity piece. What we need is what third parties who have a reputation for fact checking have written about you. Are there any of those? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Links to your social media pages are not independent sources and do not show notability. And text like "...sex appeal, wonderful and nice personality, taking Cosplay work seriously, committed to her own outfit designs of cosplay" is exactly why WP:AUTO exists. --NeilNtalk to me 17:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
With this in mind, can you provide any reliable sources? --NeilNtalk to me 14:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Niel, Please help.
Dear Niel, please help.
The person doesn't let me edit Krishna's page, even though i have given a lot of reliable sources stating he is the supreme personality of godhead.
@RadhaKrishna Das: I agree with Theroadislong. Your sources are not reliable and you cannot call anything/anyone the "supreme god" in Wikipedia's voice. --NeilNtalk to me 20:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Why you don't let others edit the pages when they know about the subject matter more than you? you act like wikipedia is your own. you don't let others edit it.
that person also removed this quote - Kṛṣṇa who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes. (BRAMHA SAMHITA 5.1)
will you for the sake of god let me add this quote ^^^? just that?
its so frustrating and unfair.
why not? when one is supreme, you can call him, for example - Obama is the president, so what's wrong in calling him the president, it doesn't matter you don't accept him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadhaKrishna Das (talk • contribs)
Your comment on my contribution to Millennials Talk Page
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your patronising comment. Unfortunately you seem to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. My contribution was NOT general discussion, it was a challenge to the relevance of the topic as a Wikipedia article and intended to start a discussion that might lead to the deletion of said article as insufficiently notable. I hope you can now appreciate your error. Should you require any further clarification do not hesitate to contact me as I have probably been contributing to Wikipedia, as an unregistered editor, for longer than you. However, if your comment was simply "registered editor snobbery" please keep future comments on my contributions to yourself.81.130.80.62 (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I stand by my note. You wrote (on multiple articles):
Does anyone really care?
Does anyone really set any store by labels like "baby boomer", "gen-xer", "millennial" etc? There are many accidents associated with birth - epoch, location, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. My friends have a completely random distribution across all of these and it has never occurred to me to stereotype them under any such heading
What do you your friends or how you view them have to do with anything Wikipedia-related? If you want the articles deleted, state that clearly. It'll be useless, but at least you'll be discussing Wikipedia matters. --NeilNtalk to me 20:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I posted
at ANI. Tutelary (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Tutelary: Thanks, appreciate the notification. --NeilNtalk to me 21:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
So if Abecedare removed
So if Abecedare removed those two quotes now why don't you stop him? why don't you tell him to bring those back. you were carefully inspecting me for editing now why don't you do the same for him? how did you gave him permission to remove those? those two quotes were present before already, i didn't add those. now bring them back as soon as possible. don't mess up the Krishna page. bring those back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadhaKrishna Das (talk • contribs) 21:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
RadhaKrishna Das, Abecedare or anyone else doesn't need my permission to edit. His reason for the removal (quotefarm + not relevant to this section) seems reasonable and is not against Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. I have no justification to demand their restoration. --NeilNtalk to me 22:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
What does someone have to do here to be taken seriously!?
For like the tenth time, the claim is simply done in a jokingly way. That's all. It is not trolling (and if it were trolling, of whom could it possibly be?). And as for the article part, it isn't trolling either since none of the things written was untrue. The things written represent the things that happened yesterday as a result of a joke. What am I suppost to do so my representation of those things isn't considered trolling? Not every joke is a troll. And look up vandalism, writing about things that happened (although you might consider them irrelevant) is not an act of vandalism. I'm signing this in a jokingly way once again. Just don't take it as a way of trolling, ok? You get it, a JOKE, not a troll?
Kindest regards, King Nikola Tešić, the absolute ruler of Bir Tawil and the first ever guy to rule a country by calling dibs first — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.84.254 (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
To answer your question, stop adding stupid, juvenile stuff to articles and stop asking stupid questions of editors who remove your defacement. --NeilNtalk to me 01:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
If you ask me Luxemburg, Monako, Liberland and other ways of avoiding taxes and exploiting the loopholes is what's juvenile and stupid. But, at least in this post you didn't call me a troll or a vandal so thanks for that I guess.
Kindest of regards and farewell, King Nikola Tešić — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.84.254 (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Revision to Gerry Adams page
Hi NeilN,
I revised the Gerry Adams page on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle and "right to personal character" (as applied by Wikipedia to my Regina Doherty page revisions...also undone). The paragraph "IRA allegations" must begin with the 1978 verdict arrived at under due process of law i.e. that Mr Adams was found not guilty. It is not a neutral position to ignore this conclusion. All other contentions are hearsay, already dismissed by the not guilty verdict. To the use the word "however" is to dismiss the conclusions and favour the hearsay.
The revisions undone do not present a neutral viewpoint. The tarnishing of a man's name by many based on hearsay is not neutral and should not be repeated on Wikipedia.
You have removed every single one of my edits. I want an explanation for each one or else I request that they be reinstated.
Read the references on Charles Chilton Moore one of them is titled Kentucky's Most Hated Man, also he should be in the category critics of religions considering his outspoken atheism. 31.52.182.255 (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
pk subban, your strange idea of a "reliable source"
I noticed you reverted the pk subban page to take out the mention of his diving/embellishment reputation because it didn't have a "reliable source|. This is relevant information and was backed up with an nhl.com source, a news story posted by the nhl public relations. Could you please explain better why you don't think that the official web page of the national hockey league is not a reliable source for information on NHL players? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.160.89 (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
WOW. what is your idea of a reliable source? do I have to get a picture of PK Subban holding up his 3 fines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.160.89 (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
My "strange idea" of a source is one that actually backs up what you are adding to the article. Your alleged record isn't mentioned. --NeilNtalk to me 06:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Academic Sources
Hi NeilN, Can the citations from Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies (OCHS) be compatible with polytheistic mentioning of HinduismAnkush 89 (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ankush 89. The website is recognized by Oxford University so it may be a reliable source. I would have to see the exact page you want to use to give you a more definite answer. Another option is to search Google Scholar which gives sources like this. --NeilNtalk to me 15:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Almost there
Unesco2015 (yet another TZM SPA) has a few more edits. I had to self-revert because I'm at 3rr, but there's still some of his censorship left in the Zeitgeist movie article. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Images - Telugu Movie Actors
Hey NeilN,
Thanks for the info regarding image policy. Would it be ok to pic images of Actors from their official facebook pages? Let me know.
Hi Kvsrh. Unfortunately not. Unless there's an explicit note on the Facebook page explicitly saying the picture has a free-use license you have to assume the image is copyrighted. --NeilNtalk to me 19:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Barnstar: the Sexism article
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your stellar efforts at the Sexism article and its talk page, including defending the WP:Neutral policy and applying it the way it's supposed to be applied, and removing inappropriate commentary. I don't award many barnstars, but I felt the need to do so in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Flyer22! Mind you, not all people are happy with me. Wonder why I got picked out when no one else (as far as I can tell) supports that sentence. --NeilNtalk to me 20:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi 115.164.215.193. I do not think school newspapers meet WP:NEWSORG so, no, it wouldn't be reliable. --NeilNtalk to me 04:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your fast reaction
Thank you for deleting the trolling comment from Scaravich105nj within minutes, what we really don't need is more heat in the ongoing debate.Lucentcalendar (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add original research . . .
You wrote "Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Mehmet Oz. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 03:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)"
I apologize for appearing to add original research, but (my fault) I was in a rush, and the video with him saying what I said he said is all over the web, including being rebroadcast almost hourly on CNN.Daqu (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
P.S. And the part about the U.S. Constitution not containing anything guaranteeing the right of one's free speech to be broadcast on TV is something that a smart 2nd grader could verify, so it is not "original research", either.Daqu (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Daqu: "He has not observed, however, that the U.S. Constitution has no guarantee of anyone's right to broadcast one's free speech on television." - original research and/or your own commentary. --NeilNtalk to me 04:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No, NeilN, it would be original research if I claimed he had said that. Then I'd have to state a reliable source.
Why are you asking me to be a great deal more scrupulous than Oz himself is?Daqu (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Because you can't prove a negative the way you can a positive. You have no reliable sources as to what he has or has not observed. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Daqu, you are incorrect. Per WP:NOR: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the source". Stating someone did not say something is still a conclusion. --NeilNtalk to me 03:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly what "published material" are you claiming I analyzed or synthesized?Daqu (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@Daqu: Okay, so you didn't have any sources. Same policy: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source..." --NeilNtalk to me 03:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
AwkaAwka
Thank you for your comments. The previous amend you made to undo changes also threw out a lot of other minor changes that were made in previous weeks. I have reverted to the page as was before the last significant changes and taken on board your comments. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkwaAkwa (talk • contribs)
Hi AkwaAkwa. You are aware that your external linking is still a problem, right? --NeilNtalk to me 16:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
NeilN Needs to Work on His Manners
Dear "NeilN"
You need to learn some manners. A person in your position ought to know how to be polite and professional under all circumstances. Perhaps Wikipedia should have a hyperlink that shows on every page which provides clear but succinct instructions about how Wikipedia works, what is required to qualify as an "editor" for Wikipedia, and how to properly address information that Wikipedia has evidently approved which is biased, one-sided, rude, sarcastic, or otherwise in appropriate. Instead of snapping at people in a rude way, you should remain professional, polite, courteous, and provide such information. Instead, you sounded like an ass who does not care what anyone thinks about him. If that is how you really feel perhaps you should not be handling these issues. Have I made myself clear? See, you didn't like that last question, did you. Just wanted to provide with an example of how you come across. Very arrogant and rude. All of this is call constructive criticism. You should invite it, embrace it, and seriously consider it before striking back like a child (sorry but I'm anticipating what I think you are prone to do). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.186.121 (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
All this because I gave you a warning for this? Or is there something else? --NeilNtalk to me 03:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Gosh, it's rude to revert the edits of an omniscient anonymous editor and warn them instead of showering them with praise? Color me shocked.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the IP editor needs to work on their manners, but somehow I doubt they will pay any attention to my opinion. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bobbertybob: You are edit warring across articles and restoring deletion nominations with invalid criteria when others have told you to stop. Please listen to them and review WP:CSD and WP:PROD. --NeilNtalk to me 06:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Gordon B Hinckley
NeilN, please specify the 'largely primary and poor sources'. I will eliminate the hymn reference in favor of another. By primary, I am assuming you mean speeches, letters, and created at time under study? As Hinckley is a recent person, obviously some sources (and many currently in the article!) were created at the time under study. I have used the following sources: his only biography, major state newspapers (Deseret News), a book published by Harper. Which of these sources is "largely primary and poor"?Vermilioncliffs (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@Materialscientist: "Materialscientist (talk | contribs) blocked NeilN (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 12 hours" --NeilNtalk to me 02:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Unblocked, thanks everyone. --NeilNtalk to me 03:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was blocking the IP you reverted, and hit a wrong line. Materialscientist (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Materialscientist, before you made this edit, I was in the process of asking: "Why have you blocked NeilN for a WP:BLP violation, when he is one of the best editors when it comes to upholding the WP:BLP policy (among other Wikipedia policies)? I know that blocking mistakes happen, but they are such a stain on a person's block log." Then the WP:Edit conflict happened. And then more WP:Edit conflicts happened.
I'm glad that this was quickly resolved. And, NeilN, it's a shame that you have been wrongly blocked twice now. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Neil n who the hail r u? Please don't interfare in my works . otherwise I have to take strong action against you. Arindambose 999 (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, that isn't what I'm leaving you this note about. It is about the Armenian Genocide article. Obviously a Very Hot topic. That article seems to me to also be a prime candidate for the "two arguments fairly presented" policy that I am proposing. While the Turkish viewpoint is clearly a small minority view, still, to completely ommit it from the article alltogether seems to me to be a disservice to the readers. Why can't the Turks have a "proportionate" paragraph or two to represent their own views on the matter, or at least a small section where a responsible (neutral) editor is given two paragraphs where he can freely advocate for the Turkish view without getting his argument chopped up in mid-sentence? I am no Turk, but I would be happy to try that if it were permitted. Obviously including such a section would be a harder thing to do than to write what I call a "whitewash article", but still worth it in my humble opinion, and still enhancing the quality of the overall article, and of Wikipedia indirectly. Let facts speak for themselves. If the Turkish view has no merit, then it should be easy to provide counter-facts that quickly prove this (but only after first having presented the Turkish view in a "fair" manner). Scott P. (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Scottperry: I actually have that article on my watchlist and the Turkish position is presented in Armenian_Genocide#Republic_of_Turkey_and_the_Genocide. But from what I've seen, the genocide-deniers wouldn't be happy with your proposal as they believe "fair" means "equal balance". More generally, your suggestion is covered in WP:NPOV. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In many cases, significant views means sources that have enough expertise to speak on the topic authoritatively. I'll give you an example. There's a push to add the EU to the Superpower article based on the remarks of one politician. This politician has no background in history or international affairs and was just engaged in boosterism. This is not a significant view. --NeilNtalk to me 15:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree entirely that true "radical/fringe" views need not be addressed any differently than they currently are. My concern is when they are not true "radical/fringe" views, yet they are treated as such, which is unfortunately often the case. Please check out what is currently going on in the article on Circumcision. You will see that there is a very significant minority view there which is pro-circumcision, which is treated there as if it were a fringe/minority, and I attribute this to poorly worded Wikipedia Policy. Why not fix the policy? Scott P. (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Help request on Indian article
NielN, an editor asked me for help [10] on Dinesh Vaghela. There are copyright issues with the text as it stands but I can rewrite it while I am chopping out all of the dead wood. The issue I have is I am not sure the subject passes notability. I have no clue about Indian politics and what constitutes significant coverage. He seems to only be a candidate and party official but his name pops up, mostly in passing mention, a lot. If you would take a look and give me your opinion I would appreciate it. I would hate to AfD this editors work when they come asking for help if there is a chance for a short article or a even a stub but my initial assessment is the subject is not notable. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: He doesn't meet WP:NPOL so we're left with WP:GNG. He's quoted somewhat often in passing but I couldn't find any significant coverage of his life. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Pinging Sitush for a third opinion. --NeilNtalk to me 15:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Jbh (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Can't find anything substantive. The AAP National Executive is quite large but he is not one of the big names. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Sitush: Thank you for looking into it for me. I asked the author of the article if they had any other material and earlier let them know an AfD might be in the offing. I will wait a couple of days to see what they can come up with then AfD it. Jbh (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for suggestion. And how do I file an administrative conduct-complaint regarding egregious violations of wikipedia policies by another editor?
Hi--
Alright, instead of my announcement that the formulas are of unknown origin, I'll use templates. ...I'll have to find out how to use them. Can you suggest where I should look for that information?
Clem Rutter has just deleted the templates that were already there, to give some warning information about the unsourced formulas.
First he reverted my deletion, when I deleted his unsourced false statements, and unsourced formulaa. And today he deleted the templates that were there to warn readers about his unsourced formulas of unknown origin.
I've tried discussing these matters with Clem, and offered him various compromise proposals, all of which he rejected or ignored.
He refused mediation when I requested administrative mediation.
Now, with today's revert by Clem, he's shown that this is a conduct issue, and not just a content issue. Clem knows the wikipedia policies, and is violating them knowingly, intentionally, blatantly and egregiously.
What's the best way to file an administrative complaint about an editor's conduct?
I appreciate any help you can give in this matter.
Thank you,
--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff
Hi MichaelOssipoff. For sourcing issue templates look here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles What I would do is add {{cn}} tags to the statements that you feel need sources. Give it a week and if sources are not found, remove the material. If the other editor reverts back in unsourced material without discussing, then warn them (I'll keep an eye out too) and go to WP:ANI if the behavior persists. --NeilNtalk to me 23:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the information and suggestions. And thanks also for putting up the lack-of-citation template for the Reclining-Declining article section, and the Original-Research tag on the formulas.
Clem reverted you almost right away, restoring the article to a much earlier form, in which none of the problems had been fixed.
He said he was doing that because he was restoring a "stable" version. ...as if "stable" means "early". But, as is surely typical, the early version is also more faulty, and that makes it less stable, not more.
I restored the version with the warning-template and tag.
If Clem plays revert-war, restoring his version, the one without the warning template and tag, and with the earlier un-sourced and false statement that Mayall & Mayall were incorrect, then that won't be his first revert that restores that deleted and un-sourced text. Because he's been perpetrating that conduct for some time, repeatedly reverting that section in that way, maybe I should go right to WP:ANI if he does it one more time.
My understanding was that it is not permitted to restore deleted un-sourced material.
I'll take your advice, and add a "citation needed" tag to the first formula, and then wait a week.
The un-sourced controversial claim about Mayall & Mayall is particularly egregious.
Because Mayall & Mayall are a respected classic authoritative source, any claim that their formulas are wrong surely especially needs citation.
I checked out the Mayall & Mayall formulas that that article section had in its note (b). Not only were Mayall & Mayall's formulas correct for horizontal dials, but they gave the right answer for an example with arbitrarily-chosen latitude, recline, decline-direction, and time-of-day. ...the right answer right down to the last decimal place on the calculator.
...when a few copying errors, and incorrect variable-definitions in note(b) were corrected.
...and, given that original section-author's copying-errors with Mayall & Mayall, how likely is it that he correctly copied the more complicated, longer and more numerous formulas that that article section represents as correct?
Clem's version also says that not till the last decade was there agreement on how to mark a Reclining-Declining dial. Mayall & Mayall go back to the '30s, and Reclining-Declining dials have been made for centuries. Of course Clem gives no citation for that statement either.
Anyway, you've been tremendously helpful, by putting up the template and tag, and also with the information and suggestions.
By the way, I don't know if Clem still has those references in the article, but his Ref #42 and Ref #43, purported to support his Mayall-statement and his formulas, actually did neither, upon examination. If Clem still has the brazen gall to call those "supporting-references", he should know better by now.
Clem is a longtime wikipedia editor who knows wikipedia's rules, policies, principles and guidelines, and his brazen, repeated,large-magnitude violations of them can only be intentional, and done knowingly.
You have something against the reggaeton ? Please do not keep eliminating the information pages related to Don Omar or Nicky Jam, you are not the owner of Wikipedia. Are you a racist ? and do not agree with Latino singers color? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepelugo (talk • contribs) 00:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Pepelugo: I removed two copyrighted photos you uploaded to Commons and added to Don Omar. Please be more careful when uploading photos taken from the web. --NeilNtalk to me 00:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Summary
Description
English: MIAMI, FL - APRIL 25: Don Omar performs at Billboard Latin Music Awards 2013 at Bank United Center on April 25, 2013 in Miami, Florida. Rodrigo Varela/Getty Images/AFP.
Date 25 April 2015
Source https://www.flickr.com/photos/diariocriticove/8683216097
Author Diariocritico de Venezuela
Licensing[edit]
Checked copyright icon.svg This image was originally posted to Flickr by Diario Critico Venezuela at http://flickr.com/photos/89374726@N02/8683216097. It was reviewed on 26 April 2015 by the FlickreviewR robot and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0.
w:en:Creative Commons
attribution This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
You are free:
to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepelugo (talk • contribs) 00:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Pepelugo: "Rodrigo Varela/Getty Images/AFP" and the EXIF info (Source - GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA Copyright Notice - AFP ImageForum) indicates Getty holds the copyright. The owner of the Flickr account has no right to change the license terms. --NeilNtalk to me 01:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It is very unfair.
Injustice for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepelugo (talk • contribs) 01:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
can you please stop undo me.
i said that is IN THE TORAH and the torah said that why does i need secondary source when i said it is in the torah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.175.204 (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said, WP:PRIMARY: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so" --NeilNtalk to me 12:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
ok but i didnt said this is true i said according to the torah i didnt said this is true i merely said the torah said that and i even gave verses from the torah itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.175.204 (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The Torah is not written in English and you are interpreting what the text is saying. --NeilNtalk to me 12:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
the torah has many translations to many languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadsadsdaA (talk • contribs) 15:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@SadsadsdaA: Please stop evading your block. Again, the Torah like most religious books, is filled with symbolism, metaphors and passages that can have different interpretations. We need a secondary source to interpret the meaning of a passage. --NeilNtalk to me 15:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
i already gave you the interpretations of that verses and you still undo me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egtfsdsad (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Because this is your third account today you're using to make changes that should probably be discussed. --NeilNtalk to me 16:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Please fix...
Hey Neil, this is still a redlink, could you please fix? Thanks... Zad68 14:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Zad68: Ha. One article creation to my name which is a big strike and not my thing. I like doing gnome work, checking edits, and helping other editors with content and policy/guideline issues. --NeilNtalk to me 14:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I've heard you say that before, I don't think for you it'll be a serious problem. If you have other reasons against, up to and including "I don't wanna," that's OK but consider putting some appropriate icon up on your User page. If that one thing really is the only thing you're concerned about, please reconsider, seriously. Zad68 14:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Zad68: Let me think about it and get back to you next week? --NeilNtalk to me 14:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright, no problem. And as you know I'm not the only one who's knocked on your door wondering when you're going downstairs to the "custodial lounge" to pick up your key. If you have other concerns, my email is enabled. Zad68 14:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Scott Walker (politician)
NeilN,
An editor (PrairieKid) has made massive changes to this article. Multiple editors have objected to the edits. I'm proposing that the edits be rolled back (to the last edit by Eeyoresdream on April 26) until consensus has been obtained. It appears that you have rollback privileges. Can you please take a look? Thanks very much.CFredkin (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I recently have been posting an introduction paragraph for the Kent Hovind article and it seems to be taken down no matter how reliable my post is. I provide a reliable recource/cite (something that the original article lacks), I provide what others think of Kent Hovind, and I use an unbiased stance.
The article also only uses vast amounts of criticism towards Kent Hovind, this is in violation to Wikipedia's policies and guidlines neutral point of view policy. Along with this, most the Wikipedians in the talk page of the article say to remove all the false information that is provided in the article as well as the personal bias.
Kent Hovind himself has also requested that this article should be corrected and/or deleted for correction. Here are the links:
1. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caJLCZ66WVw>
2. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32UhmNMaoI>
Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Jacob A. Henderson, have you not read one word of what people have told you on the talk page? And no, Hovind doesn't get to turn a Wikipedia article into his personal promotion platform. He can do that through his own websites. --NeilNtalk to me 21:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
NeilN The thing is, about half the comments towards me are from you. Okay so you say that I am saying that him providing scripture is not scientific evidence and I do agree, because I never said such a thing, I said that he uses science to back up his claims that are from the bible. If you were to look at his videos he uses science along with cites to support his claims. Also me provivding a cite is much more reliable than was is already existing. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Jacob A. Henderson, no mainstream scientist is going to say Hovind uses science to support his claims. That's what we need - a mainstream scientist working in the field or a scientific organization saying Hovind uses science. Not Hovind's self-serving claims. --NeilNtalk to me 23:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
NeilN I never said Kent Hovind said that he claims that he uses science I said that he mostly uses science in his videos. I also never said that a mainstream scientist would say that Kent Hovind uses science to back up his claims, if you just look at ANY of his videos you will see that he uses scientific laws and facts to back up his claims. What I said was that he provides the facts that disprove "mainstream" theories of evolution, cosmology, and geology. I can them "mainstream" because they are widely accepted in those fields but are not really backed up by much evidence, if not any evidence. Can you please repost my edit, I don't see what the big deal is. I didn't break any wiki rules and my post is up to code. Even if my post somehow wasn't "up to code", it would still be better than the previous paragraph.
Jacob A. Henderson, you're repeating and contradicting yourself. The only ones complaining about the article are Hovind acolytes. The current lead is fine, free of your attempts to confuse readers, and we don't care what Kent Hovind himself wants. You don't seem to understand his opinion and your analysis of his videos doesn't matter to Wikipedia editors. Only what independent experts in the field say matters. You might as well stop posting here as you'll not get what you want from me. --NeilNtalk to me 00:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Re: Robert L. Gordon IV
I've been working on this for a few days and while there are a lot of things that need to be cleaned up, I took an initial crack at this after seeing an article on him. As with most articles, I scrounged everything together in one place and meant to clean it as I sourced it up.
If you'd like to take a crack at sourcing, please have at, but everything is a mashup of live articles or written facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bldfire (talk • contribs)
@Bldfire:Both the sources you're using and the text you're repeatedly adding are very problematic. You reverted my attempts to stub the article and re-introduced basically what is a resume. I've posted on WP:BLPN so other editors can chime in. --NeilNtalk to me 00:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Sexism
You seem to be the major detractor, so I would like your opinion on two things. First, the section on my sandbox about conscription. It is in its third draft and I think it well cites a range of sources that confirm its content. Second, the section on my sandbox referring to military service and warfare generally. Note: The V3 version of conscription is different than that in the section on the military generally. V3 is the most up to date version and I am awaiting on others who have worked on the other version to address problems I have identified. I think the updated version meets WP standards for both variety of sources and prominence of sources.
I have posted this on Talk:Sexism without any significant interest or comment. I don't want to interpret that as consensus until I have passed it through the primary detractor, namely you. I apologize for our misunderstanding at Talk:Sexism. Most of my experience is in writing for scholarly publication and especially white papers, where SYNTH is exactly the point.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, looking over it again, the V3 at the bottom of the sandbox still needs some work on bare urls. But overlook that if you can, I will work to correct. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: I don't mean to bother you, but I still would like you to take a look at the section at the bottom of my sandbox. I realize you apparently got into a protracted argument about evolution below and that may have consumed your time. It is still a major goal of mine to balance the Sexism article with more content that isn't a rehash of the standard feminist narrative; includes sociological, political, and psychological grounding; and gives more attention to men, trans, and gays/lesbians. I believe conscription is the first step to doing this, as it is the primary mode of sexism toward men (at least in the last 200 years).
Most importantly, I have continued to read on the topic and I don't think my sources are going to get any better. I have considered including others such as Louis Barthas, who was actually conscripted into WWI, but he's a rabid socialist and would just bloat the section anyway. I have run into the same problem repeatedly: nothing I find is more explicit, more balanced, or more prominent, to justify displacing what I already have. I'm not going to beat Supreme Court cases or argument on the floor of the Senate. That's about as prominent as it gets.
So yeah. I'm pretty much done as far as writing goes. I just need some kind of consensus, or at least the absence of active opposition. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
User:NeilN hi im a new user, please help me improve. kindly bare with me. i made the changes to Dinesh Vaghela after having a conversation with one of your editors. why is it considered for deletion? how do i get rid of all the issues of the page Dinesh Vaghela? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirvaghela (talk • contribs) 18:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC) --Kabir Vaghela (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Kabirvaghela: Just an expression. I messed up 4 edits in a row with typing errors when it should have been a simple task to complete and I never did get the ping to send properly. JbhTalk 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I've tried to come up with a response to Majesticbutton's last post and all I can come up with is... WP:CIR --NeilNtalk to me 18:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
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.
Ok hi Neil. I fixed something on "Of pandas and people' as it stated that the view that a god(s) made the world is pseudoscientific...however it can not be proven or disproven has we can not go back to the begining of time to see for sure what really happend. There for i fixed this false and biased comment so that wikipedia could remain true and unbiased. However you undid my change and called it "disruptive". I hope you change it back because creation has not been proven or disproven. Just a average nerd (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
EDIT Hey im back and im not pushing a fringe thoery at all. In fact i am changeing so that it does not say if it is true or not therefore keeping a unbiased veiw point which is one of wikipedias main polices. Also no one (i think) will see the edit summary so why would that matter? If others can see it i will take it put more work into them to make sure they are accurate to what i do/did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majesticbutton (talk • contribs) 04:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Majesticbutton: Everyone sees edit summaries. And please actually read WP:FRINGE. "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." Creation science is a pseudoscientific fringe view. --NeilNtalk to me 04:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Divine creation, aka Creationism, is not scientific because no science can be done with it, and no scientific explanation can be extrapolated from it: that is why it is regarded as "pseudoscientific." So, please do not continue trying to claim that creationism is not pseudoscientific because it can not be proven unless you can provide reputable sources that say and explain that. Furthermore, using
misleading edit summaries is disruptive because it may cause other editors to assume you are a vandal, given as how vandals use misleading edit summaries to deceive other editors.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I saw your edit summaries, Majesticbutton, and at least two were obvious lies. Please stop it. Several experienced editors are watching your contributions now. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
EDIT AGAIN
Okay im back and first im sorry for the lack of effort in the edit summarys i did not know they are public and shall not do it again.
Also we could say that the belif that george washington is pseudoscientific since no one alive has used any of there 5 seneses to to find him. But however no one says that he isnt real (i think no one says that). Maybe the word should be changed to "faith" since it can not be proven or disproven since we cant detect it with our seneses (faith is the belif in something none of your senses have detected). Also there is no such thing as "Creation science" that would be like "cake science". In fact it isnt even a theory as it isnt science. Science can not tell us the past...it can sometimes give clues put in the end if we use historical science we end up with a guess full of bias and more guesses inside of it. So historical science is not a actually science. Also may i note that evoultion which is the most common replacement for creation can not account for information since it is materialism. In summary im sorry for my bad edit summarys and think that calling it pseudoscientific looks very biased towards evolution and of course as a editor of wikipedia i do my best to be unbiased and removeing the word or making it say faith would make more sense and look less biased against creationism. Just a average nerd (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Majesticbutton: Sorry, but based on the above it does not seem you are competent enough or have the base knowledge required to edit these types of articles. Please stay away from them. --NeilNtalk to me 15:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
EDIT AGAIN
What did i do that was so stupid? I merely removed bias. It can not be pseudoscientific because it is not intended to be science at all.
Also i did not mean that george washington is not real i was using a example because science can not tell us that he is real. We know he is real because so many people wrote recordes of him many of these people didnt know each other. I am stateing the its not pseudoscientific since its not intended to be science in the first place. Thats like saying the a keyboard is pseudoscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majesticbutton (talk • contribs) 17:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Among other things, the fact that there are numerous historical accounts, writings and portraits documenting George Washington's existence, in addition to the fact that people can touch his corpse demonstrates that science can indeed demonstrate George Washington once existed. Furthermore, your claim that Creationism is not pseudoscientific because it's not intended to be science is emphatically false, given as how its primary proponents intend to replace Science with Creationism as the primary means of explaining the Universe, its inhabitants and its mechanics.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Majesticbutton, you actually need to read the article. The book was intended to be used in science classes and one of it's authors defined "creation science" as meaning "origin through abrupt appearance in complex form". Please also read Creation science (which you say doesn't exist). --NeilNtalk to me 17:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
EDITING THIS AGAIN
Sigh...it was used in science classes to disporve evolution. Also creation science is NOT real science. If we call are feet hands it does not make them hands they are still feet. Also has i said george washington is real. However science can not tell us he is real becasue for all we know people could have made books and paintings about him to trick people and then buried bones in the ground to say its his corpse 200 years later. I do NOT belive this has i said before. Creation science is not science so technicly the book presents some pseudoscience however it makes it seem that divine creation its self it pseudoscientific. However creation is not science so it cant not be considered pseudoscientific.Also evolution is not science either because as i said before you can not see the past to check what happened therefor we cant know for sure what happened because we cant use are senses to observe it. There are great books about this subject such as "god doesnt belive in atheists" "Evolution the lie" and "the new answers book 1-4" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majesticbutton (talk • contribs)
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.
stana katic
i apologies for doing what i did i was upset when i heard the news it just i still indenial along with other people i speak to intill she confirms it and not her rep i dont believe cause mostly thing on the web are not true and with socail media it get blown up it dont mtter if there credible sources i need to hear it from her and the picture dont look like her hand and the ring on the wrong finger alot of people noticed that and mentioned iti mean no spotting together since june 2014 and all of sudden this drop and two of th cast members congratulate her an the rest dont if it true she need to confirm it if true why is it not on her website as breaking news i sorry for what i did just seeing that made me sick cause i dont believe it intill she says it tweets it post it i not going by her rep ad a picture and the other stuff again i am sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caskett2015 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Caskett2015. But it does matter that there are credible sources (her representative) speaking to reliable sources. Given she got married a few days ago, I doubt going on social media or giving interviews is at the top of her list. --NeilNtalk to me 12:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Neil, at least you got an apology! LizRead!Talk! 21:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Caskett2015, the next time you see a problem like this, the preferred way to handle it is to use an edit summary when you revert the material — possibly something like "reverting per WP:BLP; claim doesn't appear to be reliably sourced". If others disagree and put the material back in, don't just pull it back out — that's a sure way to get in trouble for edit warring (or its cousin, the three-revert rule). Instead, go to the article's talk page and express your concerns there — if you really do have a valid point, other editors will come to your defence, and it won't be just you against the whole world anymore. Yes, it's true that we are required to act quickly when unsourced (or poorly sourced) contentious material is put into a biography of a living person (or any mention of a living person anywhere in Wikipedia). However, unless it is absolutely obvious to any sane person that the material in question is indisputable vandalism, repeatedly taking something out even as others are putting it back in is not the way we do things around here. (And if it's clear that more than one other editor disagrees with you, chances are the material in question is not "obvious vandalism", even if you think it is.) — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo) 06:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Rahul Giree
Your statement: "Humans create representations of many "unknowable" things. For this particular example, see God the Father in Western art."
Please understand that God is not only a "thing". And the article God the Father in Western art is more related to Christianity, but the article God should be from a more general point of view. And the pictures which should depict God are neither necessary for the completness nor for better understanding of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrobreak (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The Judeo-Christian representation of God is fairly common and it's useful to show how God has been visually represented by believers. --NeilNtalk to me 17:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Question re: a Help page or Help template link
Hi Neil, three or four days ago I wrote a note to myself to look at your Talk page again and copy a link you had posted. It was something like a Help page or Help template and in my note to myself (scribbled at 3 AM) I called it "sources links" or "template sources links". Does something of that nature ring a bell? I recall it was a page with lots of helpful advice and examples on referencing, sourcing, or whatnot. I hadn't ever run across it on WP before, and I can't find it myself now either (like many helpful parts of Wikipedia, it is somehow buried or invisible to the naked eye, and isn't list on any relevant list or template that I came across). Anyway, I hope this rings a bell. As I recall, the page had a lot of yellow or something of that nature. I must have somehow looked on your talk page three or four days ago for some reason, and I could have sworn I saw a link to it there somewhere, I can't find the mention now. (PS: It may have been a Help template re: source links that when posted on someone else's Talk page, opens up to a big thing with lots of info.) Softlavender (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
PS: If it helps, one thing I think(?) it might showed was how to consolidate refs by naming them. I may be wrong on that though. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Neil and Nathan. Unfortunately it wasn't either of those, although they are both helpful. I'm thinking now it may be a template that isn't really visible (even on the template documentation page) until you post it on someone's TALK Page. In other words, I think it is a Talk page template for a user, but it's not a warning; it's information. I don't know why I wrote down Neil's name; it may be someone else's Talk page I saw it on -- but I can't remember who. *sigh*. Next time I am just going to copy these things right away rather than believe that when I am half asleep I can mentally file and remember to come back to them and remember where I saw them. Softlavender (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
For your outstanding and strenuous effort to keep Wikipedia's content reliable.
P.S. - Exactly 78000 edits on en wiki as of now. Hope you fix the red link Zach suggested above. - NQ(talk) 12:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The block message was at the bottom. He was already blocked three times. I had no idea that he was blocked again as i thought he will be careful for now. But I don't know whether he was blocked for that edit i mentioned or some other acts of vandalism. --C E (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Maggie Smith is Dead
Neil, Have you even watched the News lately? I am not vandalising! It is the truth, Maggie is dead, I'll miss her but she's dead. Please, don't ban me because I speak the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.108.209 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Please stop playing silly games and do something productive. --NeilNtalk to me 20:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention that you'd risk being banned for inserting a blatant and potentially libelous lie that insults the intelligence of all humans with even rudimentary ability to operate a search engine, and not for "telling the truth."--Mr Fink (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
My edit was deleted
Hi, NeilN,
You deleted my edit to Korean cuisine because I didn't cite a website, book, etc. Unfortunately, I didn't see how. Sorry, I'm really bad with tech ;) but I think the story about how Kimchi was made would really spice up the cuisine section (no pun intended). I got all my stuff from a book called South Korea: The Country, People, Religions, and Diets of South Korea. by Geun Yeong. If someone could please show me how I'd love to add a citation to my contribution.
Thanks,
Seo Gi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.218.151 (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The claims in that edit conflict with the sourced information at Kimchi#History. It sounds like a folk tale at best. I'm not finding that book on Amazon, Google books, or even Google. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ian. I haven't found anything that backs up the claims either. --NeilNtalk to me 01:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Casual Query
How good are you at reading Russian?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Mr Fink, da, nyet, spasiba. Everything else goes to Google. --NeilNtalk to me 02:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Just curious, as I just got my hands on an amphiaspidid paper by Novitskaya today, and the only thing that would make me even more excited would be if I knew how to read it.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I had to google "amphiaspidid" and that's in English! More or less. --NeilNtalk to me 02:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I present to you (one of) my latest baby(ies) Amphiaspidida--Mr Fink (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Kashi Samaddar & another article
Dear NeilN,
I find some of you like to continue with mistakes as in:
1. Kashi Samaddar
2. List of people by number of countries visited
I have studied well, have much knowledge and edited with proper links as supporting but mistakes are being continued. Kindly check. Does wikipedia not need certificate? Without certificate, mere news paper article is wrong! Can you kindly and advise
@Editwikigu: No, certificates are not required. Secondary sources like newspapers are preferred over primary sources anyways. Please mind the final warning I've given you. It seems you are only here to promote this person's accomplishments. Please stop jamming in puffery and irrelevant videos into articles. Also, please learn how to add references properly. I've pointed you towards a help page and offered to answer any questions. --NeilNtalk to me 16:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
What do they hope to gain
Hi. Thanks for reporting 91.148.76.220. I was just headed there myself. I really don't know what these POV IP editors hope to gain - it's always going to end in rapid reverts and a block. Anyway, thanks again. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: I've asked Bobrayner if he knows who the sockmaster is. It's obviously the same person and doing this every day, asking them to use the talk page and watching we don't trip over WP:3RR ourselves, is a pain in the neck. --NeilNtalk to me 18:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:3RR does not apply when reverting sockpuppets. bobrayner (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Bobrayner: The sockmaster has to be a blocked editor. So, either a blocked registered editor or an IP whose past IP is currently blocked. --NeilNtalk to me 19:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, do you guys mean that the sockmaster has to be blocked for the 3RR rule not to apply, or are you speculating on who the sockmaster is in this case? I presume the former, but just want to make sure I understand the policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I answered my own question. "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users" is an exception. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, just to be clear - unless you can definitively link the current IP hopper to a currently blocked account I would not rely on an exemption. --NeilNtalk to me 19:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, understood. Many thanks, both. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
One of my concerns is that this is a very active editor who has been doing it for several years. Probably deserves a WP:LTA case by now. As long as they're easy to spot, they're easy to revert. I am wary of publically disclosing the evidence that connects them to the specific permablocked parent account, because revealing their tells would make future abuse harder to deal with. But that name isn't actually necessary; since they're an obvious sock I'm happy to keep on following WP:3RRNO. (If we ever made it mandatory to name the parent account, it would be impossible to protect topics like this which attract multiple sockpuppeteers and a few enablers too). bobrayner (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, hopefully a longer term block this time as it looks to be a fairly static IP. --NeilNtalk to me 20:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Two weeks, which is helpful, although I have a feeling that we might be back here again in a couple of weeks... Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protection
I was just wondering if there was a way that confirmed users could apply to have a page semi protected or something similar? CaraDele (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi CaraDele. Any user can request semi-protection of an article. An administrator will look at the article's history to decide if there's enough recent disruption to warrant protection. The standards are relaxed a little for biographies of living people but if you're talking one or two "bad" edits a week it's unlikely protection will be granted. If you want more info, please see WP:SPP. --NeilNtalk to me 14:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@Human Chlorophyll: That's not a discussion. That's one post by you with a vague assertion. Please use the article's talk page to discuss specific points. I suggest you point out a specific reference and state why it doesn't source the text in the article. --NeilNtalk to me 16:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Your reinsertion of the paragraph is quite disruptive because none of the given sources corresponds to what is written in the paragraph.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Human Chlorophyll: That's not clear at all. The sentence "A temple at Bakka is mentioned in sura 3 (Al-i-Imran), ayah 96 of the Qur'an, where it is said to be the site of the first place of worship to God by Adam." has three references. I checked one and it says, "The Koran says: 'The first sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah, a blessed place, a guidance for the peoples' (3:96)" --NeilNtalk to me 16:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
One of the sources given, for example, is "The New Encyclopedia of Islam By Cyril Glassé, Huston Smith, p 302". When I opened the source on this link, I found that the source is actually saying: "Originally, Mecca was called Bakkah". The source doesn't say at all that "the Quranic Bakkah" is a place in Lebanon.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The another source is given is: "Muhammad and Jesus: A Comparison of the Prophets and Their Teachings By William E. Phipps, p 85". When I opened the source on this link, I didn't find it saying that the Quranic bakkah is a place in Lebanon, but rather, that Bakkah is an early name of Mecca.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please use the article's talk page for this discussion. --NeilNtalk to me 16:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I will copy this discussion and paste it on the talk page for a period of 3 days, then I will remove the paragraph again, but I expect you to remove it yourself as it has been explained for you that "the Qur'anic Bakkah" is not a place in Lebanon as the paragraph is saying."The Quranic Bakkah" is itself Mecca. You can check the article of Mecca and see yourself. --Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I have copied the discussion to the article talk page. --‖ Ebyabetalk - Inspector General ‖ 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
Thank you very much! and I am really sorry because I misunderstood you. Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Human Chlorophyll. And thanks for persevering and clarifying your point so the article could be corrected. --NeilNtalk to me 16:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
About my edits
Thank you. I didn't notice the navbox, I will check it and see what are the existents links. I saw that other pages that have similar "See Also", I just trying to unify the layout. I will delete the links that are also in the navbox of this pages.Rupert loup (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rupert loup: Thanks for your efforts. You might want to add the navbox to appropriate articles that don't have it and add links to missing articles in the navbox. --NeilNtalk to me 17:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I see that in the "see also" section of the pages that I edited (i.e. Persecution of Muslims and Persecution of Jews), there are already links that are in the navbox. I think they should be removed. What do you think? Rupert loup (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rupert loup: Yes, you are correct. We have a guideline on this: WP:SEEALSO - "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." --NeilNtalk to me 17:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
And what about "Persecution by ...", I don't see it in the navbox and it's use in the Persecution of Christians's page. And why did you deleted the portals and the Commons Category in some of the pages? I didn't mean to be rude, I'm just want to know how this works. Rupert loup (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rupert loup: Not sure what you're asking me. If you think I removed links that aren't in navboxes or in the "External links" section please feel free to revert me. I looked at what you were adding and just did a spot check comparison. --NeilNtalk to me 18:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I see, thank you for taking the time to help me. Rupert loup (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Could I get more clarification on my edit?i was trying to provide an example of a small agency just like there were for medium and large agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KansasCityRoyal (talk • contribs)
@KansasCityRoyal: Those other agencies have Wikipedia articles to show they're notable and they don't have links to their websites for obvious advertising purposes. --NeilNtalk to me 04:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
NORN
What's happened to NORN? Hardly anyone involved, people seeming happy that you can state that a source doesn't mention something, etc. The original editor has both reinstated all the text that others removed, and keeps messing with my edits to his talk page.[11]Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Replied here. And I know how irritating it is to have posts refactored [12], [13] but at the end of the day, sometimes you just have to throw up your hands and move on. [14] --NeilNtalk to me 15:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
If you saw this, then you know that I have my eye on this editor; this a very sketchy editor, who doesn't at all appear to actually grasp Wikipedia's policies and guidelines despite knowing of some of them. See here and here, for example, which show that he wrongly applied WP:COI. See his talk page for more inaccurate WP:COI descriptions. See this inaccurate WP:Inuniverse tag. I could go on about this editor's problematic editing. I think that this editor is familiar with me; where he might be quick to revert others, he has avoided reverting me thus far. Thisscare quote edit he made reminds me of Acoma Magic (talk·contribs), who would obsess over removing scare quotes from religious and LGBT topics. Since I'm not yet 100% sure which past WP:Disruptive editor this is, I'm alerting you to this editor so that you and/or your talk page watchers might help keep a lookout. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Update: Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic/Archive#Comments by other users 9, I was waiting for Prinsgezinde to make a video game edit, and he very recently did so. If he did so before this, I missed it. So again, this editor might be Acoma Magic. And that is likely why he has been cautious as far as reverting me goes; he knows that I can identify him. WP:PingingSjones23, MrX, Viriditas and Black Kite to this section since they are other editors familiar with Acoma Magic's editing style. I know that it's been a significant time since any of us identified an Acoma Magic WP:Sockpuppet, but do any of you think that Prinsgezinde is likely one? I would have also cited British spelling since Acoma Magic was British and/or Australian and used British/Australian spelling; but with this edit, Prinsgezinde used American spelling for "lead" ("lead" instead of "lede") and British/Australian spelling with this edit for "grey" ("grey" instead of "gray"). Even if Prinsgezinde is not Acoma Magic, I'm convinced that he is a WP:Sockpuppet of a past WP:Disruptive editor; looking at his contribution history, or things he's stated on his talk page, it's easy to see that he is not at all a WP:Newbie. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Nothing jumps out at me at the moment, other than both editors having edited Anti-Christian sentiment. Acoma Magic and his socks were obsessed with changing LGBT-related articles to reflect their POV. Prinsgezinde did make this faintly quacking edit to heteronormativity, so there may be something to Flyer22's suspicions.- MrX 21:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Sjones23 and MrX. The WP:CheckUser data is likely to read as stale in the case of comparing Prinsgezinde to Acoma Magic. So I'm not sure that the WP:Sockpuppet investigation will be too helpful. I was waiting to gather more evidence as time went on. After more evidence, I think that I would have been able to make an 100% match to Acoma Magic or to a different past disruptive editor. More evidence would mean a solid WP:Duck block. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
That stated, a WP:CheckUser could state whether or not Prinsgezinde is editing from the same area Acoma Magic edited from (Britain or Australia). Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, thanks for immediately stalking me and reverting all my edits before notifying me even once. I understand this post may also be removed right away. First of all, I don't have to defend myself against any of those non-SI accusations as they are nothing more than personal attacks based on wild assumptions. Yes, I changed one LGBT article.. Wow, sure got me there. I'm certain you know that this McCarthyism is not at all in line with the rules and a gross violation of WP:GOODFAITH. I advise you both read WP:NOASSUMESOCK and particularly WP:SOCKOPHOBIA. Now, at least have the decency to communicate with me. You can also just get it over with right away and CheckUser me; you'll find out I'm from the Netherlands, and have, plus only ever had, ONE account in total. Before I made this account I had rarely ever IP-edited a pages before. Despite all that, I'm still honored to officially have my first (false) investigation against me, even if it's based on nothing. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Prinsgezinde (talk·contribs), whether or not you are Acoma Magic, you are not at all a WP:Newbie, and I am 100% certain that you are a past WP:Disruptive editor who has returned. Your contributions, the way you have been editing disruptively and deceptively (including this recent mess), show that this is not a case where I should apply WP:Assume good faith. That you supposedly currently live in the Netherlands does not mean that you are not Acoma Magic, who, before this latest WP:Sockpuppet investigation, last had a WP:Sockpuppet investigation filed on him in 2013. And my response to you pointing to the WP:NOASSUMESOCK and WP:SOCKOPHOBIA essays, which is further indication of your non-newness, is what I state on my user page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
More assumptions. First of all I am obviously not Acoma Magic, as you said he was from Australia or the UK. I'm not. I can easily prove I live in the Netherlands by being able to speak Dutch perfectly. (Als je wil dat ik als test iets vertaal, ga je gang en stuur me iets.) Secondly, rules clearly explain not to fill your sockpuppetry accusations with critique of a user's edits. I doubt many started off great right away. Up until two days ago I thought "minor" just meant roughly any sentence-scope edit, regardless of significance. I haven't read every rule, but I try to be rational. Thirdly, compare this situation to: you, as a detective, accusing me of a crime -> me rejecting the allegations -> you subsequently saying: "Even if you didn't do this particular crime, I'm sure you did others!" If you are "100% certain" that I am "a past WP:Disruptive editor who has returned," maybe you shouldn't be on the Sockpuppet-SWAT. Once again, just go ahead and CheckUser me. How do I know about CheckUser? I have actually suspected another of sockpuppetry in the past. I didn't start rumors, but instead did it the formal way. And lastly, calling my edits "disruptive" hardly says anything. Let's take that GTA V article, then. What the blazes is "disruptive" about it? The relatively small controversy stirred by one lone lawyer and "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" was getting as much weight ("However, ...") as the thousands of overwhelmingly positive reviews, directly violating WP:WEIGHT. I didn't even remove it, just trim it. Furthermore, what could I possibly gain from messing with that article? The wide variety of topics about which I edit pages would make for a really odd personal agenda, don't you think? And as for my "disruptive editing," will you ignore the thank yous and agreement I have had on many of them? Cherry picking regretful and/or controversial ones is the sole basis of this sockpuppetry theory. Do you see me accusing you of disruptive editing? And yes, I sometimes like to look up Wikipedia rules as guidelines when discussing their subject with someone. Doesn't mean I knew these ones before the fiasco started. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
It's common sense/years of experience editing this site, not mere assumptions. It's not obvious that you are not Acoma Magic; if it were, I would not suspect that you are him. Do I fully suspect that you are him? No; I made that clear above. Do I fully suspect that you are a returning WP:Disruptive editor? Yes; I made that clear above. And I know that you are disruptive/deceptive with your edits based on what I've seen, and some of it is noted above. Your WP:COI accusations are ridiculous, for example. I don't trust you, and suspect that you won't last long here as a Wikipedian. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
And you should stop reiterating that you are from the Netherlands, as if people don't move. I stated above, "That you supposedly currently live in the Netherlands does not mean that you are not Acoma Magic, who, before this latest WP:Sockpuppet investigation, last had a WP:Sockpuppet investigation filed on him in 2013." Either way, I have gathered more than enough evidence that shows that your edits should be scrutinized; in addition to various other examples, this is another one. You either have a very poor grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or you intentionally misapply them. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Something else: Yes, I sometimes come to NeilN's talk page about disruptive editors, including suspected WP:Sockpuppets. Before you, the most recent matter is seen at User talk:NeilN/Archive 22#User:AbuseResearcher. That worked out. And so has this case, since it means that more people will be assessing your edits. Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
For the record (I might as well note this): Even though it's likely that your account would have been identified as a Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet already if you were him, given the number of times I've recently reported him at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298, I have not ruled out that you are Cali11298. Some of your editing, such as your inaccurate WP:POV claims and editing of political topics, reminds me of him. There's also the fact that you've gone deep into the edit history to restore material that was removed by one or more editors who are now indefinitely blocked, just like Cali11298 has done; compare this to this. And even your defense in this link is like Cali11298's defense seen here and here; the use of the words "warn," "utterly," "that other user" and "the other user" especially. When I made this note to my talk page, Cali11298 and Acoma Magic were the top editors I suspected you of being. But no matter what I suspect, it's not like you are blocked. You likely won't be indefinitely blocked any time soon. And as long as you edit productively, others (including me) are not likely to focus much on you. Flyer22 (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Confused and frustrated
I need to edit 10 things to become verified and i went to do that and that you wrote me a rude remark about making random comments on pages. and the change i made on the human trafficking page was not advertising it was just to say there are established organizations that help rescue sex slave victims and help counsel survivors which i know first hand because i volunteer for human trafficking outreaches and am certified in victim advocacy, how am I supposed to become verified if im not allowed to write anything without you deleting it and writing me a rude message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchandler735 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dchandler735. You can make your ten edits to any page, including your user page and talk pages. However, when you do become autoconfirmed, you still can't add things like this and this to articles. Content needs to be written in an encyclopedic manner, without advocating for a cause, and verifiable, through the use of references. --NeilNtalk to me 12:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Didn't even attempt to find references for Prasant maths, why?
Why were you so partial towards my created pages? You are working on a project to help the unsourced articles find source. They why you were absent when prasant maths pages needed help in the matter of ref? You didn't attempt to find even two months back already published ok reference from AIFAS astrology research journal?SillyLilies (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
But, before the accusations [they are intellectual, not silly], I had openly called for help from wiki. You were absent. You have been awarded for reverting vandalisms in a blink.. but you didn't help me then, why this partiality? SillyLilies (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
SillyLilies You realize that no one person is watching everything that happens on Wikipedia? I only got involved because you posted on Cullen's page which I happen to watch. Other people got involved in the deletion discussion because they regularly participate in deletion discussions or are watching for deletion discussions related to science or cricket. --NeilNtalk to me 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Your team is rejecting any/every kind of reference provided by me. I am totally confused what wiki finally considers as ref? It is calling AIFAS journal as 'profit' based, height of fraud. Which news channel/source is non-profit based, are there any at all? Can you spot a single reference amidst the indian/bollywood films wiki pages which has ref from 'non-profit' news source? AIFAS ref not satisfactory, questioning its quality/authenticity is height of fraud.SillyLilies (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@SillyLilies: You are misrepresenting or not understand what Bryanrutherford0 said. I will repeat it here, emphasizing key points: "The new link that's been added appears marginally more credible than the previous ones, but the publication seems to be an astrologers' trade magazine (however much it wishes to present itself as an academic journal), and the article is, like all the others, written by Prasant. What are the criteria for the inclusion of articles in this "journal"? What sort of peer review have its articles undergone? What sort of attempts are there to replicate the "research" published in this magazine?"
To show notability, we need sources independent of Prasant, published in non-fringe periodicals or magazines. --NeilNtalk to me 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Its still not late, you can help me, suggest me what are the 'correct forms of ref? wiki ref article is too much confusing... at one place research articles not allowed, book published under own name not allowed, but lillywhite new ref is from book published by lillywhite itself.. it is totally confusing..
And what more, the second ref is pointing towards error page!SillyLilies (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
ALAKURTTI air base page created without anything, not even an article, in 2006..and still breathing happily in wiki. How, why? SillyLilies (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
No, sorry, I'm done here. See Cullen's page for my comments. --NeilNtalk to me 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Same is the case with Alanya Kebab..since 2006...without even an article? Why were you wiki team quite particular about my created pages? Airbase is non commercial, and simple maths is commercial, why this partial treatment? You are a popular id here, your team could have passed my articles, too, to you.. even now it is possible because my pages are not that much defective as the above mentioned, isn't it so?SillyLilies (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you feel another article shouldn't be in Wikipedia, you are free to nominate it for deletion yourself. --NeilNtalk to me 16:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Here, NeilN, is the paragraph referencing Manhattan Literary, isolated:
This price range reflects a standard that was in effect for several decades. It began to shift only recently with the emergence of new markets for shorter books. The novella-length text (about 35,000 words and under) was formerly a very small market, but has widely expanded with new imprints like Amazon's Kindle Singles. [9] As a result, starting prices have come down by as much as half. This level of remuneration for a professional ghostwriter now makes sense, but only if the work is shorter. Manhattan Literary states that "book projects on the shorter side, tailored to new markets like the Kindle Singles imprint and others (30,000-42,000 words) start at a cost of $15,000." [10] [11]
@Mariwiki77: I've copied your text here: User:NeilN/sandbox and marked some problem areas (note that other Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources). Feel free to work on that version if you want or if you have questions, just ask. --NeilNtalk to me 21:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I've come up with a new version of this, Neil, following your edit requests. Done in the sandbox. Rgds/Mariwiki77 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Judas mistake
Hi I did not mean to edit Judas's name to Judas Hogg. It was a mistake. Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.117.85 (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Also note the IP changed Judas Iscariot to Judas Hogg twice — quite a mistake. Blocked. Bishonen | talk 23:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC).
Meghan Trainor discography
Hi NeilN. I was wondering if you could return to the Meghan Trainor discography article and help out with bringing the opening back to focus on the article subject. I have been fighting to keep it in a manner consistent with the MOS for formatting as well as other discography articles [15], but a chronic edit warrior is insisting on putting it back to where it was before you improved it a week or so ago. I'd really appreciate you help on this as well as at the discussion I started at the article talk page. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉✓ 05:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Saw it. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉✓ 05:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
So...
Who's this troll who keeps popping up? Amaury (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a long-term vandal who likes to harass editors who don't share his POV with respect to Israel and Palestine. WP:RBI is the best way to deal with him. I'm sorry that you've become one of his targets. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 02:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Treatment of Newbies
OK, Thanks for the email Now I understand. You are trying to figure out what I see as having caused Chandler to leave, and how you might be able to do it better. Certainly a fair question. This is how I see her thinking as she decided to leave:
The newbie gets reverted.
The newbie does not receive any welcome Template on her talk page.
The newbie gets notified in a very cold and official voice that she is a "Promoter".
This cold and officious voice then strongly implied that the Newbie was posting here for commercial purposes when the word "Advertising" is conspicuously highlighted on her talk page.
The newbie gets reverted again.
The newbie is again told in a very cold and officious voice that she does not undertand what to her is this seemingly arcane and cryptic policy called "reliable source", a policy that usually takes newbies at least several hours to digest
Again the newbie is reverted by you.
She begins to feel exasperated in an environment that is totally alien to her, and so far as she knows, is filled with cops who will only revert her and tell her she is some kind of a cyber-criminal, when she knows she is not.
At this point she has had a total of 8 highly negative interactions with this cold and totally cryptic "official", all of her first five edits have been reverted, she has not yet received a single positive word of encouragement from anyone, so she bravely spends some significant time trying to figure out how to respond on your own talk page, and she reaches out to you, telling you exactly what her experience is at this point, essentially begging for help and at least a small ray of hope. She explains that she is under the impression that she will never be "verified" (by the first 10 edits) because none of her edits are being accepted.
The official responds in the same flat seemingly accusatory tone, seven hours later, and only after I started to try to save her from throwing in the towel. Your reply still does not reallly answer her question about how she can ever get her first ten edits accepted if all of her edits are being reverted, but only lists all of these pages that she has no idea what they are, suggesting that she try editing there, still the accusatory tone of the answer suggests that she is now "guilty" of this same type of "advocating for a cause", which is the only reason she came here,
She comes to the only logical conclusion that anyone in her position would come to. She concludes that she has been asked to pack her bags now before she gets in further "trouble". Still no welcome template, not a single kind word, no explanation that her first five edits still counted to her first 10, and no explanation as I gave her, how she actually could advocate for a cause in a sense, if she was able to report on properly cited things that added to the quality of an article, that might happen to also be aligned with her own perspective.
What did you expect? The outcome was almost 100% precictable from my perspective. Yes you followed policy to the letter, but that is what killed her. Scott P. (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Neil, when you adopt your "cop voice" you scare me too. The only reason I feel comfortable telling you all this here now, is because you responded to my emial plea in a non-cop way. Scott P. (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Scott P., I did not ask you for your personal recap as you've made your feelings quite clear. I asked you (twice) if you had any ideas how the wording could be changed while still getting the message across. Right now I think this is markedly superior than the mass of text you later added to the user's talk page. --NeilNtalk to me 07:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion of what made her leave, I am entitled to mine. I thought you asked me why I thought she left. I told you. Now good night my friend, please.... Scott P. (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
"Unfortunately there's only so much you can soft-peddle "Please stop doing that" or "You can't do that" before the message becomes meaningless. Dchandler735 was making advocacy edits but if you can come up with better wording to stop that, I'm all ears."
"I said if you had any ideas how the wording could be changed while still getting the message across, I would be happy to hear them."
Don't know how I can make it clearer. --NeilNtalk to me 07:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I have now deleted my reply to this question of yours over at my own talk page, as you requested...Thanks, and I suspect that my little bru-ha-ha here is not easy on others too, besides myself. I apologize for this, and I thank you for all of your contributions to that discussion. Scott P. (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no good way to handle the firehose of Special:RecentChanges. Neil might have taken an hour to attempt to engage the user, but those of us who have tried that know the success rate is extremely small. Most new edits (that aren't vandalism) consist of puffery or promotion. Outside those categories, I rarely see edits as naive as those in question—sorry to be blunt, but it is hard to see how someone who might develop into a useful contributor could imagine that posting their thoughts into articles was appropriate. I confess that sometimes I just ignore misguided newbies because I'm busy off-wiki, and I know that someone else will notice and clean up. So I am also responsible for the cold reception, and the above shows that Scott is another with no ideas for what to do. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there is a good way that does not require maneuvering, but in the current atmosphere around here, it has been forgotten. It is called "Turn Down the Firehose". What do I mean by this? I mean, rewrite Newbie Policies so that fewer of them are allowed to post. Duh????? Scott P. (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I came on board in 2004 after all of the core policies were already in place. I have no idea how many of the policies were Jimbo's ideas and how many were Larry's, but I'm sure all here would agree, those two were absolute genuises!! During the first five years or so, I did dabble a little in policy making. That's how I know that policy does not have to be "sacred canon". Some of my ideas were incorporated into minor policies, others were rejected, but I felt that all were given due consideration by the folks there at the time. I get the feeling that Jimbo has drifted off somewhere and is hoping that others will arise to take his place. I also get the feeling from him that so far, he is not impressed. Those at the helm need to be as bold in working with policy as Newbies are encouraged to do in their now outdated welcome templates. I believe that such is the only way that Wikipedia will be able to keep itself from eventually getting "dashed on the rocks" itself. Scott P. (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I remember that. Neils efforts were doomed from the start. Newbie with no wiki experience wants to edit stuff, thinks "ooooh, the 'pedia anyone can edit" and tells all her mates on bookfarce, twitter, linkedout, linkedin, linkedover, tinder, tander, tonder and instagram, then jumps in and writes just like she does on all those other sites, where you can write what you want to without any cares in the world. 'rules? c'mon, i'm just writin stuff widout any capitols or punchewatin or knowin about cap i's, it's just like any other public site eff off i'm doing no harm.'
Very difficult knowing what to do, and I made the value judgement about chandler at the time. (It was ... "No more time to be wasted on this one Neil") My initial wiki experience was not the best, and so I went away for years, and didn't get a ban or block until last year. That admin is a twit. This is "Teh Internetz", be careful out there, and perhaps take some time to learn the groundrules, newbies. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 09:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Even just explaining about how Wikipedia isn't the USpedia could have been a challenge with this user — an aspect Scottperry didn't address in his long message to the user. (Scott, I think you made very good clarifying points in that message, for instance the comparison to doctors, but concise is still king.) She'll post things like "Instead of thinking of something foreign people are now realizing this is happening right here in our own backyards."[16] (So much wrong with that sentence) and "On the bright side it is statistically proven that Teen Pregnancy has dropped over the last 5 years."[17] (Globally? I really doubt it.) But I think the biggest problem is that people from charitable organizations come to Wikipedia with a feeling of righteousness, and are highly offended when you call their contributions "adverts". Perhaps we should have a special warning template for non-commercial promotion, which really explains that you don't get to promote good causes here either. I think emphasizing that to the user, and acknowledging the worthiness of their intentions, might help with such newbies, Neil. Bishonen | talk 10:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen. An actionable suggestion which I will take on board. --NeilNtalk to me 14:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Roxy the dog, your "linkedover, tinder, tander, tonder" commentary gave me the giggles. Thanks. Yes, there are far too many social networks out there. Flyer22 (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
And "bookfarce"? LOL!! Flyer22 (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, so she was sent packing because of an over-abundance of spelling, grammar, punctuation, word-usage-errors and policy-ignorance errors in her first four edits. That thinking certainly has a somewhat reasonable ring to it, no doubt, but..... Why have a system where newbies seem to be used simply for backyard target-shooting-practice shenannigans? Is that fair to Chandler, or to Wikipedia itself? Why not simply be honest and set up a new policy about the special rules for Newbies?
Such a new policy could read something like this: Newbie Verification: New contributors who have 5 or more spelling, grammar, or word usage errors in their first 5 article-space edits will be banned for one year? Why not merely state simply and fairly what is required of Newbie editors, and at least let them know why they are being effectively banned from here?
Maybe now is the time to consider such a new policy that would clarify the true "entrance requirements"? If we had such a policy, I would bet many would carefully take it upon themselves to improve their writing quality, and their policy-knowledge over the course of that year, and then would be capable of writing truly good edits at first go upon their return, thus simplifying what is obviously now a very difficult and painful process for Newbies, and for peole trying to put out the fire-hose with another fire-type behavior of their own called Newbie Abuse, plain, simple, and clear to all? Scott P. (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
And yes I know that the policy pages is where I should be making such a proposal, but there again, why not administer that process more fairly as well while you're at it? My last proposal was essentially gunned-down using procedural maneuvers, not fair and transparent reason and logic. Why would I want to go back there at all? Is it not true that in that place too, it has become a place where brute-force and censorship seem to prevail, and policy-newbies like myself are essentilly routinely gunned-down too, but in a much more sophisticated way, as is necessarily required when dealing with slightly more "seasoned" editors such as myself. Scott P. (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I notice you paid no attention at all to my post and my practical suggestion, Scottperry (indeed not even to my compliment to yourself). But when you're on a sarcasm roll I expect that can easily happen. I'm done here, it's too noisy. See you later, Neil. Bishonen | talk 12:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC).
Now continuing this discussion at my own talk page, as per Neil's request. Thanks Neil, and sorry about all of this, but I still do appreciate each of your edits. Scott P. (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Scott P., what requests? I made no request to move this discussion or for you to delete a reply. The "I have no idea what you're talking about" moments are getting more frequent... --NeilNtalk to me 14:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Scott P., please stop emailing me. I have no idea what you're referring to and would prefer to communicate with you in public. Please provide diffs of these requests. --NeilNtalk to me 17:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Very good Neil. That was exactly the type of reply I had fully expected. What has happened to Wikipedia in the last 6 years is shameful. Before 2009, what some call old fashioned common sense, and what I call Wisdom seemed to rule here. It was a place of light that seemed to be dominated by logic and reason. Whoever had the best sounding idea won. There was little or no maneuvering, secret communications seemed to be kept to a bare minimum, and certainly not the routine encouragement of "deulling" in order to dispose of the dead body of one's enemies. Now all with whom I speak that I would consider to be encyclopediasts tell me they have noticed a subtle degradation of Wikipedia itself from stem to stern. I say, this is because Machiavelli now rules here in Wisdom's sted.
No Neil, I don't really have any plans at all to get into a deull with you. I am not a good deuller, and would undoubtedly shoot myself in the foot. You all would gladly be my pall-bearers I am sure. Instead, I will now walk out of here on my own two feet, a bit bloodied up by my rough-housing friends I suppose, but still standing. Much to the dismay of Machiavelli I am sure. Good bye again for a good while I pray. May you all be so fortunate as to learn Machiavelli's greatest lesson which is simply that:
"Everyone who plays the Machiavelli-game ultimately, in the very end, only loses".
Why can't you simply provide diffs of my supposed requests instead of going on completely irrelevant tangents? Seriously. --NeilNtalk to me 20:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Equality before the law
That was Badmintonhist, probably stalking Roscelese. He uses the Rhode Island Educational Network to evade his block. I'm not sure if you were serious or sarcastic, but it did uncover the fact that the Cato Institute was being used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dougweller: Unfortunately, I was being serious as I had no idea about the socking or the questionable source. All I saw was an effort to make the article adhere more closely to what the source was saying. --NeilNtalk to me 14:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem. It did look good at the time if you didn't know the whole context. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for calling my attention to Anupamsr/Cubancigar11's sockpuppetry. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Opinion Requested
Greetings. I'd be interested to get your opinion (as a neutral party) regarding the user behavior I've documented at User:CFredkin. I attempted to engage with the editor a year ago, but it seems to have had no impact. Is this editor's behavior acceptable? And if not, what action do you think is justified at this point? Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi CFredkin. Some of those diffs are problematic and I see you've opened an ANI discussion. One thing I would have done is provide exact wording that is problematic for the first three or four diffs (this is what Hcobb wrote, this is what the source actually said). This is so reviewing editors can immediately see the problem. --NeilNtalk to me 01:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Good point. I've made some edits to try to address this. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
just calm down bro. Answer me, i wil run away
Bro,
why dont you answer properly? you are supporting lie about God Gdteda (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Fwiw, I did take a look at the sources the user was citing. Setting aside the issue that they are not reliable sources by wikipedia standards, they don't even support the case the socks are trying to make. Essentially the user is jumping from Shiva/Rudra being associated with red (already mentioned in etymology section of the article!) + rudhira meaning red in Tamil to rudhira being the "original" pre-Sanskrit etymological source for Shiva (huh?), which not even the sources they cite claim.
Not that any of this is going to convince them. Will just need to wait for the block to be applied. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Abecedare: Block applied. And as you said, Tamil is already mentioned in the article. "Some authors associate the name with the Tamil word śivappu meaning "red", noting that Shiva is linked to the Sun (śivan, "the Red one", in Tamil) and that Rudra is also called Babhru (brown, or red) in the Rigveda." --NeilNtalk to me 16:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Meenakshi023: another one? Want to get a second opinion before posting at SPI. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Abecedare, I think it's too soon to tell but none of their edits have been particularly helpful - it's like they're doing ten edits to get autoconfirmed. --NeilNtalk to me 19:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly on the auto-confirmed bit. Filed an SPI (trying not to spell out why I am a pretty certain). Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. stop edit warring. allow other views in talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdteda (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for drawing more attention to your socking. --NeilNtalk to me 15:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I will draw even more attention to your sock / meat puppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdteda (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like to apologize and have my report appelead, i regret my actions and i will stop my vandalism. I am very sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukaneville2012 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Cwobeel: I had my close written out, hit save, and boom! edit conflict. FWIW, I had the same result as the admin. "Move to 2015 Baltimore protests. Most editors expressed a preference for 2015 Baltimore protests as a more accurate representation of content. Dissenting editors expressed an opinion on what the article should contain, not what it actually does contain." --NeilNtalk to me 02:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Every item I've looked at so far has been reverted, and in no case have I seen Hcobb attempt to reinsert it. In no case have I seen a discussion of the issue on any article talk page. And in none of the items cited on ANI is there any discussion on Hcobb's talk page.
Yes, there was an allegation of inaccuracies a year ago, but it was disputed by Hcobb, and dropped. While I haven't investigated those allegations, if someone tells me I made an error, and I tell them they are mistaken, I wouldn't count this as a "warning" to me.
I do see issue with the edits of Hcobb. My plan is to try to address these with Hcobb (as you can see on their talk page) and see if that is successful. If it is not, then a report to ANI (which ought to contain proposed sanctions) may be warranted. Do you disagree with my approach?
If you have looked into any of the listed edits, and have an opinion, I hope you will weigh in at Hcobb's talk page, or poneone of the article talk pages, if appropriate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: I looked at some of the diffs CFredkin pointed to here and saw they were problematic. It's not that the reverts were uncontested, it's that the edits were made in this first place. If Hcobb says he made mistakes I suppose we can AGF but they should be strongly warned. Adding this in a GA is unacceptable. --NeilNtalk to me 16:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree they should be warned. And if they do not heed the warnings, then escalation to ANI is warranted. Apologies for being a bit of a process geek, but I prefer warnings first, then ANI. That was my main point. I see that User_talk:CFredkin#Hcobb doesn't see my involvement as helpful, so I shall return to OTRS work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Kosovo War
Thanks for your effort regarding the IP at Kosovo War. I took another road and the article is now pending-change protected for three week. The Bannertalk 20:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@The Banner: Thanks. The IP likes to hit 4-5 articles so their block should help too. --NeilNtalk to me 20:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Inappropriate displaying of information on Black people
Please do not delete correct information, as you did at Black people, without citing adequate reasons why the article is too lengthy (which is the only valid reason to delete correct information that I can think of currently). Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and take this opportunity to become aware of basic and obvious logic that you cannot usually prove (nor "cite") the fact that people do NOT do something. ~Rayvn 00:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@RayvnEQ: My edit summary was clear as were my two other messages to you. [20] A blog is not a reliable source. --NeilNtalk to me 00:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, your edit summary did not exist as nothing was written there whatsoever, and the fact that you believe you are "quite clear" is irrelevant to the fact that I am informing you that you should not delete correct information or harass people. ~Rayvn 00:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)
@RayvnEQ: No idea what you're looking at but anyone can see this has an edit summary of "Not a WP:RS". --NeilNtalk to me 01:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
No idea what you "think I am looking at" but yes, indeed, anyone CAN see that your edit summary consists solely of letters which are not words and therefore is a non-existent edit summary as I have already stated; not sure how proof of that is supposed to somehow help YOU, as one would USUALLY expect it to do if you are the one posting it. ~Rayvn 01:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
First you say, "your edit summary did not exist as nothing was written there whatsoever". Now you say, "edit summary consists solely of letters which are not words". "Not" and "a" are words and WP:RS is a link to the appropriate guideline. --NeilNtalk to me 01:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
This does not change the fact that you had no edit summary, nor does it change the fact that whether or not you had an edit summary is irrelevant. Also, edit summaries are edit summaries, not links. ~Rayvn 02:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
All right, it seems you cannot see what is pointed out to you with a diff so it's no use continuing. --NeilNtalk to me 02:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
FYI
Hello Neil. You may have already gotten a ping about this but in case you haven't you are mentioned here Wikipedia:Help desk#Harassment. Oh and I agree that your edit summary was perfectly readable. Cheers in spite of this. MarnetteD|Talk 01:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Neil, apparently you should moderate your moderate harassment? Or something? --‖ Ebyabetalk - Border Town ‖ 01:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@MarnetteD and Ebyabe: Thanks to you both. I had a feeling things might get interesting when I read this. --NeilNtalk to me 01:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. Actually, I'm almost offended that I'm being ignored by them in this. Or is that a microaggression? Or is saying it might be a microaggression a microaggression? I'm macroconfused. ;) --‖ Ebyabetalk - Union of Opposites ‖ 02:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to help as well. Looks like a spectacular case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. You could have added WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE in your edit summaries and they would have been unable to read them as well. Macro/Micro that is funny stuff Ebyabe. Thanks for the chuckle. MarnetteD|Talk 02:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kvsrh. I'm going to answer your questions in terms of Wikipedia's copyright policies. Sketches can be added to articles if the sketch is in the public domain or has a free-use license. Your example has a Creative Commons license so it's fine from a copyright point of view. Copyrighted movie poster images can only be added to articles specifically about the movie. They cannot be added to articles about actors in the movie. This is covered in our non-free content guideline. I hope this helps. Feel free to post here if you have more questions. --NeilNtalk to me 03:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Kvsrh. I want to add a couple things that I have encountered in regard to sketches. I have seen some that looked nothing like the person and were removed but that is not the case with this one. Also, I have seen some removed if the work seems to be promoting the work of the artist. I do not know whether this is the case with this one. To be fair the time that I encountered sketches was at least 6 or 7 years ago so my info may be out of date. I wanted to mention them just in case and I am sure that NeilN will correct any errors that I have made. MarnetteD|Talk 03:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
NeilN, Thank you for your recent input at ANI. I'd also like to take the opportunity to recognize the outstanding work you've done for the project. In particular, I think the efforts you make to guide newcomers are really beneficial.CFredkin (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks CFredkin. I'm keeping an eye out for a response from Hcobb. --NeilNtalk to me 19:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
United States Merit Systems Protection Board
Reading this thread I was puzzled why Drmies was asking that you ping them to protect the article. Surprise: you're not an admin. Wikipedia isn't utilizing its assets very well! --regentspark (comment) 00:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Please check link and add require information . There might be grammar need to change or text reduced but those information are quite informative .--Rohtak camp (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Can we at least temp ban user Penelope37 from the sexism article? Something? I don't really know how this works. I've tried reasoning and the best I've gotten is what seems like a kind of "report me for being biased" comment on my talk page. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
She has been blocked for a day and a half. I have a feeling she'll get a longer block when that expires, since she seems entrenched in her position, and is unlikely to work positively with others. --‖ Ebyabetalk - Union of Opposites ‖ 21:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Timothyjosephwood, there are usually second (and third, and sometimes fourth) chances on Wikipedia. As this as their first block, they'll get the opportunity to come back and show they can work with others. If they can't, blocks of escalating length will usually follow. --NeilNtalk to me 22:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I am JP Cormier. I have begun an edit of my page on here because it is inaccurate and totally incomplete. You have told me now that I as the actual person that this article is about am not allowed to edit it without references? Two questions arise. Who made this page, because it wasn't me and I nor any of my signatories have ever been asked to verify the information in it, and it is annoying to have this on the web as incomplete and out of date as it is. second question is, what better kind of reference is required to post information on me my life and career, than from me myself? How do proceed here? I am intending to post only information that can be verified by me, the person these things happened to, and items that can be witnessed by historical media from various sources.
I am also very aware of libel laws and am not going to put anything on here that jeopardizes me or any other person or organization.
I'm also a little upset that you erased three days of work.
At any rate, please tell me how to fix this, or I may have to have it removed because of it's inaccuracy and it would seem a stranger's version of my life is deemed more trustworthy than the information from the person the page is about.
Sincerely
JP Cormier
Jpcormier (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Cormier. Wikipedia articles are written by volunteers interested enough in a subject to research and write about it. Any kind of "approval" from the subject is not required. I see that J. P. Cormier is largely unsourced so please remove any incorrect information from it. Wikipedia requires information in an article to be verifiable. Verifiability means that the information must come from a previously published reliable source like a newspaper or magazine with a reputation for fact checking. We will consider taking information directly from the subject only in very limited circumstances that are outlined in WP:ABOUTSELF. Note that this information must still be published elsewhere first. We have this limitation partially because subjects frequently have a hard time writing about themselves in a neutral and factual manner, including only what is notable to the average reader. To go forward, you must furnish sources like this and only add content (preferably on the talk page as per our conflict of interest guidelines) that can be verified from these sources. I hope this clarifies our policies and guidelines. If you have further questions, please ask. --NeilNtalk to me 01:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi neil:
This seems like a complete paradox and completely contradictory. I have read HUNDREDS of wiki articles on celebrities, some of them quite involved. Are you saying all the information on these people is taken from sources other than the subject of the article? No autobiography material allowed as a reliable source?? what happens if the subject of the article is the only person that can verify a statement made in the wiki article? So, everything I've read about living public figures on Wiki is material based on what other's "expert opinion" is on that subject's life and work?? This makes no sense to me.
@Jpcormier: If a particular fact is not published elsewhere then it will not appear in a Wikipedia article. This is core Wikipedia policy: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." We can report on what the subject says if their statements appear in third party sources as articles are not substitute home pages or autobiographies. For example, Eric Clapton has 168 published sources. Waylon Jennings has 124. Chet Atkins has 32. --NeilNtalk to me 23:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Teahouse invite
Hi! NeilN,
As an experienced editor, your knowledge is very valuable to new editors. Teahouse Hosts help new editors at the Teahouse and beyond. If you'd like to get involved in assisting new editors at the Teahouse, please learn more here. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi EoRdE6. I help out at the Teahouse when there's a question I can clearly answer. BTW, that other editor you mentioned - I think they're a sock and am looking into it now. --NeilNtalk to me 02:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I wasn't sure whether to take action on that. Either socks or meatpuppets... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Why was I blocked from making changes to Mekong entry page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.58.154 (talk)
Hi. Other editors are disputing your change so you will need to use the article's talk page to explain why your change makes the article better. --NeilNtalk to me 20:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Please don't insert your
...topically quite separate, and in this case, completely snide comments, in the midst of other personal discussions going on at my talk page.
And yes, I have largely been gone, largely, in this past year, and am still pushed out by any of various sorts of childish and inconsistent behaviour here, such as you again seem to lase into—in this by interjecting in the midst of that other discussion, and as well, downplaying the real matter I raise at the archive. It seems to me—correct me if I am wrong, below—that you lot are arguing the very opposite of what you did on the earlier 3RR discussion at the Nazanin Afshin-Jam article. Since I have again broken a rule (in discussing the archived matter in the archive), I will move it here, so you can respond again (this time thoughtfully, and respectfully, I hope). Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Leprof 7272, you are incorrect on both cases. I was directly replying to your first post when you tried to justify adding to an archived page. I explained I reverted your edit (and mine when I responded to your ping). I also noted you have a habit of threatening to leave when anyone calls you on your behavior. Secondly, there is no "you lot". Different editors pointed out different instances of edit warring on different articles. Please be more precise in your declarations. --NeilNtalk to me 06:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no issue with the removal of the information on the archived pages. If this is proper, and your job to do, so be it. "You lot" is my reference to people who enforce rules selectively and inconsistently here, not in support of quality content, rather, in support of an editorial end they personally wish to achieve (or the sense of personal control, or importance, etc.). You can make the case below this does not involve you. As far as I can see, vis-a-vis achieving editorial ends, it still does. But I am open to see that I have mistaken the different directions to which the past and current situational vectors point. Argue away. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Leprof 7272, there's nothing to argue. If you have an issue with my specific edits, point them out and say why. If you have an issue with others, post on their talk pages or host a centralized discussion on your talk page, not here. --NeilNtalk to me 06:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Done, at my talk page. Respond or no, I do not care. (But do not delete from my page.) Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: No idea why you think I would delete it when I suggested doing just that. And you've already copied my response. By the way, the pings won't work so the editors won't get notifications. --NeilNtalk to me 07:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Care to explain why? Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: Because pings only work when they are accompanied by new signatures (~~~~). If you think about it, this makes sense otherwise you'd get pinged every time an existing post with a ping was moved or archived. --NeilNtalk to me 07:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. See, if you care to, you can teach old dogs new tricks. Granted, not without their begging, but that is what dogs are expected to do. Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272:This still won't work. You have to add a new signature, not modify an old one. Do you want me to do it for you? --NeilNtalk to me 07:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I erased the old, and re-signed with four tildas. If this is not creating a new signature, then I do not know how I could. Yes, do whatever will lay this to rest. Please. Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: Done. Erasing and replacing makes the system think you are modifying, not adding. The easiest way is to create a brand new post with a ping or delete the existing ping and signature in one edit and then re-add the ping and a new signature in a second edit. --NeilNtalk to me 08:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
TY, glad it is achieved. Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
AAH page
Dear Neil,
Wikipaedia has reported two issues with the AAH page:
1."This article relies too much on references to primary sources"
2."This section lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole"
My changes attempted to address both these issues.
Attempts to remove references to peer-reviewed articles and actual news events contravene Wikipaedia's stance as an unbiased information source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 15:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Aquapess: You realize the "undue weight" tag refers to the mass of text detailing the specific claims, right? --NeilNtalk to me 15:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how you can have a page about a specific theory without outlining the details of the theory and supporting facts. The article is overwhelmingly pitted against the theory and it lend undue weight to criticisms that are 25 years old now. Deleting references to recent papers or events from the last ten years is an attempt to stifle facts for the purpose of pushing your own point of view. Including things like Westenhoffer's political views are irrelevant, and there is no information on his wikipaedia page to suggest that he had strong Nazi leanings. It's not his fault that his country went through political turmoil at the time when he was alive, and it has no bearing on the AAH, which the article is supposed to be about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 15:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Aquapess: However you neglected to add the same criticisms exist as detailed in the sources you used. Wikipedia is not the place to push your personal theories and observations. --NeilNtalk to me 15:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry Neil, I don't understand. I can only imagine that you haven't looked at the sources I've added. I mentioned three peer reviewed articles, including one from leading palaeoanthropology journals such as "Evolutionary Anthropology". The article was written by leading anthropologist Robert Foley! I'm not sure if you have ever studied anthropology, but he is a huge figure in the field, anyone who has ever studied palaoanthropology would have heard of him.
And the note about David Attenborough is a fact which happened, not my opinion. Excluding it from the page would mean not keeping up with recent events. It happened almost two years ago, and has re-sparked the heated debate about AAH in the palaoanthropology community since then. I can't believe it has been neglected to be mentioned on the AAH page up until now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC) ]
Extra edit, I have just seen that Robert Foley is in fact so esteemed, that he actually has his own Wikipaedia page. He cowrote this paper last year. To not include it would mean that the Wikipaedia AAH page would be out of date
Robert Foley is not a "huge figure" in paleoanthropology. Having a wikipedia page is quite low bar and is not evidence of exceptional academic standing, just evidence of having been subject to third party coverage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I'm terribly sorry if a journal with an impact factor of 1.196 isn't quite good enough for you. The key quote in the article is "The AAH does not appear to have passed the peer review process" is nevertheless negated. The IF of "Evolutionary Anthropology" is 4.88. Do let me know when you publish something about Westenhoffer being a Nazi in a journal that even has an impact factor. It's double standards to keep a comment with no references, and then delete a comment with peer reviewed references to back it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
This topic must be incredibly hurtful to you. All we want is a chance to explain the theory properly, and Wikipaedia is supposed to be an "unbiased" source. But by only presenting the anti-AAH arguments using references from 1991, it's sadly failing to live up to its usual high standards. Times move on, and the opinion of a scientific community can change. It's time to update what is happening in the field of Palaoanthropology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Nothing is happening in the field of paleoanthropology in regards to AAH. Regardless of a few semi-celebrities signing on to some of the ideas. It is dead in the water so to speak. Being objective and unbiased means not letting proponents of fringe theories give more space to their ideas than the actual stading of those ideas in the scientific community merits. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, NeilN, thanks for getting in touch. I respect your decision to remove my recent contributions to the Inbound marketing page and if that is how you want the page to look, so it is.
But I had to send you this quick message just to mention that I disagree with what you mentioned about my addition being some sort of 'promotional' - it was not, I simply tried to make sure that page had a few curious facts: things that inbound marketers do, or better, how inbound marketing is usually practiced (nothing promotional about myself, someone else's job, and nor even a brand advertising)
Hi Carlos Eduardo Lovato Dare. Text like "A couple curious facts about inbound marketers are..." simply isn't encyclopedic and it would help if the source wasn't an inbound marketer. --NeilNtalk to me 22:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, please make "Dakshina Kannada" article, a Featured Article. --Simple-man-everyday (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Simple-man-everyday. From what I can see, the article needs work to first become a Good Article. For example, many statements are unsourced. Once that's taken care of, check that all the good article criteria have been met and probably ask for a copyedit. Then you can ask for an assessment. --NeilNtalk to me 02:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, can it be elevated to a 'B-Class' article right now ? --Simple-man-everyday (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, I've made the changes which you have specified to the article. Also a copy edit has been mentioned. Can a 'Good Article' assessment be made now ? --Simple-man-everyday (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Simple-man-everyday. The jump in expectations from a B-class article to a Good Article is a substantial one and any assessment of the current version would result in a quickfail because of existing issues. I've tagged the most obvious ones in the article. What I recommend:
Fix the identified issues while looking at articles like Shinan District and Rameswaram to see if you can structure/expand/trim the article to be better.
After that is done, ask for a copyedit.
After the copyedit is done, ask for a GA assessment
Hello NeilN, I've added citations to all the statements and trimmed the article. Also a copy edit has been mentioned. Can you review this article now? --Simple-man-everyday (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Simple-man-everyday:Please slow down and read the instructions more carefully.
The article will then be reviewed by an editor experienced with reviewing Good Articles (not me). This is not a quick process. Expect it to take 3-4 months. --NeilNtalk to me 14:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: 91.148.76.220, 91.148.83.244, 91.148.89.103 - too much collateral damage for a rangeblock, I think. --NeilNtalk to me 21:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Robert Sears.
Your edits are not neutral at all. All of my edits are sourced. I will be following up with dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookwormAtTheBorder (talk • contribs)
I just noticed my blunder, but you fixed it before I could.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: I have some CSS that renders pages nominated for deletion in bright pink on my watchlist. I saw VPP and went hmmmm.... --NeilNtalk to me 20:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
hey thanks!
Hello NeilN,
"I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Key (lock) because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you."
Thanks for letting me know.
Quick question: I read the Wikipedia policy but the verifiability of sources seems rather vague so I was thinking how should I improve on them?
Hi KaiserKIS. Sources need to be independent from the subject. Press releases from companies don't qualify. --NeilNtalk to me 21:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
edit on valmiki community post as some of the words insults the community which is punishible under sc/st act and IT act India
hello how are you sir what kind of references do you need kindly tell iam a student of a writer who writes on the matter in hindu religion it is written that brahmans come to this world from mouth vaishyas from chest rajputs from stomach and shudras from feet do you want me to give these kind of references from books of holy religions which were made just to keep the slaves of india always a slave. The things which i have said i obvious as valmiki community is a aboriginal community of india and they fought to keep aryans away from india as all know that aryans invaded india thats y they have been called warriors further any word or phrase that insults the comunity is punishible under prevention of attrocities on sc/st act India and also IT act i have discussed it from our lawyer. Also there is no data which tells that this community is traditionally of sweepers as in all the govt jobs there are all the communities kindly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atulaadvanshi (talk • contribs) 02:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Atulaadvanshi: We need modern academic or government sources, not religious tradition or beliefs. Note that any Indian law does not apply to Wikipedia or article content. I would steer far away from that justification per WP:NLT. --NeilNtalk to me 02:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
St. Laurence Justinian
Here's the Wikipedia link:[1]
Please correct your "correction?"
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agufdz (talk • contribs) 04:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Rider ranger47Talk 11:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
"I'm not sure why you're still continuing to complain instead of providing what every article needs" -
It's pretty simple. Jbhunley seems to be dogging my every step on Wikipedia now. To nominate an article when it has an "under construction" tag on it, is not only extremely inept, it's also pretty offensive. He's been going through dozens of articles I've written, and complaining about them - this is plainly a form of common-or-garden stalking, which would not be acceptable in a workplace. There are thousands of editors on Wikipedia, and I don't like being singled out by someone who has even fewer social skills than I do.
There are much more skilful ways of dealing with other editors than Jbhunley's. If he'd actually approached this in a more appropriate manner, we wouldn't be having this conversation.-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
MacRùsgail, the only unacceptable behavior here is yours. Being asked to provide a minimum of references to show notability does not warrant "you have serious psychological issues of your own" and "Go back and crawl under your rock you pathetic little man..." Your "under construction" article has had no sources to show notability for 21 days now. --NeilNtalk to me 17:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
"Being asked to provide a minimum of references to show notability" etc - Are you making any effort to see my point of view here? Apparently not. Please do. I've no idea what the current count of editors on Wikipedia is, but I suspect it is vast now, and some of them need a lot more attention than I am getting here I ask you to re-read what I said in that last paragraph.
Every time I come back on here, I find the same person bothering me. Listing a number of articles. Trying to destroy them without making any contribution which could be considered "co-operative". This has been going on for quite a while now. I regularly improve other people's articles. I don't go through their edit history trying to get it all deleted. Better to tag the article with something saying that references are needed, than "prod".
The manner that this has been conducted in is plain clumsy, and actually pretty offensive to me. This is what you need to consider. If this was a work place or even an academic institution, I would have recourse to some kind of redress or extension. But it's not.
"Your "under construction" article has had no sources to show notability for 21 days now." - For some reason I feel completely repulsed by Wikipedia right now, despite having been a member for years. Not only does this kind of attitude drive away new editors, I'm sure it's driving out the old ones too. Maybe folk need to rethink exactly why they are on Wikipedia. I know why I am. I don't know why certain others are. Maybe they need to rediscover whatever reason they had for joining. And they ask why virtually no women want to join Wikimedia.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
MacRùsgail, following basic Wikipedia policies is not a gender issue. If you create a problematic article, expect your other articles to be examined. As I just suggested, perhaps using the Draft space would be a good idea to get your articles ready. --NeilNtalk to me 18:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This isn't just about references within articles - it's about interpersonal skills. I am in no position to talk about these, but I feel like I'm dealing with a certain user who has even fewer than I do.
You still haven't made any effort to see my point of view, or why the way this has been conducted has created this situation. Wikipedia is written by a collection of human beings. If it is run in such a way to be a nuisance to regular users (even if it is "licenced") then it shall start to fail.
"following basic Wikipedia policies is not a gender issue" - I think you're missing the point here. I'm a man. I'm pointing out the obvious here - women would be even less tolerant of most of the nonsense on Wikipedia than men. Is it basic Wikipedia policy to single someone out so that they're unable to do much at all on in their time on Wikipedia? I don't come on here to have long discussions like this, but that's exactly what's happened. Is it more constructive to tag articles as needing references or to get rid of them? (I don't like deleting other people's articles unless they're truly awful.)
"As I just suggested, perhaps using the Draft space would be a good idea to get your articles ready" -Thanks toJbhunley, I've had pages in personal space interfered with indirectly by Jbhunley, and tagged articles put up for deletion minutes after I've written the first draft. You might want to consider why I find that irritating, or why someone singling a user out after behaving like that might also be irritating and counter-productive. (Actually if you're talking of personal attacks, there's an obvious one on me on the user's page.)
If I see someone going through everything I do, and trying to get it deleted rather than making a constructive method to help that article's evolution then I consider it harassment, and I should be allowed to call "foul".-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@MacRusgail: Articles that have no sources showing notability should be deleted. Jbhunley offered to work with you to find sources. "I really like science fiction so in the spirit of cooperation and moving beyond our conflict, maybe we can work together constructively to improve these articles. No question SF Encyclopedia is RS but WP:NAUTHOR requires more and it might be fun to see what there is on those people. Maybe you could point me to some of the sources you use since, based on your comments you do not like search engines." You came back with personal attacks. BTW, you may want to look at Wikipedia:Drafts. --NeilNtalk to me 18:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick drive-by. The only articles in MacRusgail's user space which have been touched by me are his talk page and when I moved an article, at AfD at the time, back into article space after he moved the article into his userspace and redirected it. He has done this twice. JbhTalk 19:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: And your digging has uncovered at least one significant mistake. --NeilNtalk to me 19:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
"He has done this twice." - Yes, because I never got much of a chance to edit the things, because of your rudeness. When you behave like this, I don't particularly wish to spend much time editing this website. Suggest you read this article. All three of us could do with more of it.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: You appear to have made no effort to see my POV here. I feel like I am talking to a robot or a Vulcan here.
Jbhunley has behaved in a highly inflammatory manner, with tagged articles, user space articles in at least one case, marking articles for deletion rather than attempting to improve them or to see them improved by tagging them etc. Also trawling through someone's edit history for a number of articles to get deleted is clearly a form of Schadenfreude and personal abuse, not the actions of a neutral editor.
I don't care whether or not he or she is hiding behind a rule book. Bullies often do. I have gone through all this, but you completely ignore my side of this argument, and are in fact encouraging said user to behave like this in future towards other editors. Hunley refers to this as a "career" - in a workplace one usually has recourse to tribunals etc.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
MacRùsgail, it's because you have no valid argument. Stop complaining about and insulting other editors and provide references that show notability for the articles you create. You might also want to acknowledge Jbhunley's work helped uncover a significant error in one of your articles. --NeilNtalk to me 19:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
My argument is perfectly valid. If one behaves in a certain way, it will p off other editors. It's called real life. It's quite plain and simple. You have made no effort to understand this. Do you understand that at all? (Well, you're obviously not reading much of what I say, so this is pretty pointless)
I'd like to see you and Hunley try treating people like this offline and seeing how your friends and significant others react. Try talking to your girl/boyfriend (or whatever) in this fashion and your relationship won't last five minutes.
Also, try following around someone for days on end (off the computer) and see how they react. At the very least they will set the police on you, or worse. But I don't even have that privilege on this tinpot website. I'm not even apparently able to ignore my molester unlike most websites either.
"You might also want to acknowledge Jbhunley's work helped uncover a significant error in one of your articles" - I don't call following someone about for days on end "work". If s/he wishes to "help" me, s/he can do so in a more skilful/irritating manner.-MacRùsgail (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC) p.s. Is any of this sinking in at all, or do you still think stalking is acceptable?
This isn't a personal relationship. All our contributions are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If they don't, other editors will probably take the appropriate actions. "Go away and leave me alone" is not an appropriate response when the content you're adding has issues. I suggest you get over having one of your articles being deleted and focus on any current content issues. --NeilNtalk to me 15:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@MacRusgail: Please tell me what would be a "more skillful manner". All I have ever asked you for are sources to back up your articles. The reason I have commented on, edited, AfD, BLPPROD several of your articles is they were simply not up to Wikipedia standards. Most editors would A - respond with the sources they had found while researching the article or B - let Wikipedia's editorial process take its proper course and allow the article to be improved by others or deleted. Both of which have happened with your articles. (Note they are not your articles, they are Wikipedia's. See WP:OWN). Your hysterical response has been in no way appropriate. When this started I had no opinion of you - I was looking at articles that needed improvement or deletion. Nothing more or less. Now I have formed an opinion, but it has absolutely no bearing on my opinion of the articles you created nor on my willingness to work with you. People often have off days and get off to rocky starts, me as much as anyone. Moving beyond those bad starts is what matters.
I listed several of your articles which I felt did not have adequate references and/or might not meet our notability guidelines. I then offered to work with you to improve them. Your response was, to be polite, uncivil. So, I ask you again, would you like to work to improve, or do you know where better sources can be found for, Joseph Addison (Scottish writer), James Peddie (author), Robert Hendrie Wilson, Mea Allan, Ismar Thiusen? These articles are all sourced to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction web site. It seems to have editorial control but you seem to have referred to it earlier as a "some user edited website" since you were contrasting it with the print edition. [21] which makes it not RS. Maybe I misread your comment and you were saying it is OK, they syntax was unclear so if you would clarify that would help me understand your position. These might be some interesting and notable authors but based on the information I can find there is no way to tell so your help finding sources would be appreciated. JbhTalk 17:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
re: one tree hill
for some reason you've dismissed my edits as "vandalism" and reverted them. i think if you look at the wiki page for the television show "one tree hill" it will be obvious to you that its presence on wikipedia is highly inappropriate--it would fit in much more on an unofficial fan-wiki. the length and detail is unjustifiable. perhaps a compromise can be reached where the page is allowed to run with a skeletal amount of the info it now contains but in the interim i feel total deletion is the most sensible option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:D000:909:39EB:9566:8B58:1823 (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If you want to trim the article, propose specific trims on the talk page. Deleting the entire article is not an option. --NeilNtalk to me 01:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I am the source as I am his head of investments and have been asked to correct this page. Do you need a reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saudiexp (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Please read below. --NeilNtalk to me 18:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
information is correct
Dear sir,
I am the head of the family office. I have been asked to correct his Wiki page. The information added was correct and factual.
How can i straighten this out with you. We are trying to update his Highness profile as its incorrect and we have spent 1 hour on this now...Saudiexp (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Saudiexp: Please follow the directions here. You will need to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org verifying you own the copyright to the image. --NeilNtalk to me 16:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Phil Copperman
Basically, all editors have the right to revert any contributions made by an editor in violation of a ban, and Phil Copperman is a confirmed WP:SOCKPUPPET. I need first to revert what I can and then editors are free to make relevant changes afterwards. I see you reverted me at Emmerdale and I have no problem with that. --Mario Payne (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted back my edit and that I should gain consensus on that user's talk page. All I did was consolidate a large paragraph that basically boiled down to "Many health organizations advise limiting intake of saturated fat". Drawing that out to a large paragraph of listing a bunch of organizations seems biased to me, like someone wants to really emphasize this point. And even I agree that you should limit saturated fat intake, but that paragraph really does not read like one you would see in a professional encyclopedia...
I just want to know how this works...So I write what I basically wrote here on that person's talk page? And what happens if that person doesn't agree? Does that mean my content on antimicrobial effects is effectively never going to reach that page?
I noticed a lot of edits on coconut oil were removed, some with good sources and mentioning other studies that have nothing to do with saturated fat, like my section mentioning the antimicrobial effects and cited studies. Who's supposed to be on the defensive side here?
Maybe I don't understand the Wikipedia process, but it seems like it's going down a slippery slope if it's completely censoring entire sections of content, like antimicrobial effects. Why couldn't the last three people, including you, keep the content I wrote about antimicrobial effects, while maintaining that long-winded paragraph every seems to love about saturated fat--which quite frankly is oversimplified, since coconut oil is composed of medium chain triglycerides, which are metabolized differently than long chain triglycerides. But I didn't want to go down that route because somehow I knew someone would delete that content, despite me being able to source at least 5-6 journal articles on that. Instead, all I did was consolidate that long-winded paragraph into what should've been a sentence, and keeping the original sources in tact.
Are we entering a dark age of information? or am I simply missing the point? Wouldn't the more balanced thing be to include studies that go against what I wrote, rather than pretending that what I wrote simply isn't true? given that the information I wrote is properly sourced from journals?
I find this pretty disturbing, because a lot of people are relying on wikipedia for information and balanced view points. And completely removing material that sourced from multiple journal articles (repeated studies) seems to be some kind of info war. Am I wrong here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.61.2 (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi 89.205.61.2. The first step is to try to hash out any issues on the article's talk page. If that fails, and you feel your policy and guideline-based arguments aren't being heard, you can try the different options outlined at WP:DRR. --NeilNtalk to me 21:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi
Hi i was not pretending to be you that was my cousin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesarmistead25 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked both (?) those jokers. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC).
I think it's unnecessary to use plural in this situation.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Bishonen: I see both young editors have been unblocked. Who knew Bishzilla had a maternal instinct? :) --NeilNtalk to me 21:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Bishzilla is practically a soccer mom these days.[22] Very dull. :-( Stuffs everybody into her pocket, more or less gently. Anyway, one of the rapscallions has got himself a promising mentor (no, it's not Bishzilla), so I won't stand in the way. Bishonen | talk 22:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC).
Scientific misconduct
Please pinpoint where is an attack in the recent addition to Individual cases/Scientific misconduct? The details of the plagiarism affair in Israel are well known in the entire scientific community, they are well-documented both in Hebrew and English language media, so what is the reason to delete them? The most problematic point in editing the original variant is a constant removal by XXanthippe and NeilN the information on the relatively fresh retraction in conference proceedings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HITplagiarism (talk • contribs) Xgolf (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 06:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Xgolf, thanks for changing your user name. The wording of "after the academic dishonesty of Dr. Spivak has not been openly denounced by the HIT officials and the plagiator was even awarded a sabbatical leave (which is not a vested right of the faculty in Israeli colleges). In May 2015 (apparently during his sabbatical), yet another paper was retracted from the NumAn-2014 Conference Proceedings." makes it clear you are trying to use the article as a soapbox. Please write in a more neutral tone. --NeilNtalk to me 13:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
why you posting on my wall bro? do i even no u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xelophate (talk • contribs) 16:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Xelophate: I have the article you're edit warring over on my watchlist. --NeilNtalk to me 16:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Haha, on of the funnier replies that I have seen on Wikipedia. AcidSnow (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, but...
The people involved in the "edit war" always revert anything I make. They asked for a source, I provided a source. Sure, it may be from a patriot group, but their intention and reasoning is best stated from the group themselves, correct? Also, the previous sources (NPR and the SPLC), are known to attack these groups as "hateful". So, I attempted to find consensus, but these people are just too childish. I think there really needs to be a lock on that page for this reason. Thanks! User talk:Hamjamguy
@Hamjamguy: Your "source" did not back up anything you added to the article. If you think NPR and the SPLC are poor sources you can take that up at WP:RSN. I wouldn't hold out much hope though, based on this discussion. --NeilNtalk to me 16:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
hi,
Hope you are fine!
Pashto is the official language of peshawar not punjabi languages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.83.86.154 (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You are repeatedly adding unsourced material to Peshawar which is not fine. Please read our verifiability policy. --NeilNtalk to me 07:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please play fair
In the thread: Original research: "Islam and Judeophobia" you WP:ASSERTed "Lots and lots of verbiage from GregKaye in the move review, with very little support for his position or behavior" which was followed by a repetition of a WP:WEASEL insinuation that I had been making "big waves". In doing so you also WP:CANVASSED an editor from a move review which you will know, from reading the content, went way against conventions in how such reviews are meant to be handled. I replied clearly specifying the clear policy support in relation to the RM and have reflected on a personal conduct which I hold to have been comparatively civil. You have neither replied nor struck your defamatory assertions. When you have arguments to present please do so but please argue the arguments and not the editor. GregKaye 14:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: I believe my assessment of this discussion is accurate and I usually ping editors I quote. May I remind you that this started when you said I was being disingenuous and when I asked you if you were complaining about a dash, you gave a completely unclear reply. --NeilNtalk to me 14:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Assuming, from your above comments that you were previously unaware of the three previous discussions, I apologise for my, "whether by intention or not" comment. This was made in the context of a use of searches that would have picked up terms such as "anti-Semitism" while you had displayed mention of "antisemitism". Please also be aware that the move review was closed subsequent to the fair closure of the discussion at Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism. I hold to the I think reasonable view that I expressed early on in the Move Review discussion that it was this discussion that was the "the waste of time". GregKaye 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Verification
NeilN - thanks for clarifying this for me.
Could you please advise how I can send you certificates that will verify my claims?
Please advise.
Fredrick
124.171.181.114 (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. You had reverted my edit to Brian Day as "not vandalism", however the policy says that the use of multiple user accounts/sock puppets to maintain the article in one state falls under that heading (under "gaming the system"). If i'm wrong in reading it that way, that's fine, but that user (and his doppelgangers) has consistently been an issue on the page, and Kathleen5454's version was an attempt at consensus.
How can I help to restore the article without falling afoul of the rules?
Everton's other account has been blocked and from what I can see, their version had needed {{cn}} tags and removed some unsourced material. --NeilNtalk to me 02:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A site you may find interesting
While looking for an old BBC4 radio broadcast I found this site BBC World Service Radio Archive. It has many (But alas not all.) recordings of old BBC broadcasts. Thought you might find it interesting. JbhTalk 14:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
احمد السقاف, the Ring Magazine source might be credible but all the military stuff in the Wikipedia article is unsourced or does not appear in the sources given. --NeilNtalk to me 17:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
My edit removed
Hi,
I added link in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_translation and you removed that with flag Spam, may I ask you how this is spam. If the page is talking about technical translation, I think i can refer a site which has content related to technical translation, that website which I added the link has a good article on it.
Tenkasi Subramanian, I removed a post from a sockpuppet of a blocked editor. As it is your talk page, you are free to restore the post if you wish. --NeilNtalk to me 19:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello
hey how are you?--Xelophate (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
How high up are you on the moderator ladder? just wondering because you have two colours on your name lol--Xelophate (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Xelophate: Anyone can have colors in their signature and user page name. --NeilNtalk to me 01:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh cool, can you link me to an how-to on how to do it? and also how can I become a moderator? thanks NeilN--Xelophate (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
To customize your name in the title of your talk page add a line at the top something like this: {{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>}}
To become an administrator, stick around a couple years, make thousands of productive edits, participate in discussions, and gain the trust of the community that you know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and won't abuse the administrator tools.
I want a proof related to topic babbu mann world music award winner indian artist. There is no evidence on internet yet and i hope you also don't have. I posted as i know you will made change and i can contact you then.
The solution to this is to bring it up on the article's talk page or to remove the unsourced/poorly sourced material, not to accuse the subject of lying. I've added a proper source. --NeilNtalk to me 12:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
So if you think you added proper source then give any proof or i have to talked about this or make it proper source with no award winner that it true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.99.91 (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Look at the source I added to the article. [23] If you continue to add defamatory material to the article you will be reported and probably blocked. --NeilNtalk to me 12:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
After a 6 months search i found these result only on indian websites and wikipedia. I don't want to put wrong word lying or something but i want you to please search it on global not locally in india. I found may artist who won award in 2014 include - china, japan, arab but there were nothing mention about indian singers or babbu mann. So if you have a record of world music award then please make it on wiki. I just emailed as contact on music award to get these information you may also can do. After i get revert i will add a link here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.133.251 (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The Times of India seems to be a reliable source. Again, if you dispute the content, remove it, don't add your own commentary about how the subject is lying. --NeilNtalk to me 13:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Bill Green Hammer Thrower
Why in the world do you keep reverting my edits? Please explain your comment "article not about Jack", when the article clearly names him and his selection for ODP semi finals. What could be the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.208.95.194 (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article is not about the subject's son and "accomplished athlete" is a bit flowery. --NeilNtalk to me 19:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I really don't understand how this works, how can being one of only 70 boys in the country in water polo not be an "accomplished athlete", and how can other facts about the subject of the article's family be acceptable, but no the fact about one of them developing a second sports career not be? Do you have a bias, or are you uninformed about USA Water Polo Olympic Development? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.208.95.194 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't care about USA Water Polo Olympic Development with respect to that article as it is about Bill Green, hammer thrower. The entire article has always suffered from conflict of interest editing from Green and his associates who try to stick in as many "accomplishments" as they can, even if they're not Green's. --NeilNtalk to me 20:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
How does an editor appeal to an unbiased Wikipedia monitor? I asked that question already. You appear to be reaching for whatever excuse you can come up with to thwart entry. Are there other people's editorial opinions that count in this process? How do I get others who are objective into this process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.208.95.194 (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
You can use the article's talk page Talk:Bill Green (hammer thrower) to solicit other opinions. Some of my talk page watchers may chime in here, too. --NeilNtalk to me 20:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Please read WP:COATRACK. If the kid is not notable in his own right, you will not be permitted to coatrack him in the article about his dad. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Adminship?
So, I was just answering your request at RFPP, and I was astounded to realise that you aren't an admin. Would you like to run for RfA? I saw this, but I don't think you need to worry too much about your relative lack of content contributions. Going back in your contribs, I see article work (e.g. NetMarket), copy editing, and very good knowledge of our content and sourcing policies, which should be enough to show people that you know what needs to go into an article. And your prolific and accurate contributions in vandal-fighting and other administrative areas will be more than enough to assuage content-contribution concerns at RfA, in my opinion. If you're willing to run, let me know and I'll write you up a nomination. Best — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 03:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I haven't done a search for skeletons in your closet - and you know how people are at RfAs - but based on what I know about you, I'd encourage you to run.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Frankly if I could conscript Neil into adminship, I would. If "not enough content contributions" is your only reason for hesitating, you shouldn't. Such contributions are primarily important to establish that an editor appreciates the purpose and understands policies of wikipedia, and having seen your edits for a long time, I don't think there is any doubt on either of those point. Not running for RFA is the only poor judgment I have seen from you! Abecedare (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius, Bbb23, and Abecedare:Zad68 encouraged me to run about a month ago. I haven't answered as I've been really busy with work but that looks to be returning to a normal level now. No skeletons in my closet, I don't think, as my history has been looked over by a couple admins already (I was actually getting ready for an RFA last December but my nominator went and got himself elected to Arbcom). So, yes, if you draft a nomination, I'll run. --NeilNtalk to me 04:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Like from my interactions with you, I would definitely support an RfA. Now of course I will wait till I see what the anti-adminship people dig up from how every many years ago that you may have done one thing wrong, but from what I know of you, I would support it. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Yay! Glad to be the last straw to break the camel's back. :)
The nomination is now ready at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NeilN. Take your time to fill out the three questions, and when you are ready to start, go ahead and transclude it on WP:RFA. (Or I can do that part; whichever works best for you.) Also, now is the time to ask for any co-nominations if you want them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 15:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Mr. Stradivarius. I'm about to head out for the day but will answer the questions tomorrow. Zad68, Abecedare would you be willing to co-nom? Absolutely no pressure. --NeilNtalk to me 15:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Gladly. Will do so within the next 24 hours. Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Finally, after all those trolls we get a real RfA candidate :) Good work convincing NeilN to run folks. --regentspark (comment) 17:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Delighted! Neil things have gotten busier for me IRL since a few weeks ago and I'm having a hard time finding a big chunk of time to write up an awesome comprehensive nom statment. I'll happily write something for you, short and sweet, as a nom statement if you want to wait for it, but feel free to transclude when you're ready even if I don't get it done in time for the noms' section. Nom nom nom. Zad68 02:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
RFA has been transcluded and is now live. Thanks to all. --NeilNtalk to me 20:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I will (and I'll enjoy) - Thanks Denisarona (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Help me and make check the edit.
Dear Neil, first of all thank you for welcoming me. I was editing and adding citation to a page "civil engineering" and I found out that one of the Youtube link i.e. Reference no. 18 is not displaying properly. While the video url should have pointed a video of Shake Table Crash Testing, its infact poiting to the main page of YouTube. Please fix the issue, and teach me as well to fix such errors.
Dear Neil, first of all, the free web hosting services page was asking for adding citations. So, I added a citation. Corrected some language structure. Why is the citation being reverted every now and then.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. stop edit warring. allow other views in talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdteda (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Please do not delete correct information, as you did at Black people, without citing adequate reasons why the article is too lengthy (which is the only valid reason to delete correct information that I can think of currently). Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and take this opportunity to become aware of basic and obvious logic that you cannot usually prove (nor "cite") the fact that people do NOT do something. ~Rayvn 00:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Like from my interactions with you, I would definitely support an RfA. Now of course I will wait till I see what the anti-adminship people dig up from how every many years ago that you may have done one thing wrong, but from what I know of you, I would support it. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Like Would support too! - Cwobeel (talk)
