User talk:NeilN/Archive 3
 | 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. |
Thank You for this kind of Welcome, I wish to categorise all pages which are false freinds (like you) in order to have a complete list. Thanks BriefError (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Superbad
The links were unnecessary, as they have no article. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 15:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that, but almost every single article that could be created would have no purpose, as mos tof the actors mentioned have no notable career, except in Superbad. I doubt anyone is going to create an article about unheard-of actors...unless you want to. ElisaEXPLOSiON
talk.15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks! 2fruition (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)2fruition
Userpage vandalism
Thanks! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
You have been 3 granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessens the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, which means that you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [rollback] (which should appear unbolded if you have twinkle installed) on the lastest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
A question
Why did you delete on September 28 that about Argentine shooting?. Is it necessary the article about this shooting to put it into September 28? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.119.62 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh! I understood, absolutely. Thanks for your time. 190.49.119.62 (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Vaginal Euphamisms
Don't see anything on your link that says an article can't contain a subsection on euphamisms.
HOMEGAIN
I am extremely frustrated... the homegain entry was repeatedly vandalized by actual homegain employees and I am the one being reprimanded by having this page taken down. Homegain is notable because it was the first online real estate lead generation companies that was strictly web based. it also adds to your real estate wiki. Like the others referenced in this wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zillow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZipRealty et al http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Real_estate_companies_of_the_United_States If you look at the history you will see that I have explained this on numerous occaisions and it is the "admins" of this site that is protecting the ones who should really be banned from editing I would like an explanation as to who & why this article keeps being deleted.Tweedlebugb (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Replied here: [2]
Replied at my talk. Pedro : Chat 16:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Muhammad
Hi NeilN, I think Rosywounds was correct in removing the Isra/Mi'raj image. Stylistically, the section is sandwiched between two images which makes for poor presentation, and I think one image is sufficient for this section. So the question is which we should prefer. I think the Aqsa image is better for numerous reason: a) A photograph of the actual site of ascension is much more relevant than a low-quality persian minature drawn over half a dozen centuries later, b) there have been valid concerns raised that the article currently over-emphasises the tradition of depiction, which throughout history remained a minority one. Removing those which are of lesser significance to the article helps us stay on the right side of WP:UNDUE (I raised these concerns here and elsewhere), and goes a long way towards resolving this dispute. ITAQALLAH 13:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Discussions are usually archived quite quickly or moved to the images subsection. Removal of the image was part of a proposal I made here, and it was also raised recently on the talk page here. ITAQALLAH 14:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Spice Girls
I have read those guidelines, and there is nothing that prevents my link from being inserted. It includes content that cannot be contained in the article. And I do not appreciate you accusing me of using robots to include links when this is obviously not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baselineace (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Spice-Girls.org is a complete web site, not a web page or blog. It is also not a personal web page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baselineace (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Fact of the matter is, there is no concrete rule denying this from being included. You're just exercising your personal judgment, not following Wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baselineace (talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I saw your talkpage comments to this user - thanks for taking a robust line with them, these links are clearly inappropriate and push a fairly specific point of view too, even if its one I personally have sympathy with. Keep up the good work, Gwernol 17:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Concerning your edit to Flyleaf
The three sources next to the genre all say Christian rock, but you switched it to Alternative rock. Please do not do this again.Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for the prank. It was an inside-joke with a friend that we wanted to show to more friends. I knew someone would revert the edit. However, seeing as this is not the purpose of wikipedia and that it is probably a waste of time to administrators, I would like to present my apologies and certify that I will not do it again. Harbinger5119 (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Neil. I've removed your prod of Nancy Marie (actress) since Paris Match is a reliable source. I have some concerns myself about the notability of this actress, but I think there is enough there that an AfD debate is needed. Thanks, Gwernol 00:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think an AfD is a good idea - I don't have that issue of Paris Match myself (or, truthfully, any issues of Paris Match) and its even possible the whole thing is a hoax. As you say, nothing on Google and the IMDB entry is no help. A debate on this with more knowledgeable editors involved would be good. Best, Gwernol 01:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This was all a mistake. What was accidentally published was a rough draft. Not complete at all. My apologies. Feel free to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanjones65 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Bridge to the Stars Links
responded on my talk page krebbe (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You have just reverted without joining the talk page discussion in which consensus was established. Please join the discussion or withdraw. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Seedfolks
Thanks. Sometimes, vandals like to vandalise a page then revert back themselves, thus escaping a warning. I don't like them doing that, so when I see an IP with two consecutive edits on a page, removing vandalism, I roll their contributions back and warn them, under the pretense that they put it there in the first place. Will (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The Abuse
Thanks for reverting it. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I just received a warning for reverting edits, I need help
I was warned not to revert deletions made by editors.
I want to know, how do I know that the person making the deletions is the editor?
I had posted the matter being put up for discussion on the talk page. In fact, one of the editors had done it for me. I had created a wikipedia page as per the advice given to me on the topic by several editors. They also asked me to add abstracts in the page on Homosexuality, Gay, etc.
Now, I acted accordingly. Now, why should anyone delete the short abstract that I have added as per the instructions at the discussion page -- without giving a warning. If its an editor, isn't he or she supposed to guide me through the proper procedure, after the content have already been approved by several other editors on the talk page.
How do I know that the person who is reverting the changes is an editor and not a Saboteur.
Please help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs) 16:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Neil. This sounds like haughtiness and an abuse of authority to me. In the past, whenever my changes were reverted I received a notice.
Also, just to give a terse personal judgement "original research" (and that's it) is definitely not helpful if we wish to make wikipedia really meaningful, especially when I've included dozens of published references in my article, and when so many other editors have approved of it. Anyways, to cut a long story short, I will now discuss the changes at the 'gay' page here. (Masculinity (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
Thanks. I have no doubts about original research. And, My research is NOT original. I am quoting from several researches around the world. Their voices may be deafened by the loud aggressive activism of the western society engrossed in the concepts of sexual orientation, but, still, their researches are part of the mainstream. They're from Universities, UN bodies, social workers, and so on. (Masculinity (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
BBC Vandalism
I noticed that you reverted some edits on the BBC page. I've notice that the same edits keep getting put back in. I'm not sure how to report it, but it seems like someone is pushing the same POV material. Also, it looks like the anonymous user created a user name to add the info back. Could you give me a hand with it? Thanks for your help. Tnxman307 (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the assist. I've also stopped reverting per 3RR. How do you report sockpuppetry/ vandalism? All of the reporting pages I saw looked like they were for user talk pages. Thanks again. Tnxman307 (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There was no intentional sockpuppetry intended, I am a new user and simply forgot to log in properly. I am concerned that small non partisan edits I am making are being instantly removed as they are not "on message" with the corporate look and feel of the BBC page. Please assure me you are not BBC employees tasked with ensuring on the BBC's version of interpretation is presented on this page. The small changes I have made are either a counterbalancing opposing view to a POV sentence directly after it was astated, or the addition of referenced fact. Supcom (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your edits are definitely not non-partisian. At least three editors felt they violated wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Also, you have broken the three revert rule and could be blocked from editing very easily. Please discuss your changes on Talk:BBC and provide reliable references supporting your edits. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I refer you to my previous point of BBC corporate vanity. I am willing to enter arbitration on this if required with neutral 3rd parties. Supcom (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
[12], much appreciated. Tiptoety talk 17:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
User page
No problem. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Odd warning sequence
Why did you follow up my level 3 warning with a level 2 warning for the exact same edit?Kww (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Please stop my correct and legal adds "to business plan"
All content added by me is fully in line with rules and relevant content !Munnifar (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Dude
An editor has nominated Dude, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dude and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Help!
I received several notifications by you that my editing on pages was not following wikipedia's guidelines and that I would be trying to add spamming links. However, I do understand that wiki uses the nofollows links and I truly think that the pages to which I added External links (for example http://football.topicbook.co.uk/ to which I added a link on the Premier league page). I did read the guidelines and I'm truly sorry if I maybe misread or misunderstood something. But I'd like you to tell me exactly what the problem is with the links that I added, as they only link to pages that can provide further information.CocoKloess (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Replied here [15] --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 11:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So even though the pages are informative and helpful to people, the fact that they only include links makes it impossible to link to them?? and if yes, should I just delete all the edited external links that I've added, because some of them didn't seem to be registered as bad or unuseful yet???CocoKloess (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry bout the inconvenience...CocoKloess (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for [17]. I will keep on finding refs. :) --Ubardak (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Cobalt
It tells me to put the {{Hangon}} in there, so dont complain when i am being told to do it to contest the deletion, also i am trying to edit the damn thing and people like you are trying to get it deleted. I would appreciate it if you would please stop trying to get my first article deleted, Thank you and have a nice day. AnnaJGrant (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- replied here:
[19] AnnaJGrant (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Please, just tell me why you seem to want to delete my article so badly? why oh why must you insist on getting it deleted? AnnaJGrant (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well i have thrown an email to get the group added to the server's "Notable Channels" list. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from deleting my article until i get a reply. Thank You AnnaJGrant (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you are in the process of editing an article AnnaJGrant than may I suggest placing an underconstruction or inuse tag. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Re thanks
No probs, I would expect the same of any other decent editor at any time! -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
maya calendar refs
So, since I clearly am not allowed to pull from my own human brain.. how might I go about referencing changes. I am going to have to find web sites which hold the same... theories.............. as I stated, which of course won't be difficult.. but I find it really annoying that I need to go do that since they are theories and have no backing ANYWAYS.. especially with the fact I've got a few assignments to finish coding and debugging for classes. So yea.. how does web site referencing work? I read the citing sources page, but it only seemed to have anything useful if I had book references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagenth (talk • contribs) 04:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Ugh
I still do not see why you think this is Vandalism, I was adding a link to a RuneScape Fansite. To my knowledge there are allowed to be three fansites, only two of which are displayed. RuneHead is a big and well developed fansite and I think it should be on said list. Along with FunOrb, it is a Jagex LTD Site, and it works in cooperation with RuneScape, therefore it should be on there to determine that it is a safe site.
Cloudsfinalh (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok I may of been off about the Fansite, but the FunOrb I still believe should be there-
Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable.
The inclusion of this is justifiable, it is a Jagex LTD owned site.. And it works in co-operation with RuneScape.
Cloudsfinalh (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Bio
How do I write a proper Bio for myself then? Looking for assistance so I follow your rules.
Air Secure, Inc (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Revert
You're welcome, NeilN. I could protect your userpage too if you want.- Gilliam (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Azcom
I can't be certain but I remember there were a number of azcom articles deleted the other day. They were all various spellings of the company name. I'm going to look into it. Just FYI.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've opened a sockpuppet case against the AZcom people, if you see anything strange please report it to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wingedasher--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
trollin
i agree, I don't think i have spoken like this on wikipeida, I am adding fuel to the fire... I like large fires. Just like they (who?) say, you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs! (my reputation is an egg ^_^ ) cheers symode09's 07:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
| 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. |