User talk:NeilN/Archive 6

Help Requested

Sir ,why are you removing all the info i am giving. Its a unversal fact , and till today the aspertame article have been misleading people by stating its safe. No its not. If you dont know that then just go and ask or enquire at any amearican or ur countries health center, which is fairly reputed. And then you will know the seriousness . Wikipedia should help and save people not kill them. So please..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.26.156 (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Experiential Marketing

I received a message from you asking me not to add links to Wikipedia - I was in fact adding a definition and a reference to this page. The definition is still there, however I believe that it should be appropriately referenced - please correct me on how to reference this properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.215.203 (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note about the Mullazai dispute

What do you make of this? A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 20:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. My guess is they'll go off-wiki to discuss changes to the article in their native tongue which they're more comfortable in. I think this is ok as long as they present their proposed changes on the talk page first. We may have to reiterate WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:COI at that point in time. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Come to my talk page for the rest of the conversation- note that edit made the sockpuppetry obvious, so I blocked newsfuse. Also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#proposed topic ban for User:AurangzebMarwat tedder (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

please review

U had added a peacock banner to the article Tourism in Puducherry. Thanks for the review. I have edited the article and removed most of those terms. please review the article and give u r opinion. thank u. Varun_swm

Replied at Talk:Tourism in Puducherry --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I Comitted Vandalism????

How is adding a tag that says they have too much spam vandalism??? Did you see how many links they had, on the Call of Duty 2 article? That is considered advertising. So i added the tag, does that sound like vandalism to you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuzfreak777 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here but speedy deletion tags are for when the whole article should be deleted, not just content in it. Jesuzfreak, I suggest you look here. Furthermore, pages that are more than a few days old rarely get speedily deleted. Also, all the links in the body of the article are just to other wikipedia pages. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 03:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I "tagged" you because it seemed you were making test edits. [1] --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

NECESSARY Discussion

you have removed Links from Mullazai without discussn,explain.Please58.65.166.154 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

Lester Coleman

The additions I have made are attributed as required under wiki rules. REF> NY Newsday, a daily newspaper in Long Island, NY. where Coleman was in court. Deleted this accurate material will cause you to be blocked from editing this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.87.62 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be a degree of doubt and blp issues surrounding this addition, imo it is better at this time to leave it out as regards the blp issues and not the legal threat. Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please wade through the talk page as it has a history of bad faith edits. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have read some of the discussion, whether is has a source or not it is disputed controversial material and until the discussion is over it should be left out. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied at BLPN. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The deletions occurred AFTER a court ruling against wikipedia in the US District, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NOT a precursor to filing same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.215.80 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt you're telling the truth. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no room for your opinion..." I highly doubt you're telling the truth." You are why wiki has fallen into the abyss of credibility. Who is NeilN anyway? A woose who wouldn't know fact if it fell on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.215.80 (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no room here for unsubstantiated untrue assertions. Any court ruling against "Wikipedia" would be mentioned prominently on the site and a note would be placed on the talk page by a Wikimedia Foundation member. Now, please go away and do your trolling somewhere else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please advise and provide written guidelines that disallow the use of public legal documents as sources on wikipeida.org. You have deleted a verified fact, with legal attribution. Most importantly you have deleted a statement posted by the US Justice Department Civil Rights Division related to a court decision against Wiki citing damages of $250,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpanycecelia (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hey Neil, whats going on there there still seems to be a problem, why the reverting? Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What revert are you referring to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The latest ones, there still seems to be an issue there? Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I reverted [2]? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I did look, I am only asking you what is the situation there in general, not in regards to any single reverts. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You asked about reverting. The only reverts since the 19th have been done by me to remove unsourced info and the laughable claim that Wikipedia was successfully sued for $250K. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in knowing that the sockpuppet responsible for altering the Lester Coleman page has a history of altering several related pages. Mr. Coleman provided an affidavit which tied him to these pages, several of which I have posted notices in the discussion area. I am not a regular editor to wikipedia, I do not wish to use improper protocol, and since there are active homicide investigations and recent media coverage, it is harmful to my family and others to let these problems go unresolved. Please let me know if you have any problem with my posts in the talk section of Inslaw, Danny Casolaro, Michael Riconosciuto. I don't want to spam everyone related to editing these pages, I'm hoping you and/or Off2riorob would be able to direct me as to proper protocol if I have made any errors.Winksatfriend (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)winksatfriend

Gnome

Dear NeilN,

sorry, if I´am have do an mistake.

Your are very importend here and I go back to my isle. First I think, WIKIPEDIA is an open Information-Book. But it isn´t so.

Sorry again, you are welcome.

Regards, A. Klein —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Klein (talk • contribs) 00:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

hmph I think you scared him off? saw this on RC- 4twenty42o (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I get it now though he was trying to add August Heissner, who is the co-creator of garden gnomes - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to, just wanted him to stop adding advertising material to the article. I did give him a customized warning and replied to his comment on the talk page. Re: Heissner - that should need a source, I'm thinking. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello NeilN!

it is ok, you are a good one. I give the whole informations to the Wikipedia-Management. If I get an feedback will I inform you. Do what you think and have a good live. I´am sure, that you are a big boy in real live, isn´t it? Fine. Have a good life but don´t forget, we all are HUMANS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Klein (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

1919

no problem--78.180.10.15 (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove my comments

You removed my comments on the Thierry Henry article's discussion page. I was merely pointing out a good piece of vandalism. The edit which I linked to has become quite famous in itself having being copied onto FHM UK's website and newsletter communications. Not all vandalism is bad. Some of it can be funny and in real life too - like when people ammend street signs adding on the number of kilometres/miles to Timbuktu or some other far far away place.--Xania ^talk 22:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You were also encouraging people to use the talk page as a forum. This is not acceptable. Plus, not everyone shares your sense of humour - quite a few women take offense to the word that was sprinkled liberally throughout the vandalized version you linked to. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks...

...for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Nice to know someone's got my back! Jusdafax 18:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Least I could do as you took care of my talk page. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

sorry

sorry! plz reply on my page Shadowgcat333 (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fresh start

It would be my pleasure to assist in the talks and to help with research. I cannot read written Japanese, but I do have a translator pretty close to home if that would help at all. I do appreciate all of your help on this. When I stumbled into this mess I had no idea what I was getting into. Its kinda nice to know I have a little more help. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Energy being

Please join the conversation on the talk page; the editor isn't getting it (yours or my objection), and I feel the article needs some clarity as to its goal before moving forward. Thanks. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Referencing to an event

Hello Neil. It wasn't clear maybe to whom I was talking (Peter or you) in my reply on the WGKF talk page, but when it comes to the question about an extra reference, it was addressed to you. I wouldn't ask Peter anything any more, except rhetorical questions. After 6 years of trying, I found that there is no way of communicating with him, even when he gets the evidence thrown right in his face, he will categorically deny it. Thereby, the only goal of Peter is to get WGKF removed, preferably dragging Genseiryu and GKIF with it. Why? I don't know. Ask him... But in many discussions about Genseiryu or WGKF here on Wikipedia he said, repeatedly, that his wish is to see the articles removed. Quite destructive, isn't it? He calls himself so "constructive", but wanting an article gone, is not constructive, but destructive. He actually tried the same thing on the Dutch Wikipedia, but didn't succeed... Now, I do want to be constructive. I've helped a lot with creating a NPOV article about Genseiryu on the Dutch Wikipedia, on which Peter Lee got blocked for a year after many warnings and other blocks ([3], [4], to name a few)! Makes you think, doesn't it? Anyway, to the subject, I have two websites that directly refer to the event of the tournament, held by the WGKF in 2008. One of them belongs to the Federation itself (the one I posted earlier, and I think you should have a closer look at that link, it even holds the official results of the tournament), the other one belongs to a (slightly) different karate style, so that one is not a 1st party reference, but at least a 2nd party, maybe even 3rd. I am trying to find more references, but it's difficult, since everything is in Japanese. Will these two references do, to mention the event? An event that should be mentioned in the article WGKF, to show that they are not just sitting on their buttocks, but they are actually doing something! Quite important, in my view. Anyway, nobody can deny the event happened. It's like denying the Summer Olympics of 2008 ever took place... So, please tell me, if it will do if I mention another reference, which is at least 2nd party? MarioR 21:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Help Requested

Hi there. It seems to me, that Mario Roering has commenced in yet another edit war here: Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation. It was changed, then I reverted the changes once, and now it has occurred again. As I will not submit to enter an edit war and/or violate the rules of Wikipedia, I hereby request your help. It is obvious that these attacks are done by Mario Roering, even though these attacks are done "anonymously", they attack the same issues we are now discussing on the WGKF talkpage. Further, attacks have commenced on my person on YouTube in the last 24 hours as have his continued attacks on his own personal homepage. It is clear to me, that Mario Roering's aim is not the creation of articles on karate, Genseiryu or any other noble aim, but only to attack and diminish the view in which people see me, as well as stepping on the GKIF and Genseiryu in general in a way to promote himself and/or the WGKF. This behavior should be stopped and consequences should ensue. He will not stop his attacks and infringements be it Wikipedia rules or the law of his own country nor any other law. He does whatever he wants, using whatever means he see fit, even if this means breaking rules and/or the law. 4-5 years ago, I was also part in the crap he caused here on Wikipedia, but at the same time he created so many homepages using "free webhosting" various places on the Internet. I spent a lot of time getting these homepages removed and I succeeded. Thus he ended up hosting his hateful content on his own homepage, which so far I have had no luck in removing as the owners of the servers/company has never responded to my mails and filled out forms. He has now started again with YouTube, and now the time has begun for me to search the net yet again. This man is a bitter man on a quest to destroy everything and everyone who do not agree with him. I hope for your understanding. Peter Lee (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a third-party source for this? [5] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

For what? Peter Lee (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation is the only officially recognized organization of Genseiryu in Japan." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do, but that is not the issue here. Mario Roering is falsely claiming, that we, the Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation is not allowed to write Genseiryū without adding Butokukai. That is the reason for the removal of the text from the article. That is the stated reason, why the person has removed this text. These are the exact same claims Mario Roering is using when he is in fact logging in using his own name. On these grounds, the text cannot rightfully be removed. Further, the homepage of the JKF (Japan Karate-do Federation) clearly shows that the GKIF is a recognized federation member of the JKF. I don't see anything in regard to the WGKF. And you should remember, that the WGKF is a new organization established in Spain with the main actor from Holland, Nobuaki Konno. It is NOT a Japanese organization at all. Thus I don't need any documentation, it should be common sense, that the WGKF is not recognized as an organization in Japan. If that reason is to be used, then Mario must come up with evidence saying that the GKIF, Butokukai etc. are not allowed to write Genseiryū without adding Butokukai. Mario or anyone else is not able to do so, because what they are saying is a lie. If a verdict was done by the law, meaning a judge, in Japan, then that evidence is very easy to obtain. Just having a transcript would be enough. But such a transcript does not exist, simply because their claims are a lie. That should be obvious by now. Peter Lee (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, the easiest way to keep your preferred text in the article is to provide a good reference. If that article was on my watchlist and someone added that text, I would have reverted and templated the editor with an unreferenced warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that EVerything omitted in the WGKF article is omitted because there is no accepted reference shown. At the same time the GKIF article shows completely no proof or reference on many claims mentioned. Shouldn't there be quotations, like the only accepted Genseiryu or Tosa was the first student, which is actually not true, be omitted too? I am not so familiar with wikipedia therefore I don't know the exact rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TenChiJin (talk • contribs) 23:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, any material which is not sourced may be challenged and removed if a reference is not found. I suggest you add {{cn}} after each sentence you feel requires a cite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, Mario Roering, how many accounts do you have on Wikipedia. 4-5 years ago, when your account got blocked, you created the TenChiJin account. Now you are pressed and using it again. When will you come forth and use your own name, such as I do, for EVERYTHING, instead of your deceitful actions here? Peter Lee (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To NeilN. I understand about the sources, but in that case, like I have requested many times earlier, any and all articles on Wikipedia regarding Genseiryū should be removed from here. The Genseiryū, Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation and World Genseiryū Karatedō Federation articles. That would in more than one way be the best for everybody, as this is taking up too much time and facts can only in a few incidents be confirmed by a third party. Especially in regard to the WGKF, as this organizaiton is not based in Japan, and it is a very young organization. I have requested the removal, others have requested the removal, but everytime some thin excuse for keeping them come up. Latest in regard to the WGKF article, which Mario himself wants to keep. I want to keep the articles too, but NOT in this way taking up so much time of my life. So to end this ridiculous war, it would be better to remove the articles. They are about organizations anyway, which is a basic reason here for removal. Peter Lee (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I challenged several statements and the reference presented are from the website of GKIF in my opinion an reference should be given from a neutral third party but just repeating themself on another website and claiming it as proof is quite ridiculous. I will chalenge again several statements. I don't know how it works but this way no solution is possible to make neutral article. Maybe it is nice to make a link to Peter Lee performing sansai Butokukai style. Another video is presented on a website from Mr. Roering Sansai performed by a 14 year old girl doing Geseiryu style, according sensei Kanai head instructor and personally announced by sensei Shukumine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TenChiJin (talk • contribs) 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Mario Roering, why are you keeping up this ridiculous sharade? Now, get out of your cocoon and use your real name instead of hiding behind IP-addresses, proxies and different accounts. I have reverted your requests for citations on citations in the GKIF article. You cannot ask for a citation on a citation. What kind of weird rigid thinking is that? You can dispute a citation or you can ask for more citations ON THE TALKPAGE, but you cannot ask for a citation on a citation just because you don't like to be confronted with truth and facts. WAKE UP. If a citation is from the GKIF or elsewhere on a GKIF member site, then that citation is done in that way for instance regarding membership. It is impossible for any other organization to know who the members of the GKIF are. THAT is why such a citation is included. That is logical, and it cannot be done in any other way. If you have another way, please keep me informed, or perhaps you can include that information yourself? And stop your attacks on Genseipedia, stop your attacks and ridiculous threats on your own external homepage, stop your attacks on YouTube, stop your attacks period. Peter Lee (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To NeilN. About the WGKF article, nothing really seems to happen these days. Is it alright to start deleting, change, including etc. things in the article, or is it still "on hold"? Peter Lee (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You might as well go ahead as it's no use reconstructing the article as I suggested if it could be deleted for lack of notability. Please make sure all additions are well-sourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. The sources are the problem. I understand your concern. Peter Lee (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi NeilN. Just wanting some advice please. I tried to work on the article of WGKF for an hour or so, but it seems to me, that there are so many references in there, which are not easy to check up on. The ones which are websites, are easy though. The text on these websites are in some cases in accordance with what it is supposed to reference in the WGKF article, but the information on the websites are maybe not in all but in many or most cases based on none researched subjects, opinions or at best lack of facts. For example (without being too specific), the year of establishing Genseiryū, is completely different going from 1949 to 1953, some state that Taidō was invented in 1962, some in 1963, 1964 and 1965 etc. There is absolutely no consistency to the contents of the references. These homepages are written by people who have (obviously) no other specific references to rely on. I mean, they seem to base their own stories/sites on information taken form other sites. Sort of a go-around-information. In some cases I believe, the information has been "copied" or "transferred" but not entirely correct thus some information has been lost or changed. I have not deleted any of the references, but only changed a few things in the article. Most of my time went by because of reading the references. Even the main site in Japanese seems to not be completely correct. Perhaps written out of memory more than having documents etc. in front when writing it. In contrast to this, I have about five shelves full of pictures, news papers, transcripts, magazines, interviews, faxes, books etc. all research material going back to early 1955 or there about. Most (not all) of the information I have found on the websites contradict what I have here. My thinking right now is, that it may be nearly impossible to construct an article with references (even if these are allowed not to be third party references) that do not contradict. My question therefore is this: Could you suggest a way to go about it, as I don't want to be the "bad man" from GKIF attacking everything out of the WGKF. I want to make a fair article, but I now believe that it will not be possible under the circumstances. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Peter Lee (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Neill,

I also would get some advice. Peter Lee suggests to change the article of WGKF. On the other hand he is changing his organization promotion article the article of GKIF. I asked as you advied for reference about the statements he is making. Well he is putting alot of references as I requested. The only thing that makes this ridicilous is the fact that all his references are from the website of GKIF and are not neutral and can't be verified. Therefore they have no value. What can I do?

Best regards TenChiJin —Preceding unsigned comment added by TenChiJin (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You can do nothing, Mario Roering. You are not correct, as you very well know. Some of the sources CANNOT come from third parties, such information as number of members etc. and other sources ARE in fact third parties, even though you claim that they are not. Read the article and the sources correctly the next time, before you come up with more accusations. You are doing more than enough slander and defamation on your own external homepage already. Peter Lee (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Neill, I understand that Peter Lee is now answering for you. To summarize the things that happen: Mr Lee makes an article about a karate style named Genseiryu. He tells the story from the point of view of the organization he is part of. The organization I am part of like Mr Roering changes this article according to a different point of view. Next Mario Roering tries to make an article from a neutral point of view and the decision is made Genseiryu Butokukai doesn't alter the article of the World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation and the other wway around. Mr Lee can't keep his promise and changes all articles and is finally blocked for a long time. This year he took up the idea to start slandering the name of Mr. Konno again one of the people started the organization World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation. Of course this lead to some changing of it by Mr Roering. Finally we are at the same point before the blocking of Mr Lee a few years ago. Now it seems there is a rule that statements should be proofed by third parties and you advised me to ask to mark th statements that need references. Well I followed your advise. Mr. Lee deleted these marks and put a reference instead. Most of the references are from the organization website the story is about so complete not a third party but from the storyteller himself. What is the next step should all sentences be deleted if there is no honest reference? If so I will be happy to do this job. If not please let me know. I have some proof that shows Mr. Lee is lying which I can't show directly on the websit but I can sent it privately to you. If somebody neutral can state the evidence is correct can the third person be mentioned as a neutral reference? Well I am waiting your answer. Best regards TnCHiJin —Preceding unsigned comment added by TenChiJin (talk • contribs) 22:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Mario Roering, WHY are you still hiding like a scared teenager behind many different user accounts here? First of all, stop your charade and your insults. If you have any evidence, true and trustworthy, then please provide it. Evidence that does not stand a publication is NOT evidence, but just one more of your scams to force your rigid and ignorant view of things onto others. Your own personal external homepage is a disgrace, and if your "evidence" is from the same bag as that homepage, then please keep it to yourself, as you have done enough damage already to both me as a person, and Genseiryū in particular. The degrading actions taken by you posting posting lies and total messed up "facts" about me and the Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation, Mr. Tosa, Mr. Shukumine etc. speaks only too clearly for itself. Your intentions are at best malicious and evil in nature, which you have proven on almost any given occasion. Hiding behind different accounts and IPs only adds to that assumption. And for the record, I have never ever in my life agreed to stay away from any article whatsoever in Wikipedia, be it the English version or any other version. On the contrary, as you continue your ridiculous and hopeless crusade, I will surely be active and on guard in every way possible. You will be challenged in every possible way, as long as you slander, lie and as long as defamation is your only aim. Your threats on your homepage has absolutely no effect on me, as you are threatening me into shutting up and NOT fight for my rights as a human being, and you are threatening me to not be proud of my achievements as a Shihan of Karate-do. My achievements are exactly that, my achievements. Just because your own efforts has never amounted to anything, you should not hate those that actually have achieved something. Envy is an ugly and evil thing. You are just an insect that at best annoys the people around you, but that is the only thing you can do. So that is exactly what you are doing. Annoying people. Now get a grip, use one user account and try something new in your life: Be honest, and do some real research before you say anything. If you don't like the references I have put in the articles, then please provide some better references. If you dispute them, then please explain WHY you dispute them with references to whatever you dispute. But please keep your ignorant opinion and malicious personality to yourself. That I can certainly do without. Your methods do not work, and you are frustrated about it. Well, that is understandable, but if you were to be an honest person, doing some serious research, you might one day wake up understanding that I am not your enemy, even though I most certainly am not your friend either. You are making me into your enemy. Your actions gives me absolutely no choice on the matter. I have learned to fight back, it is my human right, a right every human in this world is born with. The right to fight injustice as long as it is necessary. And you make it necessary. Peter Lee (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, focus on improving the articles through providing reliable references and not on attacking each other. Both articles could use some help solidifying claims to notability. And again, books, newspapaper articles, etc., are reliable references; personal experiences are not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I understand and I do agree. It would be a lot easier though, if Mario Roering would play fair. He doesn't do that, he never has, and I am sure, that he never will. One question. You mention books as a good reference. But what if that book is written by myself, or Mario Roering? Or that book is written by a sympathizer of either federation? Personally I do not see the difference of either, unless there are references in the particular book to third party references, but in that case, we don't need the book as a reference. Then we only need the third party references. What if an interview is made by a magazine/newspaper or other publication, is that considered to be a third party reference, as it was published by a third party? Or is it to be considered as a first or second party reference as it is an interview simply "passed on" by the magazine? If that is the case, then books must be part of that category too! And in that case, it just proofs my point, that no third party references exist. Everything is written by the founder of Genseiryū, Seiken Shukumine, or the successor, Kunihiko Tosa, of the Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation, sympathizers of either side or members of one specific organization being the GKIF or the WGKF. If we include websites in this regard, Taido is not objective either, personal websites certainly are not, and national organizations part of the main body definitely are not either. I would say, that this is a bit of a "pickle", and not possible to solve in that way. I have researched the history and origins of Genseiryū since 1985 with a more intense dedication the last 12-13 years. I have made countless interviews with people of many nationalities such as Japanese, Danish, Swedish, Dutch and even American. I got articles from news papers, magazines in my possession published in Japan, Denmark, Sweden, America and more. Videos, pictures, yearly publications, newsletters etc. dating back to early 1955 or there about. I got lists of examinations held by the founder Seiken Shukumine written in Japanese and so forth. In addition I have been in the middle of these events since 1996, and I have been on the "front row" watching these things develop. The director general of the WGKF, Nobuaki Konno, was there, standing right in front of me, he has handed letters to me for passing on to the grand-master of Genseiryū, Kunihiko Tosa etc. I have had the best possible chance of experiencing the "history" of the WGKF in the making. I have presented evidence of my accusations in regard to the WGKF director general, Nobuaki Konno, falsifying certificates to present himself as something he certainly is not etc. If none of this, personal or not, can be used as evidence, then, as I have said before, these articles have no place in Wikipedia, as third party references outside of either organization does not exist. Even if we could find a book about Genseiryū, there would still remain one question, namely WHERE did the author of the book get his information from? If that information is based on an interview, a homepage etc. then it cannot be considered as third party. Because the author is then just passing on information to the reader, rather than researched, referenced information. Just because 1000 people say something which is wrong, despite their origins or affiliations, does not make what they say or claim the truth. The matter at hand is not a simple one. Peter Lee (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Dear Neill, I think pictures are a good proof and therefore a reliable source. We are playing fair. Mr Lee doesn't. I am only talking to you for advise. He is slandering Mr. Konno and Mr Roering. I never said anything bad about Mr. Lee although I have many reasons to do so. Is slandering allowed on wikipedia or is it a good reason to take somebody to court. Maybe some international lawyer on wikipedia can give some advice. There is a certain line you shouldn't cross. He is crossing this line. If references from an organization counts to tell the story of an organization then wikipedia will never be neutral. Please advise me if I can delete the unreliable sources on the GKIF article. He is deleting my reliable source. Best regards TenChiJin —Preceding unsigned comment added by TenChiJin (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Dera Neill, I didn't see your message before. I am not using the website as a reliable source but the picture. Peter Lee is using the website of GKIF and that is Okay? brgds. TenChiJin —Preceding unsigned comment added by TenChiJin (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You are using the picture on Roering's site as a reference for this statement [6]. This is not allowed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this a relaible source? http://genseiryu.nl/tekst/tekst%20bij%20kata%202.jpg--TenChiJin (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source for what? If it a primary source and the statements it sources are controversial, then no. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is a copy of a letter from Sensei Shukumine signed by mr Shukumine stating that Genseiryu should train Ten- chi- and Jin I NO Kata.--TenChiJin (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a primary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If the history of Genseiryu is on a National Karatedo Federation would that be a reliable source?--TenChiJin (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Which one, please provide the link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Lee is using the website of GKIF and that is Okay? Please answer also this question.--TenChiJin (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to my above statement: If it a primary source and the statements it sources are controversial, then no. That includes its history or the history of any martial arts it teaches. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean I can delete the statements and the references from the GKIF side that refer to the website of the GKIF?--TenChiJin (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you delete the GKIF references and replace them with a {{cn}} template. If no one can provide reliable secondary sources within say a week, then delete the statements. Show good judgement when doing this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will act very positive and fair.--TenChiJin (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind Peter Lee can take the same actions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If I remember it correctly he already did. Nice thing is little by little al evidence can be delivered. Only point, I do not understand the idea of primary sources. If we have a letter from Mr. Shukumine it is actually proof for whatever the letter is mentioning, but you say we can't use this as a reference? Is there some reason for this rule?

From WP:PRIMARY (bolding mine). No interpretive claims and only uncontroversial descriptive claims.

• Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

At the moment there is no link that is mentioning something on a National Karatedo Federation. But if there is some article aboout the history woul dit be accountable?--TenChiJin (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Who published the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a book in Japanese about the history. Probably several National Federation where Genseiryu as a Karate style is active could add this on their website. Would this according to Wikipedia be a reliable source?--TenChiJin (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Who's the author? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to know who the author of such a book is called, as well as the title, the publishing company etc. Possibly an ISBN number and the complete Japanese title in native Japanese would be preferred. Peter Lee (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The Author is Mr. Taniguchi.--TenChiJin (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have such a book, like I have asked earlier, please provide much more information. Peter Lee (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear NeilN, You didn't react on the name of the author. I understand it has no additional information for you just knowing the name. I saw that the book is already mentioned by mr. Roering. I will start to ask people to translate the book and to use it as a reference. Is that okay? The book is also mentioned on the following forum site http://www.australiantaido.com/TaidoForum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=147 --TenChiJin (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was waiting for you to answer Peter's question. However, the link you provided has both the title and author. Do you know Mr. Taniguchi's background? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear NeilN, this is your talk page therefore I will discuss with you and will answer your questions on this page. Mr. Taniguchi is an old student (one of the first) of the founder of the Genseiryu style. He was helping the founder making the main Kata in Genseiryu Sansai--TenChiJin (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

American Express

In my talk page, please advice me as to how to state this information in a way that would make you happy.

thank you

Jewish mythology

Neil Check your history, the Jews were around in BCE 1300 and the Greeks emerged in 1000 BCE at least 300 hundred years. Also, the Deuteronomy is not my opinion, I give a reference to other that interpret that statement. I believe you are being nit picky and a tad spiteful. I concur with you about Harry Potter, that it is not classic literature, would you feel better if I added another heading, "Popular Fiction"? Get over it, everything ever written came from the Torah, it is much older then any text in existance, read Wikipedia its all there. But I apprciate your feedback. Best Regards,Razilber (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Who do you think you are?

You removed My comments (which were true). I also changed some things which were untrue - BUT YOU put them BACK in. Winnipeg/Manitoba does not have another professional sports team which potentially detracts from it's CFL Blue Bomber fanbase - as was written in the article. This is completely false and misleading. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have comparable populations, however the Saskatchewan Roughrider's have the strongest sales of all CFL merchandise in the league... not followed anywhere close by the Blue Bombers. To boot that stupid write up on the Riders says that Manitoba has an excuse and it's excuse is that Manitoba has other professional sports teams actively vying for the population's popularity... Ok so WHAT professional sports team would that be? NFL... NBA... MLB... If there is any such team I have never heard of it... The Jets have been dead for over a decade and are not permitted to sell official NHL merchandise since they are no longer an NHL team - hence they can not be detracting from potential CFL fan sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoTiKi (talk • contribs) 01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Images

I noticed you removed the images I made to improve the list of alleged alien beings article. I would like to invite you to read my answer. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of Sockpuppetry

NeilN, I cannot believe what I am seeing! AGAIN Peter Lee is showing his TRUE nature here and here(amongst others)!!! I was away from Wikipedia for a while, because it didn't matter what I said, Peter Lee just doesn't want to listen or check the references, now I see that one of my close karate friends is backing me up with some of his/her (I refuse to give any details about the person, out of respect, a word that Peter Lee has forgotten!) knowledge about Genseiryu and I see Peter Lee accusing me of starting a new edit war and sockpuppetry?!? I didn't even know this word till now... This is outrageous and I demand that actions are taken against this man! I have HAD it with the constant insults and false accusations of this man! His true nature is revealed, again! He makes simple assumptions, for him they are "true" and the next thing you see is that he constantly FALSLY accuses the person in that assumption!!!! That is the way this man worked and keeps working!!! I am THROUGH with him! Please, act, or at least tell me what I can do. I don't have to accept this, do I??? -- MarioR 10:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Easy to answer that one. As long as you are hiding behind other accounts, then you certainly do have to accept accusations of sockpuppetry, nice word isn't it? If you do not want to give any information about TenChiJin, then that silence must be interpreted as an agreement, that you are in fact hiding behind the TenChiJin account. Are you finished with me? YES, YIPPIE, I am so much looking forward to seing you follow up on that. Please let me know, when you plan to remove the hate-page you have dedicated in my name? Or is this hate-page not included in your claim, that you "have had it" with me? You contradict yourself all the time, and you are in fact hiding behind other accounts. That is your trademark. You have done it so many times in the past, and you have done it just a few days ago again on [Genseipedia. Or do you deny that one too? Slander, defamation, lies and deceit are your trademarks, NOT mine. I remember hearing a proverb once, sounding like this: You should treat other people the way you want them to treat you. Lucky for you, that I do not treat you the same way you are treating me. You should think about that very carefully. Peter Lee (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There Neil... There you go! You see... It is THIS EASY to answer anything for this man. He thinks he knows it all! Because I refuse, out of respect for the other party, to reveal the identity of this person, it just HAS to be me! And that is the way he has ALWAYS worked. Making some accusations and because the person involved doesn't respond... "Oh, then it must be true!"... Saying that some documents are false and the person involved doesn't show any proof it isn't??? "Oh, well, then it must be true!!!" And so on, and so on... This person, in the name of Peter Lee, turns everything around!!! Even my subscription to his mala fide website (that Genseipedia-thingy) he misuses. I did create an account, to proof that if I would start a discussion, he would immediately delete it. And that is JUST what he did! This is not at all "hiding behind accounts". I had ONLY ONE account, with a pseudo (as so many people have!), just like I have only ONE account on Wikipedia. I used a DIFFERENT name on his website, but apparently according to Peter Lee there is some law on the internet that says that I have to use the SAME account name on EVERY DAMN WEBSITE IN THE WORLD!?!?! What a ridiculous thing to say that I am hiding behind accounts... You are already the laughter of the karate world, seeing those movies with your low level performance of kata and kumite! PETER, again: making an accusation and then not receiving proof of the opposite, does NOT automatically mean that what you say is true! I do NOT have to proof at all that I am NOT TenChiJin! It is YOU who has to proof that it's me, if you want to accuse me of it! In this world, people are INNOCENT until proven GUILTY!!!! WHEN DO YOU START TO GET THIS?!?!?!?!?

Once more: I am NOT TenChiJin and I will also NEVER say who it is (unless the person doesn't mind anymore). Not that I don't want to, but because this person would like to remain anonymous. I respect that. A word that Peter Lee has totally forgotten!

When I say "I am finished with him", I don't mean it like he hopes. Oh no... I will fight him forever! And the information on my site about Peter Lee and his past (and present), will be removed under the conditions written on it. HE has to stop with his name slandering through his false accusations! What Peter Lee is doing is so wrong that I feel that somebody has to warn others about this totally derailed person. I am only finished discussing anything with him. There is NO normal discussion possible with him. In that way, I am indeed FINISHED with him, but I will never be finished fighting him!... So, NO I am NOT making another contradiction. It is only PETER who has always been making the contradictions, which is logical if you are living in a constant lie... I haven't even mentioned ALL of his contradictions yet... There are just too many... Like the most recent one for example, what Peter says about treating people: "You should treat other people the way you want them to treat you."? Funny HE should mention that... Because... HOW is HE treating all the people in WGKF again?!? Exactly... Well, the pot and kettle so to say then, right? But with ONE little difference: I am not making any FALSE accusations, but HE IS... Slander, defamation, lies and deceit ARE Peter Lee's trademarks!!! Some smart people start to see it (some saw it already way before I did), but I won't rest till everybody sees it... -- MarioR 23:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Mario Roering, you are beyond reasoning in any and all ways. Your facts, as you call them, are not facts, they are at best fantasy made up by you or mixed up from different stories from other people who don't know anything either. Funny, that a lot of people such as yourself, who knows nothing promote themselves as they know everything. When you (i.e. Nobuaki Konno) are caught redhanded faking documents, they (you, Mario Roering) suddenly shout so loud, that nobody else can say a word. That is the ways of lesser people such as yourself. So this time, it will be easy for me to show myself as the bigger man, simply by not replying to your endless crap, slander and defamation. My responce will come in a different manner and at a later date. Peter Lee (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter you have two choices. If you think you have enough evidence that Mario is using sockpuppets on this site, make a report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If you don't, then drop the accusations as continuing to make them without evidence could get you blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will proceed with the matter. Peter Lee (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Also thanks from ME Neil. I do hope he will proceed the matter as he should this time, then it will be shown that I am innocent. Just as is sensei Konno. NOBODY was caught "red handed", as that would mean that actually somebody SAW him making a false signature on a piece of document. And that is NOT the case! There ARE no false signatures on those documents. They are NOT false. The most you can say about it, is that they are not reckognized by the GKIF, but to claim they are false is nothing but slandering good people's names! There is even a very, very simple explanation for those "alleged" false documents, but Peter wishes to believe a different story... Unfortunately... Again, thanks Neil! <sigh> MarioR 06:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mario Roering, you have a mouth full of crap. I was THERE when Nobuaki Konno was caught red handed. So was about 500 other people. Ahcene Bendjazia told this information to Kunihiko Tosa, and Ahcene Bendjazia presented these certificates as evidence. Nobuaki Konno was confronted with this evidence but had no valid explanation for it. I have seen these certificates myself. And I have many of them in my possession given to me by the students and/or instructors who got them directly from Nobuaki Konno. These certificates has been given to me from both Holland and Denmark. YOU are the liar here. Nobuaki Konno is a deceitful liar same as you, and he was caught redhanded. There is nothing you can say or do to change the past. Nobuaki Konno was caught making fake certificates, he was caught signing them. His signature is on ALL of the certificates. Now, I am so tired of your crap. Fortunately not everyone is as ignorant and rigid as you are. What an idiot.... Peter Lee (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way Neil, if I can proof that I am NOT guilty of sockpuppetry (or whatever it's called), and let me say that I shouldn't need to (it's Peter who has to proof that I am), but if I can do that, will that block Peter Lee (or at least put him in a different light)?!? 'Coz I think I can proof it, without revealing the identity of the other person(s)... -- MarioR 06:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What a laugh! How would you prove that? Impossible. Using IPs? Nope, that would never be valid as evidence, as you have used proxies before, in order to hide your identity. Finding someone else to take over the TenChiJin account is also too late, as that would not show anyting other than your creativity as a guilty person trying to avoid capture. Give me A BREAK. Peter Lee (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Neil, I have now found a solid enough proof to make it believable to you or anybody else (except Peter Lee) that I am NOT TenChiJin. I will give you this proof, if you promise me that actions will be taken against Peter Lee, for his constant insults and false accusations about me using sockpuppets and aliases on Wikipedia. Let me point out however that it should be HIM in the first place to proof that I am using socketpuppets, but since nobody on Wikipedia is taking any actions against his insults and accusations, I took it upon me to come up with evidence myself, to proof I am not guilty of Peter Lee's cowardly accusations. MarioR 13:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he's made accusations of sockpuppetry after I told him he had to either make a report or drop the matter, has he? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You told him so on 5 December. Above here, on 7 December (07:37), he is clearly saying that I cannot proof my innocence (and yet I am still waiting for his proof of my guilt...) This is a clear confirmation that he still thinks I am TenChiJin and he is not hiding this opinion. I consider that remark as yet another false accusation... On my talk page (I deleted it, 'coz I don't want his pathetic insults and false accusations on my talk page, but here it is) he also said, on the same day, that "I am not innocent of anything". Again, referring to the socket-puppetry... So, he keeps claiming that I am using socket-puppets! I want to clear my name in this matter and him to take back his false accusations AND the insults (like calling me an idiot, see above 07:37, 7 Dec., is that acceptable policy on Wikipedia?!? Thought not...). Of course, stubborn as he is, he will never do that without intervention of an administrator... MarioR 16:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Also this is from AFTER you told him to stop his accusations: 6 December 2009... A CLEAR accusation! So, please, act accordingly, as you promised... Thank you. MarioR 16:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have given him a final reminder. Any further accusations and a report to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts will be made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks then... -- MarioR 17:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional resources for Adam and Eve

Hi Neil! Thanks for your message. I am really new to the whole editing thing, and am grateful for your help. Your specific comment about having adequate resources for my addition the Adam and Eve page left me with some questions. My addition stated, "For a more in-depth look into the story of Adam and Eve study The Book of Moses (specifically Chapters 2-7) with Genesis." or something like that. I had it linked to an article on Wikipedia about The Book of Moses, but if it needs a more verifiable or reputable reference, I have those as well. As far as your comment about it being personal opinion, I can see how that can be thought. That was not my intent. I was merely trying to give the audience another reference that they can turn to, but probably don't know about. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it's members fully accept the Book of Moses (and the entire Pearl of Great Price where it is found) in addition to the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants to be scripture. I hope that it's okay for my comment introducing an additional source will be accepted. Thanks! User: Danerick 09:15, 7 December 2009 (MDT)

Thank you for your response. I can see that now, and will be more cautious in the future. Thank you! :) Danerick (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Creationism based on Genesis....

...owes more to Judaism than to Christianity. Genesis being part of the Torah, a Jewish scripture".

You demand a citation for this cite (or something very similar to it). You are crazy! The claim is perfectly sound

1 Genesis contains the text which certain Christians base their belief in a Creation by God. 2 Genesis is part of the Torah. 3 The Torah is a Jewish script. 4 The Christian creation myth is the same as the Jewish creation myth 5 Jesus, who was a Jew, postdates the writings in Genesis

Most people seem to think the 5 statements I make are true. And I think that the vast majority of people would have no problem whatsoever accepting that the Christian belief in creation as stated is Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christianity. Why is it that you don't? Which of the 5 points above do you disagree with? Your demand for a citation for the blindingly obvious defies belief. (Sorry for the unintended pun!)--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's so obvious then you shouldn't have a problem finding a cite for your statement, "...therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching", no? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If I were a mathemmatician I could prove that 134567 +134 = 134701 but finding a citation for it would be nigh on impossible. This dispute falls into the same category. I have no intention of finding you a citation but I reserve the right to defend the claim at dispute arbitration.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You have two other editors (one, an admin) who disagree that you don't need a cite. You'll need to make your case on the talk page and convince others to support you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Null template on December 2009 Telangana Rising

Er, nothing I think. I intended to add a template saying that this article was about a current event but obviously the automated widget I use put a bad/non-working template there. Perhaps the template for this particular situation is no longer used. Sorry. I see someone has already removed it from the article. I need to check my work a little more closely. Thanks for the notice. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 04:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please help stop vandalism on Telananga page

I see vandalism on this page on regular basis because it is political hot topic. People on both sides of dispute are extremely emotional. I just want to make sure people can access accurate info about Telangana at this historical movement in Telangana history. Please help stop vandalism on this page. Thanks. Ramcrk (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will only include only major events. (Not too much details like newspaper.) Thats what I was doing. But so many dramatic events happened in last one week, I guess I was consumed in it and lost track of it. Thanks for your intervention. Ramcrk (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but one or more redirects you created have been considered disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.

Resolved --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Coleman

Hi, have a look I am not sure what is going on there, coleman . Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed Early morning person's first few edits and they're right - the sources did not support the statements in the article. When they're finished, I'll have another look at the changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wienerish

Hi; Your comments are strange as I refered to a neutral person in my additions. If you have a point then it had been better to be more specific instead of deleting all the content ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wienerish (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing "Conflict with Medinan Jewish clans who opposed the Muslims led to their exile, enslavement or death, and the Jewish enclave of Khaybar was subdued." to "Conflict with Medinan Jewish clans who did not fullfill their peace accords led to their exile" is not neutral.

Removing " He was a religious, political, and military leader who founded the religion of Islam" and keeping only the Muslim view is not neutral.

Changing "the nearly bloodless Conquest of Mecca" to "a bloodless Conquest of Mecca" is not consistent with sourced material in the linked article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for your reply. I accept that I had been a little Islamic in my additions (if you judge it from a view point of European authors of the middle ages). The reference you are mentioning is itself not neutral and there are thousands of other references stating a TOTAL bloodless invasion of Mecca (e.g., Karin Armstrong). As far as the terms religious, political, and military leader are concerned then these are missleading. If you want to keep with those, then it will be appropriate to expand the list e.g., by adding Businessman, Preacher, Philosopher, Orator, Reformer, Refuge of orphans, Protector of slaves, Emancipator of women, Law-giver, Judge, Saint (list given by Prof. K. S. Ramakrishna Rao who was a non-muslim). Was it not better to only state "prophet" (see the page on Mosses). Regarding the Jewish Clans of Madina, there is only one historical reference about killings of one Jewish clan (there are many references against it). But historicaly, there has never been a claim about the enslavement of jews. The exile on the other hand is a well accepted fact by both muslims and non-muslim authors. But again that has been known to be a result of "not adhering to the peace accords" by Jews. So I thought it was better to avaoid confusions and adhere to the things generally agreed upon!

If you want to change to "totally bloodless" and can provide reliable sources, I'm fine with that. Re: Muhammad - if you want to change to "founder of Islam" so it's consistent with Muhammad I'm fine with that too. Re: Conflict with Jewish clans - what I really object to is changing "who opposed the Muslims" to "who did not fullfill their peace accords" which is significantly more POV without multiple neutral third party sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)))

Dear, I have already given you some references which are from published literature (Karen Armstrong - Mohammad a Prophet of our Time). OK, the terms, "who did not fullfill their peace accords" appear to be a bit harsh but is a fact recognised by many modern day European writers (the aforementioned writer for instancec gives a detailed account). The source of all the references about killings of one jewish tribe is in fact the first biography of Muhammad by a Jewish convert and it too mentions the betrayal on the part of Jews. You are right that Jewish tribes of madina opposed Mohammad but this statement does not explains the actual senario. I will think about an alternate sentence - or otherwise it may be appropriate to have section on controversies. P.S. I will appreiate if you can paste this disccussion on my talk page under your section.

DUDE MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS

a friend of User:Goethean76.238.28.22 (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he's not. See this edit of his. AGENT SMITH 06:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what caught my eye and I checked his other edits. Blocked now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ip that was reverted a few times

Hi, regarding that IP, it is just rampant, random edits and mostly without value. There are a few correct sentences there, but it will be practically impossible to deal with this type of IP. He will make 3,000 edits of which 7 are semi-correct but of no value. We cannot get worn out this way. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

MARIO IS NOT RIGHT YOU IGNORANT ABUSER OF POWER HERE

You have undone what I have undone from Mario's vandalism. What an insult. Get your facts straight. Judging from this talk page, about a great number of people writing angrily in response to your actions, I would say, that you very often have no clue of what you are talking about. If there is NO OTHER REFERENCE for a book older than the one presented, then that book is by definition the oldest, thus meaning the first on the subject. Being the first book is impossible to reference, as being the first, simply means, that no other book has been published earlier on the subject. If such a book DOES exist, an earlier book, then presenting that older book, would clearly dispute the claim of being the first book. Now, if Mario is right as you side with him, then please show me the evidence of that. It is very well known all over the world, that the book of Kunihiko Tosa, founder and president of Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation published THE FIRST BOOK ON Genseiryu in 1984, since NO ONE ELSE had ever published a book using that name (Genseiryu). If you dispute that and side with Mario Roering, then get your facts straight and PRESENT me with some evidence. If you cannot do that, then please refrain from assisting Mario Roering with more of his vandalism. Peter Lee (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to prove a negative (i.e., that there existed no books prior to the one you list). However as the one making the claim, it is your reponsibilty to find a third party source that says the book is the first ever on the subject. Also, this is your final reminder to be civil. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A third party reference has been included, now, will you give me an apology? And what I wrote to you is true. You are in no way fair or even neutral, and you seem to have sided with Mario Roering on the matter of sockpuppetry, even though I have presented very clear evidence to you on this matter as written to you earlier. Now, you may not like what I have written to you, but it is as I see it. If you have any response to that, then please send me a reply, instead of seeking "revenge" for what I have written to you in a very diplomatic but honest way. I shall read such a reply with interest. Consider this a Final Reminder to you about being neutral, fair and accurate instead of simply running someone else's errands. Peter Lee (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, no apology will be forthcoming as all I asked you to do was conform to Wikipedia policy. You've been editing here for years. You know that any statement that could be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Also, I'm on no one's side. To tell you the truth, I usually don't remember what view you hold and what view Mario holds (I've reverted his edits too). I just look at the article edits to check if they meet our guidelines. Finally, on the sockpuppetry issue, I've pointed you towards Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations twice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point here. I don't want, and I have not asked for, and I have not expected an apology for you editing, reverting etc. the articles. On the contrary. I want an apology from you, because you jumped the gun in judging me for doing something I had not done. You agreed to the accusations put forward by Mario Roering, and you put a final reminder as a result of that. You should instead have asked Mario Roering to shut up and let sleeping dogs lie, instead of bringing up something that was already in the past. Since December 7th, only YOU and MARIO ROERING has been talking about socketpuppetry. I HAVE NOT. So I believe that I am entitled to an apology from you, as you have judged me, even though the evidence of my innocence was RIGHT THERE in front of your face. Instead of checking the facts, you jumped the gun, and you sided with Mario Roering. Even if you are right, that in your mind you did not side with anyone, judging me and thus agreeing with the accusations put forward with Mario Roering, IS INDEED subject to impartiality. You made a mistake, and for that I want an apology. I am entitled to one! Peter Lee (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

On December 6th I told you that you should either report or drop the accusations [7]. On December 7th you continued to refer to sockpuppetry [8]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You simply don't want to give in, right? Because NeilN NEVER makes a mistake, right? Referring to sockpuppetry is NOT what Mario Roering was accusing me of, and that was NOT what you acted upon. Mario Roering ACCUSED me of accusing him of sockpuppetry AFTER you had given the advise of taking the matter further. As I did not read that advise until the 7th, any and all actions before that time cannot be of any consequence whatsoever. As I have explained earlier. What Mario Roering is accusing me of and you have agreed to, is that I kept accusing him of sockpuppetry after your advise. And that simply is not true, as I cannot act upon an advise, if I have not read it yet. Now get a grip and take responsibility for jumping the gun here. Peter Lee (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me be clear here. I consider this an accusation of using sockpuppets [9]. Also, I have thus far ignored your constant personal attacks in edit summaries and talk pages which seem to come with almost every edit. Stop it now. If you cannot discuss article edits without resorting to personal attacks then take a break and come back when you're calmer. Otherwise, you have no place here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, you read and acknowleged the advice here: [10] five hours before you wrote this [11]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, let ME be clear then. I have not accused anyone as I have said very clearly before. AFTER your advise, I only responded to both YOUR and MARIO ROERING's talk about sockpuppetry. There was NEVER any new accusations here. You now accuse me of personal attacks with every edit. Again, you jump to conclusions. Mario Roering is the one using personal attacks spending all his time on finding even the smallest mistakes, even if those mistakes are only human or even minor, or can be interpreted in whatever direction one see fit. My job here at Wikipedia is to keep Mario Roering from flodding the articles of Wikipedia in regard to Genseiryu with lies and propaganda. That is my only aim. In the process, I have also decided to contribute, and have done so over the years loads of text and information in the articles in question. In my edits, I do not use personal attacks out of the air, but I attack back, if someone attacks me. Mario Roering is doing exactly that, personal attacks, and that you know very well. You have seen his homepage dedicated in my name, that should be more than enough to show his true intentions. If you still believe, what you say is true, then you should consider finding another job, or at least take a break from judging my edits. And if you consider the facts (for once), you would see, that I NEVER treat anyone else than Mario in this way, and only if I have a good reason for it. I always have a good reason, as you very well KNOW. Mario Roering has attacked me personally on a daily basis for 4-5 years, and he HAS used sockpuppetry, and I HAVE proved this beyond ANY DOUBT. You can then claim, that my accusations have no validation in regard to the TenChiJin account unless that has been evaluated and taken further by the "Sockpuppetry Investigation" here at Wikipedia. But you are NOT saying any of that, but if you did, then I might agree with you. NOBODY can deny the evidence I have put forward, and this includes YOU. I have spoken the truth, I have provided the evidence beyond any doubt whatsoever, and this you cannot deny. In fact, I have an e-mail from you stating very clearly, that you acknowledge that Mario Roering has used sockpuppetry at least once without any shred of doubt based on the evidence I have provided. Judging me and threatening to block me etc. for telling the truth, backed up by hard evidence, is indeed not fair and as far as I can read, not even in accordance with the guidelines and rules here at Wikipedia. I have indeed been very civil in more than one way towards you and your accusations, agreement with Mario etc. I have chosen to deal with you in private, but you still push forward here with accusations in public, saying this and that, even though you know very well, that you are the one that should calm down. You made a mistake, and you will not take responsibility for it, but at least you should not make the situation worse than it already is by accusing me of things that are untrue, threatening me with consequences I have not deserved etc. Peter Lee (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The entirity of my one and only email to you was "I see on the linked page that Mario has used the account name Bequilachita. Any other links you can provide listing other account names he's used?". The linked page was an external website. There is no User:Bequilachita registered on Wikipedia therefore it could not be involved in sockpuppetry here. Since you choose to misrepresent my emails, I will not be communicating via email with you. Any further communications will be done on-wiki. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You can interpret whatever you want in whatever way you want, and so you surely do. But please refrain from any more of your premature judgments and your totally misplaced threats and errands on Mario Roering's behalf. I have provided you with all the evidence which is necessary to comply with all rules and regulations in regard to sockpuppetry. Neither you nor anyone else who takes this matter seriously can deny this. Any denial contrary to facts and evidence, would be contrary to any common sense. Thus I give up on you and your reasoning, and from now on my correspondence with you will be very limited. You siding with Mario Roering is totally unacceptable. Peter Lee (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, Peter that's quite a show you put on there. My apologies for butting in on your talk page Neil but I got your message a little bit ago. Peter this is obviously frustrating you greatly. I once again urge you to remain civil. Peter I have quite a bit of respect for your willingness to argue your point and do it so eloquently.. but when the topic frustrates you this bad it is time to walk away. If you believe that Mario is socking then report him. If you feel Neil is acting inappropriately then by all means report him as well. But enough with the insults, and by insults I am referring to your insinuation that Neil is acting as Marios' proxy. That is completely uncalled for. Neil has been more than fair with you and Mario both when he probably should have asked that you both be blocked for perpetuating this silliness. Now I am not really sure where this entire conversation is supposed to be going but I assure you Peter, Neil has been more than fair, patient and more accommodating than most admins would be and almost no editors are.

Neil if you ever have an RfA drop me a note. You would be an excellent admin. - 4twenty42o (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, 4twenty42o, I certainly don't put on any show here, but if you find it amusing, please have a laugh. Certainly I don't see any fun in it whatsoever. I sure hope that NeilN would take another approach and not jump the gun as he certainly did this time. Also, yes, I am frustrated, and I most certainly have the best reason in the world for that. Mario Roering is not only lying, violating my copyright, slandering, posting defamation etc. here on Wikipedia harming Genseiryu and myself etc. but he does so with dedicated pages in my name on his own homepage and other sites on the Internet. Keeping up with Mario Roering and posting complaints and requests for removal of content on sites such as YouTube, free webhosting etc. is a full time job. Mario Roering has absolutely no just cause for doing what he does, and his involvement here at Wikipedia is no different from his exploiting every other possible way on the Internet to slander me. On the contrary. That is why I do not need anymore crap from anyone, and perhaps I do tend to sort people a little too fast, even though their actions may not have been ill intended, but perhaps the last situation illustrates quite well exactly why I tend to do that? Another good example is when both Mario Roering and I were blocked a few weeks back, Mario Roering was unblocked just an instant later, but I was not, even though we posted the exact same reasons for requesting the unblock. Ever since 2005, when all this started, Mario Roering's candy-talking, deceits and lies have won him favors here on Wikipedia from the admins and others. The last action from NeilN would in my best opinion constitute yet another one such favor. I have never ever postulated, that these favors were done or initiated on purpose, but I have, and I still do claim, that lack of interest for fairness, facts and true intentions, makes this kind of manipulation by Mario Roering possible. And it should not be possible. EVERYONE should be equal to rules and regulations, but for Mario Roering, on mcuh more than one occasion, that has indeed not been the case. Mario Roering has been able to continue his deceitful and ill intended ways on Wikipedia for almost 5 years now. When will it ever stop? As long as it is this easy for Mario Roering to manipulate everyone he wants to, I cannot see the end of it. Even though I still believe that Mario Roering was using NeilN, and that NeilN did indeed jump the gun here siding with one party, instead of issuing equal consequences for both, I will let this one go and "reset" the system. But what I have written here, should be taken into account and something serious should be done about Mario Roering's methods and ways. Peter Lee (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fresh Start

Alright, Neil, Let's try from the beginning again, hopefully with a better result this time. The Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation article is clearly being vandalized by Mario Roering as he removes links and references from the article with false reasoning. Example here [[12]]. The link clearly shows, that the book exist, and who the author is. Here Mario Roering removes yet another reference, even though the reference clearly states, that this is the first book ever [[13]]. Here Mario Roering ads a link to a Taido site, with an essay on the history of TAIDO, not Genseiryu [[14]], thus irrelevant on the issue of Genseiryu. This reference has some correct dates, some correct information, but is at best only a collection of information found on the Internet from various other sources and is as well full of equally incorrect information. Mario Roering does not cite any phrase of the essay, and he does not provide any reasons for why this reference should be better than the one already included. Thus this is not a researched essay or document. Also Taido is siding with the WGKF and supporting them as can be seen on many pictures, and even the agreement of the establishment of the WGKF. At best, this reference is a none supported, none factual and partial essay. And like it says, it is an essay on Taido, not Genseiryu. As a third party reference this is not valid. Many of the things Mario Roering has disputed in the great many earlier edits, is among others, that Kunihiko Tosa (president of the GKIF) was not the first student of the founder Seiken Shukumine, but in this essay it says that he started taking lessons from the founder in 1952, one year prior to the establishment of Genseiryu in 1953. The essays mentions that Kunihiko Tosa published A (some) book on Genseiryu, which is I guess the reason for Mario Roering to include this "source". Using this argument as a counterargument to my source and claim, is the same as leaving it up to me to proof a negative. That Kunihiko Tosa wrote and published a book on Genseiryu in 1984 is confirmed in the essay as well as other sources included by me, but it does not say that the book is the first ever on Genseiryu. As I mentioned above, this is like saying that when something is not mentioned, it is not so, which of course cannot be laid down as fact or support for removing my claim as this book being the first ever on Genseiryu. Another point is, that if Mario Roering wants to include this essay as a valid reference, he must accept all the postulates in the essay, also the ones that he has disputed many times before. But, well, I guess that will not happen. Thus this reference should be discarded, as it is not trustworthy as a reference, but merely a collection of information found on the Internet. The author is not named (could not find it anyway) and the sources used in this essay are not listed. Here [[15]] Mario Roering deletes a valuable link to a reference part of Kunihiko Tosa's book written in 1984. In this book, the founder of Genseiryu, Seiken Shukumine, wrote a preface and he co-authored the book as a technical advisor, as well as he himself recognized this book as being Genseiryu. The reference is thus a valid one, but it is my opinion, that Mario Roering wants this left out, simply because this contradicts his own views and his perception of what is the true Genseiryu. In Mario Roering's world, he would feel a lot better, if this book and the preface by the founder would simply go away, like go back in a time machine and make sure it was never published. Mario Roering has claimed on more than one occasion, that we (the GKIF) are not doing Genseiryu, but only that the WGKF is. This book clearly shows, that the founder approved and supported Kunihiko Tosa as Genseiryu. Thus the contradictions clearly stands out. It is obvious, that Mario Roering wants it left out, simply because it shows that his claims are untrue and impossible to proof, and that it is thus easier to simply get this claim removed. Here [[16]] Mario Roering wants to provoke me by asking for citation. It is obvious, that this information originates from an interview I had with the author Kunihiko Tosa. The information has been put there to counter argue the claims by the WGKF, that Kunihiko Tosa named his book 2 (number 2) because of the book written by the founder Seiken Shukumine in 1964 (Shin Karate-do Kyohan) was the first one. As this is not true, the correct information has been included in the GKIF article to set things straight. Citations is the author, Kunihiko Tosa. No further citation should be necessary. Here I reverted all the above edits [[17]]. Nevertheless, Mario Roering simply re-reverted everything, removing my references and putting his essay back in there. Here [[18]] Mario Roering removes the external links to the copyrighted description of the 9 kata mentioned and described in the book from 1984 by Kunihiko Tosa. This is informative and very relevant for the article, as it gives the reader valid information in a language other than Japanese (the language of the book). In this edit Mario Roering also removes the statement saying that only the GKIF is a recognized organization of Genseiryu and that only the kata of the GKIF is to be considered as Genseiryu. The preface by the founder, Seiken Shukumine in the book written by Kunihiko Tosa, and the official documents from the Japan Karate-do Federation clearly supports this our claim. Thus no valid reason for removal of the claim nor the sources to support it exist. It is my understanding, that it is not acceptable on Wikipedia to remove references and include your own without a valid reason. Disputing references can be dealt with on the talk page. Am I right? Simply deleting them in the manner Mario Roering has done, is grounds for an edit war and vandalism as I see it. Peter Lee (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

About the validation and confirmation of facts, the following is stated: "Say where you found the material. It is improper to include a reference from an intermediate source in a Wikipedia page without stating so. For example, on a Web page, you might find some information that is attributed to a book. Unless you examine the book yourself, your reference is then the Web page, not the book. You should, in turn, make it clear in the reference that the Web page cited the book.". Can be read here in full text here: [[19]]. It should be obvious to everyone, that Mario Roering cannot comply with this quote, as he did not check up on the references himself. All his deleting the references already included in the article and replacing them with lesser sources not re-checked by himself, is thus a violation of guidelines and conduct here at Wikipedia. Peter Lee (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It is my clear understanding, that Mario Roering has started an edit war, and he has engaged himself in vandalism. I have thus reverted the edits done by Mario Roering based on the above mentioned grounds. Peter Lee (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I see Peter Lee making all sorts of insults here, calling me a "vandal", accusing me of "starting edit wars", and so on. Clearly, Peter Lee has no idea what policy Wikipedia has and what is called "vandalism". It is clearly Peter himself who is starting an edit war if he keeps reverting my edits, that I thoroughly explained on the talk page! After having explained why I removed or added something, even with agreement of NeilN, he still reverts the edit!!! Now, how about that? Isn't that vandalism??? I do not accept Peter's insults any longer! I am taking steps... MarioR 12:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also have to mention that Peter is again contradicting himself: he starts off with "Fresh Start" and some smooth talking ("Let's try from the beginning again, hopefully with a better result this time."), but already in his SECOND sentence he start his tirade again: "The Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation article is clearly being vandalized by Mario Roering..." and so on and so on... Is THIS a fresh start? Ha! Don't make me laugh... He is just continuing what he always does: insulting me as much as possible, reverting perfectly good edits, accusing me of all kinds of things... Totally unacceptable behaviour!!! I hope you (Neil) agree on that... MarioR 12:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Using a Law Firm Website

Neil,

I'm pretty new to editing here on Wikipedia. I added a link to the mesothelioma page which you later took down. You asked me to stop using a law firm as a source. I was wondering why that might be when the website has good information on it. Please explain a little further or direct me to some information that might help. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlpoole (talk • contribs) 20:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation Edit War December 2009

Forgive me for forgetting to invite you to this discussion Talk:Genseiryū_Karate-do_International_Federation#Edit_War_December_2009 - I will add a place for your comments. jmcw (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Be prepared for walls of text (see above for examples). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Coleman

I've requested semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Lester Coleman media center?

American University of Technology

Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty funny. I went through the article history and there was a reference to a Dr. Lex Coleman. I've removed that sentence as I could not find any reference to Lester Coleman on the organization's website. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, those guys either need to put up or shut up, regards Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Rob Ramage

I understand what you're saying, but is removing 6 months of edits by a number of different editors the answer? Is it posible to remove the controversial material, but leave the changes that are in no way connected? Changes have made to the infobox, external links etc. and reverting back to June 2009, is removing the legitimate edits along with the controversial ones. Cmr08 (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Chilean user Echidna2007

NeilN:

Thank you for intervening in the issue of Echidna's insistence on deleting mention of the fact that Argentina is a member of the G-20 (I've notified the noticeboard). This user insists on disrupting the peace, if you will, by insisting on inserting negative opinions by a think tank, while leaving out a matter of public record (the G-20 membership). I've written the user twice on the subject (see, user talk).

The user is Chilean, and though most Chilean editors won't waste their time (and ours) with anything like this, this one prefers to put down Argentina for nationalistic reasons. Why deny it with good faith assumptions, when this sort of thing happens all the time (I'm sure you've had your hands full with the back-and-forth between Israelis and Palestinians, for example).

Please note, I have not gone into the Chile article, despite its containing the same repetitive statements that this user claims to be against, while also including hyperbole about the OECD ("most developed" -not strictly true- and "honor" -subjective, wouldn't you say?). He should know, he put them in there, while turning around and applying a double standard to others.

The user's comparing appples and oranges, besides: G-20 membership is public record and central to the article (my mention of it was quite brief), whereas a think tank's opinions being metioned in the Economy section suffice, as they are but opinions.

I should point out that said user snuck in an edit after your warning. If I may, then, I will revert the article to its original version, and include mention of the G-20 membership, unless you object. That's what was there to begin with.

Please write me back with any questions or suggestions.

Thanks again,

Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you've already reverted which is not a good thing in light of your WP:3RR report. Admins will look at the edit histories of each user in an edit war and often decide to block both if both have broken 3RR. The proper thing to do is discuss on the article's talk page and ask for a WP:3O if necessary. As this is a content dispute, there's no need to add/delete content right this *instant*. After an admin decides what to do with your 3RR report I'd be willing to mediate between Echidna2007 and you on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Neil:

Thanks for your message. I restored the intro to its original, pre-dispute version, and took care not to add or subtract anything else, or to fiddle with the Chile page, naturally. I hope that's alright.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

NeilN,

I have received your message and I have no problem in understanding your point of view. I have noticed this user Sherlock has an important history of disputes regarding Argentina.

Also, I cannot understand why he/she states that I am national of Chile. It can be any and also it is not a matter in Wikipedia, because this is an open world for everyone, regardless nationalities. I am considering it as a personal attack.

In my edition I just have followed same criteria used with other sentences about Argentina in the first paragraph. I have eliminated duplicated information explained further down in the article. He/She has duplicated information about G-20. I could say without probe and only based on my "guess" (as Sherlock usually does), that h/she added G-20 topic as a reaction of the new Chile's invitation to be a full member of OECD. Another guess could be: Sherlock can be the same user that put opinions in "La Nacion" Argentinian newspaper regarding G-20 and its importance comparing with OECD after Chile's invitation.

Sherlock has not left the introduction as pre-dispute was as he wrote to you. It still includes duplicated information regarding G-20.

Regards

Echidna2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echidna2007 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The proper thing to do is discuss on the article's talk page and ask for a WP:3O if necessary. As this is a content dispute, there's no need to add/delete content right this *instant*. After an admin decides what to do with this I'd be willing to mediate between Sherlock4000 and you on the article's talk page --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Astral Weeks article

Hi Neil, I was wondering if you would like to help getting this article to GA status? I don't think it's very far from being ready at this point. I would want to take a while and go slowly as I can never be sure when I will have editing time of any duration. Feel free to decline if you don't have the time or inclination. Happy Holidays and thanks for always being a helpful, fair and if I may be "POV" on your talk page: Just an Exceptional editor. Agadant (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Agadant, sure I'll help out. I'll be pretty busy with work and the holidays until the New Year but I'll do what I can. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN, no hurry with anything though, I'll be busy a lot too. I just had the idea today as it seems like it has the potential to be a good article with a lot of good material already, but I actually forget to work on it much anymore. So whenever you get any free time and think about it will be fine. We'll just go about improving it gradually and see how it looks in a month or two. All the best, Agadant (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Hi, thanks for the change. Left a message on the talk page.Talk:The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management#Usage_of_the_word_.27Controversy.27_as_per_Wikipedia:AVOID.23Controversy_and_scandal.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

mBA-Channel source

Hi, you added a source MBA Channel IIPM: For a handful of dollars on [[20]]. The source is a "Career Portal"[21] and not a reputed news magazine. It is run by journalists, but is not intended to be a news magazine[22]. It may not be a reliable source at all for contentious data. Here's a google search for MBA Channel[], here's one for "Indian Institute of Planning..." from all pages under "Stanford.edu"[23], and two pages from Stanford's official faculty profiles [24][25]. If you do reply, kind leave a message on my talk page. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hi NeilN: Want to wish you and yours a "Happy New Year". Check your mail too! Cheers and best wishes, Agadant (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Confucianism

NeilN, regarding sources for my contribution, it's just a re-write to more standard english of the original at that location. See also the diff history. Regards, Happy New Year! Thardman22 (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)