User talk:NeilN/Archive 8

Need your help in the article Samaikhya Andhra

My attempts to wikify this article is being reverted and edited by an user. I have talked on his page, but would appreciate if you can take a look.

Vamsisv (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Need your help with a disruptive user

Check out the AN/I entry here[1]. Me and several other editors have argued and argued with this person, and the AN/I report seems to have been ignored, so I need your help - Do you know some admins that could get involved? I've already fallen into the trap of reverting him excessively because consensus is against his changes, but the thing is that he's not listening to us, so we can't reason with him. Check out the Tony Hawks Pro Skater 4 article's talk page and you'll see. Eik Corell (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been away for most of the past week. It looks like the situation has calmed down? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah a compromise has been reached. My primary concern was about how much coverage something actually needed from reliable sources. The problem is that a lot of video games have remakes or community-driven projects, and on some of the cases, there are only one or two reliable source that have picked up on it, for example mentioning it in a blog post, so when reliable sources address something in a limited capacity, but there are a couple of them, I'm not whether this constitutes coverage in reliable sources or not. Eik Corell (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber article

I can't seem to edit the discussion page of the Bieber article, and you have, so I thought I'd share this with you to add to the talk page. Basically, I think it should be noted in some way that Bieber does not write the majority of his music, as is implied by the article. In fact, most of his most popular songs were written by others, According to the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS website (see the list of writers for the song One Time here: http://ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=750420905&search_in=i&search_type=exact&search_det=t,s,w,p,b,v&results_pp=30&start=1) Songs written by Bieber include Common Denominator and that one about his dad that I forget the name of. Heres a list of more of his songs: http://ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=JUSTIN%20BIEBER&search_in=a&search_type=exact&search_det=t,s,w,p,b,v&results_pp=30&start=1 Thanks --Saldon (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nein, I couldn't help noticing your removal of a whole paragraph from the Justin Bieber article. If you are going to make substantial changes to an article, you're meant to write about it in the discussion pages. As it happens, this issue had already been discussed and most of the editors involved were in favour of keeping it, so your disruptive editing was most certainly unwarranted and unjustified. Don't think that your opinion counts for more than anyone else's here. (Huey45 (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky

Why are you continuing to mislead your readers with the following statement, "the only Slavic language spoken in the family is Ukrainian". You bury the truth,

In the book Gretzky by Jim Taylor and Walter Gretzky (pg.49), "...until Phyllis (Wayne's mother) arrived Mom (Walter Gretzky's mother) couldn't speak English very well, only Polish and Ukrainian....But Mom never forgot her Polish background". Why are you so afraid Wayne Gretzky has Polish ancestry. For goodness sake, put the preceeding line into Wayne's biography, by the "only" statement. Your misleading your readers by not publishing this factual statement! 205.200.39.233 (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you have me mistaken with someone else as I never made that statement. Here are my edits regarding the matter [2], [3]. If you wish to discuss these edits please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I creeped in here looking at that guys edit history, and well, he's actually referring to the quote I inserted in the Gretzky article. It's quoted and sourced verbatim, there is no "truth burying" going on, just quoting biographers and keeping things legit.--Львівське (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The IP hasn't returned so I guess the matter wasn't that important. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Jim Bell. Thank you.. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you have read between the lines with remarkable accuracy :-) Guy (Help!) 20:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Dion Phaneuf

Why can I not write that dion hasnt scored a g oal in his first 22 games in toronto? Also, why is the view of some newspaper columnist any better of a source than the views of myself or others in a forum? We both carry one vote in Presidential ellections. At least in MY country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiuytrewq9 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: user is indef blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Further to your request on the help desk, I thought that this might be useful.  Chzz  ►  22:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

How references work

Simple references These require two parts; a) Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref> He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref> b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}"; == References == {{reflist}} (an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections) To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:NeilN/reftest and try it out. Named references Chzz was born in 1837, <ref name="MyBook"> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref> in Footown.<ref name="MyBook"/> Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result. Citation templates You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look; Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation | last = Smith | first = John | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century | publication-date = 2001 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]] | page = 125 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4 }} </ref> Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result. For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Hey, thanks for the template! I think I was answering a question rather than requesting help but the template will be definitely handy to use in the future. Do I subst it or what? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Cosby Cwestion

Hi, Neil. Thanks for your note. I'm a bit vague on the policy. At WP:ELNO, the policy disallows "links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," as this site that sells dissertations does. Is the policy actually less strict for footnote references? I'm not sure that a footnote could link to an Amazon page that sells a book, for example. If you could help me with any clarification or point me to the pertinent cite policy, that would be great. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks — I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand it better. One question, though: The policy seems to be talking about sites that require payment to access. But the site in question (which has a new URL, in any case: http://disexpress.umi.com/, which seems to be referenced again, without a link, in footnote 14) charges to sell you individual theses and dissertations — just as Amazon charges to sell books. Is there a difference I might not be seeing? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your collegiality. Boy, that's a tough one. The footnote only really has to verify the title and that he wrote this thesis, and there's a UMass page here that does that.

But wait ... I just found something that sort of splits things right down the middle. What do you think of this: I found a page a ProQuest (the new name for the UMI repository) that offers a preview — including several of the actual pages — for free. It's here. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to say so! I'll go ahead and put it in. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bell

Could you specify what you wanted me to read? These discussions end up scattered all over the place, so I'm sure I missed something. Wnt (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically you'll have to go through the history of the article's talk page and his talk page and read his contribs to ANI and other users' talk pages. Bell wasn't banned for just being uncivil, he was banned for refusing to get the point and not dropping the stick. Plenty of other editors were willing to work with him to fix problems in the article but he just wanted (and still wants) the editors who had prevented him from making his desired edits blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, "Read it" means "I read your comment". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that he was breaking some rules and could have gotten banned - what troubles me is that in the block log I don't see a 24-hour block, another 24-hour block, a three-day block, a one-week block, a one-month block etc. I see 67 edits, most of which were not violations of policy - motivated by BLP concerns, yet - and then an indefinite ban. I am also rather appalled because I've just seen a sourced article speedy-deleted as an "attack article" -an article which doesn't seem that different than Jim Bell to me - with my dissent but with the approval of Jimbo Wales and other high-ranking Wikipedians. Yet Bongo, as (maybe) First Lady of her country is much more of a public figure than Bell. Wnt (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be on some sort of crusade about the other article. I haven't looked into that situation much but I seriously have to question your assertion that most of his edits were not violations of policy - WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:BLP are policies and WP:AGF is a founding principle. He asked to comment on content, not on contributors multiple times and refused to drop the stick and is still refusing to do so. We'll put up with difficult editors, but there has to be some benefit to Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to print out all 67 diffs in one page? Downloading all those pages takes too long for me to be at all eager to go through them all. I've only looked at a fraction of the edits, and I've seen a few fairly flagrant personal attacks. But certainly it doesn't look like every personal attack on Wikipedia gets a warning, so much as a block. I think that new editors who are not out and out vandals deserve even more cycles of short blocks and reinstatement than the vandals get - not less.

Last but not least, let's remember that according to the article itself, Bell just got out of jail after being locked up for ten years on trumped-up charges - if you don't count him as an out-and-out political prisoner - he comes out, pulls up his Wikipedia article and sees a biased report. This is someone who may never have read a Wikipedia article before, let alone written one. No one would have been more deserving of a short fixed term block to keep things cool while he gets more familiar with Wikipedia procedure. Wnt (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bell alleges they were trumped up charges - the article makes no such claim. And it's not much use discussing what happened if you haven't gone through the history. Suffice to say, Bell was given ample chances to keep his cool. Yet here we are, three months later, with his socks and emails to OTRS demonstrating the same behaviour that got him blocked in the first place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

He was sentenced to ten years for doing things that are not illegal for the wealthy (ask Mark Fuhrman!). I call that a trumped up charge. I don't think of IP addresses as "sock puppets" - they're simply block evasion, and I bet there's a fair chance if you set a fixed date for the block to end and said to stop using fresh IPs to argue his case in the meanwhile that you could talk him out of using them. He's just arguing his case anyway, and Wikipoliticking like everybody else. And OTRS is just not Wikipedia so far as I'm concerned. Wnt (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You've got a lot of definitions that are at odds with the community. And for the last time, Bell was not blocked for arguing content, he was blocked for only complaining about other editors. Take a look at his last five contributions before the original account was blocked: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Do you see any constructive suggestions about the article in there? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I recognized that the "sockpuppet" term is generally used more broadly than what I'd prefer, but it seems problematic. If an IP address is a "sockpuppet" then the typical newbie starts out with lots of sockpuppets, from whatever IPs the modem gave him before he started an account.

Looking through those edits, I don't see them as any more or less useful than my comments here... But let's look at the larger picture. Wikipedia is dying. And the reason why it's dying, according to the independent press reports I've run across, is a combination of deletionists and an increasingly rigid and complex set of rules. In other words, the "control freaks" Jim Bell is talking about! So while his edits may not be improving an article today, and are fairly ignorant of the rules, I see him there not only defending himself, but fundamentally trying to save Wikipedia. I don't think a ban or any part thereof should be based on those five edits. Wnt (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

False assumption. Please read through the entire section you pointed to, specifically "I, for one, welcome the slowing in the growth in the number of articles. While any article which does not yet exist, but which should exist, should be created... growth for the sake of growth is absolutely the wrong metric.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)". Bell has zero interest in "saving" Wikipedia. He's interested in controlling the article about him and having those editors who get in his way, blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's my perception that the number of editors is dropping in direct proportion to the number of new articles. I think Wales is being far too optimistic here. I don't agree with Bell's request for blocks on others, and I don't think he should control his article, but he should be a rather knowledgeable editor of it. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing that backs up your claim. Please see User:Katalaveno/TBE and [9]. As for Bell, please find the last edit of his that suggested a constructive change to his article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me at Katalaveno, and also I hadn't realized they finally had some statistics past 2006. But both these pages show the same thing: a decline since 2007. It is not quite as extreme as the decrease in number of new articles, but it is still significant. I've inverted Katalaveno's graph File:Wikipedia edit rate (x1000 per day).png to allow comparison with the number of new articles File:Enwikipediagrowth6.PNG. Wnt (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) As noted on Jimbo's page, one very plausible reason for the decline is because all the "easy stuff" has been written about. Also, sourcing, notability, and BLP guideines are much stricter now. In many cases, you can't just spend five minutes adding content to an article and expect it to stay. Other editors will be looking for sourcing, NPOV, and notability and if they don't find it, revert the edit. This discourages the casual contributor who just wants to add a piece of info they "know is right". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Martin

That version of the BLP is awful, I can barely read it. It is a shame now, a shame on wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to tone down the rhetoric and discuss specific changes on the talk page as a number of senior editors obviously do not feel the way you do. The subject is primarily known for controversial and unpopular actions. Does the article neutrally document this? I'll pay more attention to what is happening but right now my only involvement is one relatively minor edit that was designed as a compromise. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Niobe photos

Hi Neil! I left at Talk: Niobe on your recent edit on the article. Is it possible you haven't noticed Niobe already contained images. In that case, I will revert to the previous page order. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Krauss

I undid myself, because it shouldn't have been a vandalism reversion, but that doesn't make any sense to me. If she didn't win for participation on Yo-Yo Ma's album why is she credited for O Brother wins on their site? Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Page Fix. Vandalism.

Thanks for fixing my last page! Ahears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahears (talk • contribs) 20:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

You're the sixth editor I've had to thank for reverting vandalism on my user and talk pages tonight. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Userpage Shield
		Thank you, for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! You're sure one popular target today! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I know! I have no idea why I was targeted, but it appears to have stopped now. Thank you again. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

public record problem

It is public knowledge that Sarabeth Tucek was born in 1967 and graduated from Westfield High School in New jersey in 1984. User ghmyrtle repeatedly reoves this information from the page. Please explain what verifiable source is acceptable to add this relatively innocuous detail to the artist's page without being harassed by ghmyrtle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjo5650 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Clannad Mediation Case

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-21/Clannad is closing up, and I have requested final views. Please have a look at the page soon if you are still interested. Thanks. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Mitch McConnell Edit

My oversight with not using reference. So, so sorry. And I have successfully created and edited hundreds of Wiki pages so I am not going to go to discussion pages to see if people (like you) will approve them. I have had that exact type of new information added to many other legislators' websites. Thank you anyway. Myk60640 (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Myk60640 (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The foreign language thing.

Explain why another person is allowed to write in Arabic? Here's a copy & Paste

Islam pliability

المتبعين للعقائد الأخرى مثل العلمانيين و اللاأدريين تختلف مبادئهم إختلاف واضح مع العقيدة الاسلامية ,الناقدون السياسيون أيضا يستنكرون وبعنف النظام السلامي في بعض الدول الاسلامية —Preceding unsigned comment added by EarthForPeace (talk • contribs) 17:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC) وهكذا؟ 92.132.232.173 (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If he can, why not me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whateveruwantidowhateveriwant (talk • contribs) 04:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords

Thanks for trying to bring some balance to Gabrielle Giffords' page. Unfortunately it looks like some of your changes have already been undone (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabrielle_Giffords&diff=prev&oldid=357083842, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabrielle_Giffords&diff=prev&oldid=357083534) by the same person who was responsible for most of the problematic content in the first place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Parallel_process)

Thanks again for your attention to this, and please do let me know if I'm approaching this incorrectly -- I am new to this!

Stephanie4815162342 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're doing fine. Other editors are now discussing and I've removed the problematic section in Ted Strickland. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Really appreciate both your help and your patience. I think we have gotten the Giffords page to a good place, but I will continue to be vigilant.

I am doing this work as part of a larger project to ensure that US political candidates' wiki pages are complete, fact-based and free from abuse. As I continue to comb through them and spot problems, what is the best way to get quick resolution? The Talk pages for most of these folks are not trafficked enough to get any attention. Stephanie4815162342 (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Make the change yourself if there's no obvious conflict of interest or if the contents obviously violate WP:BLP. If there is, post on the talk page and add a pointer on WP:BLPN or drop a note here (I usually check in at least a couple times a day). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello NeilN

I believe the portions of the Ted Strickland article you are reverting are of value and appropriate for the encyclopedia entry. I would appreciate a discussion of the article, rather than deletes. Of course, I welcome any useful and accurate additions that you would have. Parallel process (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have. Note our process is WP:BRD - not keep on re-adding material multiple editors find problematic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but multiple editors have also reverted that section of the article in support in past revisions. The best way to resolve this is discussion, good faith attempts, and hopefully consensus. Parallel process (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

neil

why do you hate me and tina fey, because she is freaking awesome, and you know it sincerly, ~the toole —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theicedt (talk • contribs) 04:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: user is indef blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Excuse me, but I have a problem with this person who vandalize (Article Haratin) Algerialove ever since this section alters a person without reason article for pleasure.

User:Koavf has given User:AlgeriaLove a final warning so any more disruption should be reported to WP:AIV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

Thanks! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Marysville, Ohio. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Please also read WP:CIVIL

Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Copying my warning to you here doesn't really help your cause as I've made exactly one edit to the article thus far (more to come though). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Marysville, Ohio

On the advice of Black Kite] I was wondering if you could revert the last two edits made to the Marysville, Ohio page. The edits are reverts from Wiki Historian N OH‎ and concern the building and opening of businesses like Walmart, Lowes and some pizza chains and such. Clearly not notable and not needed. The other one is the re-addition of a picture (unlicensed to the page and inappropriate even if it was) of William Henry Harrison. I don't think either of these edits are needed on the page as they are inappropriate and one is WP:OR. If you can, I would appreciate it. If you wish to stay out of the mudpuddle of a page this has become, I completely understand. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Already undid one before I got this message, looking at the other. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sir, much appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

South Korea – United States relations

hmm. twigi is not animal. newspaper is not always credible source or fact. 660gd4qo (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Use the article talk page for article issues please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

You aren't fair at all are you Neil. Let me guess, you believe in evolution, don't you? Copernicus was up against the same type of bias.

If you can find reliable sources that state his lectures "...validate the Genesis account while dispelling the philosophy of evolution and an old earth" I'm listening. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Perratta article

Hi Neil -

Regarding my changes to the Perratta article, the linked web site clearly shows the evidence of the plagiarism Mr. Perratta committed. Do I just need to make web site a reference using tags, or is the evidence not sufficient for the claims?

Thanks! c.

ChefYardboyArDee (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks for explaining! c.

Reverting and blanking

Whether my understanding of the blanking policies is correct or not, on what basis do you claim a right to reverse edits you are not involved in? Please explain this on the basis of policies. Afterwriting (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Any editor is allowed to edit any page to enforce policy. There is no "prior involvement" needed. Having said that, I should have not blanked your new comment (only pointed out that you were incorrect - I will do that now) and only blanked Huey45's comments which the IP clearly wants gone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Pronoun

It wasn't me but I think I have a virus. I am truly sorry. I do apologize —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.81.99 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 1 May 2010

Notability

Neil,

I have a question regarding an article I have worked on periodically, "Hillcrest, Rockland County, New York." A user has created a Notable Residents section in which extensive information on someone named Stella Marrs was added. If this person in fact meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (I doubt it), shouldn't all this info be transferred to a separate article under her name?

Thanks so much for your advice, Sinecostan (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Attribution/Relevance

Neil,

If you don't mind my asking, I have other bothersome issues with "Hillcrest, Rockland County, New York." Not too long ago, a user edited the History section with some highly controversial information regarding "white flight" and the racial composition of the community. Only one article is listed as attribution, which I suspect is insufficient in regard to recent events of this nature. Furthermore, looking at the stated source, I feel that the Times article has been plagiarized. And then? The user then went right into info about the water tower, which makes no sense in that location.

Perhaps I am way off track here. Please set me straight. Sinecostan (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Architecture Opinions

I recently join Wikipedia community because I found opinion instead of factual information when editing the definition and ideas that encompass the word "Architecture".

In the Architecture Today section under the word Architecture it states:

"With the advancement of technology, an architect needs to be more versed with the computer. CAD, or computer aided design, has taken over the field of architecture. there are fewer hand drawn drafts and more work work with software such as Autocad, Solid Works, Rhino, 3DS Max, Maya, and many others. These advancements are beginning to take away from the art within architecture. It is important to note that in history, bridges were designed by architects. But as the span grew larger, civil engineers had to take over to deliver a more precise design. Buildings are already designed by a team, and less by the architect themselves. It is a shame to think that we may lose true design because the result requires a team of mathematicians, rather than designers."

This is opinion. There is no citation here and there are no facts.

Especially here: "It is a shame to think that we may lose true design because the result requires a team of mathematicians, rather than designers."

Please address this issue.

Konstructicon Konstructicon (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I have removed that section - you could have too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy NeilN's Day!

User:NeilN has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as NeilN's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear NeilN! Peace, Rlevse 00:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

George Soros Revert

Dear NeilN:

The page in question relies upon both newspaper articles -- i.e. Reuters -- and related court documents. The court documents are not merely allegations in complaints, but rather are opinions of the court and docket sheet. The addition to the Soros article is absolutely correct and properly documented/sourced.

I was suprised by the speed with which you removed the article. It appears to me that you have some sort of watch on the Soros article. What is your connection to Soros or interest in Soros?

Flipperwill

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your Status Re Wikipedia

Dear NeilN.:

You state that you have no personal interest in this matter. It appears that you are a Wikipedia user rather than a employee of Wikipedia. Please confirm that this is so.

Thank you.

Flipperwill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipperwill (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Soros Page Vandalism

Dear NealN:

Be this as it may, your wholesale removal of the Veil Piercing Section in the Soros Biography is vandalism. If you disagree with any substantive aspect of the section, you are certainly welcome to add any information you possess pertinent to the subject, but wholesale removal of the page is, I repeat, vandalism.

Please let me know whether you have any quarrel with the substantive text in the Veil Piercing section.

Sincerely, Flipperwill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipperwill (talk • contribs) 14:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Blanking is Vandalism

Dear NeilN:

With all due respect, blanking is vandalism. Spacing is a petty issue. The real issue is why you want this article deleted when you have no quarrel with its substance.

Flipperwill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipperwill (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, NeilN!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for teaching me how to do this hat and hab stuff! :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Very clever :-) You're welcome. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Howdy.

I don't know what you did. I made a suggestion for the Qur'an. I don't know if I got a warning or what. Went to take a look to see if something change, and my suggestion is gone.

Did you delete my suggestion ? Why would you delete a suggestion ?

Said something about not being for "General Discussion". I made a specific suggestion. I don't have a problem with disagreement, but did you delete it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs) 01:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cesc Fabregas

Wht the hell are you deleting my edit, this is the latest news according to bbc sport and fabregas himself has declared an interest in moving to Barcelona! I suggest you apologize asap and I am going to change it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beedum (talk • contribs) 08:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Waldir's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

go away

I'm sorry to say that you have upset me deeply and that I would like you to never cross my path again by changing my edits. Also, what I say to Stardust is my business so get lost!

from your enemy Beedum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beedum (talk • contribs) 11:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hallaur

Mr. NeilN! I think this article needs attention. It seems you had put some tags on this article which have simply been removed by User:Humaliwalay, without any considerable improvement to the article. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Information please

I received a notice, dated April 10, 2010, that I had vandalized Wikipedia, somehow. Could you tell me exactly how this conclusion was reached? All I have ever done is correct grammar, insert a few factoids about my favorite celebrities, and add a picture. I'm wondering if the picture was the problem. Maybe it had copyright issues that I was unaware of?

Thanks,

Herman Forstmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centerstagehermy (talk • contribs) 06:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please help

Dear Neil, I ve changed a section on the page "Republic of Ragusa" i.e. the names of the patrician families according to a most reliable source - a book published by the Croatian Acadamy od Science and Arts. I also cited the ISDN number. However, the user DIREKTOR reverted without any argument. That's vandalism. Could You please warn him and undo his vandalism? Thank You very much, Orsat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orsat (talk • contribs) 23:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The author of the canvassing is a sock of User:Ragusino, banned for disruption, vandalism, OUTING, threats, etc etc. Thought you might want to know, cheers :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop vandalizm

Dear Neil, I ve made some changes to the page "Republic of Ragusa" based on a book by the Croatian Academy of Science and even provided the ISBN. The user "DIREKTOR" is repeatedly reverting the edits to an older version which is wrong and inaccuarate. He doesn t even give a reason for his reverts. So please ban/block him. Yours faithfully, OrsatOrsat (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger of symbolic computation with computer algebra system

You may be interested in Talk:Symbolic computation#Merger with computer algebra system. Yaris678 (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Naismith Change

I would like to know why you are changing portions of my edit of the Dr. Naismith entry. It is decently formatted with multiple citations to 'back-up' its information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.185.236 (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the citations have the same information. I'm fail to see how 3 sources saying the same thing with different monologues to the facts is an issue. I'm also shocked that Vermont Public radio, direct quotes from family contained in the aforementioned source and national news papers are not reliable sources, especially since I referenced a photograph in the works. Also box score news felt the authors were vetted enough to attach their name to Fosty's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.185.236 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)