User talk:NeilN/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions with User:NeilN. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Just pressed revert, no clue what is going on. Wgolf (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wgolf No worries. You just caught up in some bizarre behaviour by another editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with you?!--94.59.248.196 (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, you are replacing references to two books with a reference to a random website. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

the website i provided [i.e. http://tanzil.net/#7:157] presents the Arabic text in addition to several famous English translations of the meanings. Saheeh International is one of these translations [the official website: http://www.saheehinternational.com/].--94.59.248.196 (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

here is another website also: http://quran.com/7 . It also offers the translation of Saheeh International. --94.59.248.196 (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

and here is a book reference also: http://books.google.ae/books?id=bzRWiDTf4_oC&pg=PA153&dq=%22Those+who+follow+the+Messenger,+the+unlettered+prophet,+whom+they+find+written%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KrsUU-u2Nsap7Aae34HYAQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Those%20who%20follow%20the%20Messenger%2C%20the%20unlettered%20prophet%2C%20whom%20they%20find%20written%22&f=false --94.59.248.196 (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You also erased "The seventh Quranic Sura Al-A'raf contains a passage that has been interpreted to mean that Muhammad was predicted in Jewish and Christian sacred texts." which was the main reason the quote was there. Any reason why? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I will replace it with this sentence: "Several Quranic verses say that Muhammad was predicted in Jewish and Christian sacred texts. For example:"--176.205.112.146 (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree or what?!--176.205.112.146 (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Those sources you're removing provide the interpretation of the primary text. What source are you using for that? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

[Qur-an, 7:157]: Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful.^[1]
Can you tell me what interpretation is required here?!
--176.205.112.146 (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

NO PROBLEM! I will keep these sources if you wish--176.205.112.146 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN,

First of all it is really great to know that I am communicating with a human

The Link I added was just an Directory that can can give an idea about escort agencies and how do they operate there Business.

I found few links in that directory that that explains how they operate and what they offer, and that is why I create that link.

I am planning to write a article on Prostitution and its effect on society and previous practice was just a part of that.

Hope you can understand my point.

Thanks and Regards,

Ritu Verma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rituvermapk1 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Rituvermapk1, please refrain from adding such links as it is obviously a commercial site containing no encyclopedic content whatsoever. And we already have an article on Prostitution. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

[1] Danke schon !! 69.165.246.181 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to inform you that a WP:RM discussion has started on Talk:Matt Schultz (disambiguation)#Requested move regarding reverting my moves for the "Matt Schultz" titles. Seems that the reverts back to their original titles were considered controversial by the administrator who was to perform the reverts. Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that my writing was: "...self-congratulatory puffery" --NeilN talk to me 01:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)" is untrue.

First, I was not speaking about myself and was not involved in the Street Artists Movement. In additional this has been documented in numerous newspaper accounts that the original artists practiced passive civil disobedience.

Your actions appear devoid of the scholarly method, immature and reckless that you would delete something you know nothing about, have not researched and have apparently not read the article. --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inquiringmindswanttoknow (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Inquiringmindswanttoknow, did you read WP:NPOV? Sentences like:

• "The artists of The San Francisco Street Artist Guild showed great tenacity and bravery when they stood up to the powers-that-be for Artist's First Amendment Rights to express themselves through their art."
• "And these artists achieved their goals solely using passive non-violence. A strong testament to the commitment of the participating artists and the founders of the San Francisco Street Artist Guild."

The article is not a soapbox to proclaim how great the organization is. Nor is it a place to chronicle their blow-by-blow battle against "the powers-that-be". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent efforts in battling the bizarre edits of William Clark and his possible sock puppet, User:Inquiringmindswanttoknow in the Street Artists Program of San Francisco article. The article was originally written with many primary sources from San Francisco's main newspaper, The Chronicle, and later went through a major rewrite by veteran DYK editor User:Yoninah. If you open the below link you can see the article when it was in it's DYK form. Please read that version as it seems like we should revert back to that state of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco&oldid=596854766

Since the time of DYK release, the article has been infested with a multitude of questionable, self-aggrandizing, and disorganized edits by the ever-persistent William Clark and Inquiringmindswanttoknow -- neither of which has even bothered to become a registered Wikipedia User or to even familiarize themselves with Wikipedia’s procedures and rules.

Sooner or later it seems inevitable that we need to apply some page protection, and a revert the article to its earlier state DYK state.James Carroll (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted to that version as it seems more adhering to NPOV and COI-free. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

made the following edit with the words

This myth was however, finally exposed by the Planning Inspector at the Core Strategy Inquiry in 2011, when he made it abundantly clear..."

Been informed such wording is not appropriate phrasing for an encyclopedia

What's wrong with it? Shaun Cunningham (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure "Mr Fink" is a legitimate alias? It's not mentioned on [User:Apokryltaros|his user page]. Where has he used it outside of that debate? I think something might be amiss here.

InternetMeme (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

InternetMeme, check any of his talk page posts from January on back [2]. You could have asked him as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Or in fact looked at User_talk:Apokryltaros. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's not my job to go looking up the all the aliases people elect to use. If he wants to use an alias, he should include it on his talk page. If his talk page lists different aliases, then it looks suspicious. In fact, it still looks suspicios: Why is he using four different names (Apokryltaros, Mr A, Mr Fink, and Stanton)? That is not at all appropriate for an editor involved in debates. This is one step away from WP:SOCKPUPPET. InternetMeme (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

InternetMeme, if you change another editor's posts on the basis of "identity fraud", you should probably talk to them. Why haven't you posted these concerns on Apokryltaros' talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. I was just reading the discussion, noticed the name linked was different from the name specified, cross-checked the user page, found two other names, and concluded that there was a strong potential for misidentification.

So I made the correction, and moved on to the next article: I never considered consulting Apokryltaros before editing for the same reason I've never considered consulting Isla Fisher before editing her article. In hindsight, I probably should have thought harder about it.

InternetMeme (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"Stanton Fink" happens to be my actual name. I use "Mr Fink" as I'm sick and tired of other editors misspelling my username, "Apokryltaros," the name of a monster I created, because they're too goddamned lazy to copy and paste. Furthermore, I've already had this exact same argument with another moronic, deaf, bullying editor who tried to coerce me into changing my signature as he saw fit by dragging me into wikidrama hell for a month or two. There is no rule against changing one's signature to a name different to the user name if there is no intent to deceive. And until the Wikielders decide to pass a new law that retroactively bans users for having changed their signature names as their wiki-careers evolved, or if they decide to retroactively bar editors from having signature names different than their usernames, PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And just as a courtesy, until those who rule/make the rules for Wikipedia officially decide that what I have done with my signature, or my past signature history are not acceptable, I do not plan on ever changing my signature on someone else's behalf, and I will not acknowledge any messages or threads on my own talkpage asking me to do so, either. Because I did not actually do anything wrong, and because I really disapprove of someone else dragging me into another wikidrama hell because they won't give a damn about my explanations. --Mr Fink (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you reverting my edits? --れ下がった (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What have I done that is wrong? Is it just my photo? --れ下がった (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Obvious troll is obviously indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we’ve found the official Wikipedia brown shirt, who relishes issuing commands. Well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicmart (talk • contribs)

I think Nicmart is upset because I removed his post promoting his own site. A read of WP:NPA might be in order too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

NeilN I have made the changes...I was "quoting" and attributing with references...What else can be done now? Thanks for your help and yes pls do what must be done now for its creation...tksYani papadimos (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, I kindly remind you to my messages regarding the Article Dimitri Papadimos...what should I do next or what am I to expect from Wikipedia...many tks Yani papadimos (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear NeilN I have understood your comments and have made the necessary, in my opinion, changes...I have also added a private letter from Austen Harrison to my mother on her wedding day [3] as proof of the connection between Austen Harrison and my Father Dimitri Papadimos as you will also note by be various photos at the bottom of the article. By the way the "Johnny" that Harrison mentions in his letter, is me...Pls be kind enough and let me know what you think. My very bestYani papadimos (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear NeilN "All is well that ends well"...thank you for your advise...I will continue to improve always keeping in mind your advise...Thank you againYani papadimos (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Neil,

Is there room for discussion on the wholesale edits you and others have made to the article?

For example, removing Jim Woolsey from my article is perhaps the best thing you could have done for me. I have constantly throughout the time this article has existed been associated with the CIA when in fact Jim, who is an old friend, simply served on my company's board for a number of years. The fact that this was ever mentioned in the article was designed to link me with the Neocon movement, of which Jim is an acknowledged member, and to link me with the CIA, which is absolutely false.

But if you are going to remove what you refer to as a name-dropping infraction (all I did was tidy up someone else's reference, I never added it to the article), then could you at least either delete the last sentence of the first intro paragraph, or barring that, properly add in Amb. Woolsey's name and wikify it?

With regard to the edit dispute about the Formula One section, the issue there is as follows -- I agree that it is a convoluted section describing a business transaction that has not yet concluded and is quite complex and drawn out. So it is fair game to be deleted wholesale. But it is a material matter in my biography, just as Memogate was, just as Sudan and Kashmir were. To remove it wholesale after having it be part of the article for nearly a year now makes it appear as if you have some knowledge that the F1 deal with Lotus does not exist anymore, and that is both factually false and currently and significantly misleading.

Is there no room for middle ground? Can I suggest a way to do that, or is that forbidden?

Thirdly, with respect to the COI tag, I created my own USER ID in my name so there would be no ambiguity about my contributions to the page. I did so after receiving that advice from three different Wikipedia editors as a way to manage disruptive editing and vandalism of the article. That I added relevant biographical materials in the most neutral way possible, I do not see where I did anything wrong. I strongly object to any insinuation that I have somehow made the article less neutral. And I also object to the Red Pen complaint that somehow the people of public note with whom I had material interactions throughout my life are now to be deleted wholesale because it embellishes my record. I did those things stated. And with the people involved, good bad or indifferent.

Does it now show editorial bias by the three of you who have taken the article apart, and I am sure will make more edits in the coming hours and days, by making edits that do not even consider a third point of view on how it might better be done. It is clear that you are all aiming to block me from editing in Wikipedia, so I won't enter into any editing again. But I thought I should at least point out some of the issues that your editing has raised which make the article less informative.

Sincerely, Mansoor Ijaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansoor Ijaz (talk • contribs) 05:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Neil,

If you look at the article now, it has basically been butchered. It is now factually incomplete -- do I need to now show how many other articles on the Wiki system carry the name of a company and important personnel associated with that company in a particular individual's living biography? This has gone too far. This is no longer a "let's figure out how to accurately portray a person's life without embellishment". This is a wholesale hack job. And the agenda behind it was to try and write me out of the Formula One environment. That is factually inaccurate and it is really not correct to have done this to the article the way in which it has been done. How many places in Wikipedia tutorials are we told that articles are to be built up incrementally and not to be wholesale re-edited unless there is truly justifiable reason for doing so.

The original purpose of the Formula One section from whoever put it in was to point out that I was now an owner of a Formula One team. That was a material fact. That the deal did not complete yet due to banking complications then had to be explained. And it is still ongoing. So there was no justification to take out the entire section and then hack up the rest of the article at the same time. All the edits are of the same ilk -- take away anything that gives or lends importance or credibility to Mansoor Ijaz. That's all this is today -- is that fair? Is that accurate? Is that factually justified?

I ask one more time for your help on how to handle this because this is a wholesale attack on my person and it will not be tolerated.

--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you didn't seem to read what I posted on your talk page, I am reposting it here: "Hello Mr. Ijaz. You ask if there's a middle ground and if you can make suggestions. The answer is yes to both. Please read WP:COIADVICE. The accepted way for subjects of articles to influence/suggest content is to use the article's talk page - Talk:Mansoor Ijaz. Example: I think this should be changed [give proposed wording] because [give reason]. The more specific your suggestions are, the quicker they'll be addressed by another editor."

Also, I strongly advise you to tone down your rhetoric. Removing info that does not belong in a biography is not a "wholesale attack on [your] person" and your accusations of an agenda and a "hack job" are without merit. Recognize you do not and will not have everything you want in your biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Neil, can you now help by reviewing my suggestions to TRPOD edits? He has made factual errors in his version and I have suggested corrections. Thanks. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I did indeed request all images on my user page to be deleted as they are no longer going to be in use once all the editing is complete on the article. I am shortly making a request to delete User:Mansoor Ijaz. I would therefore request that you revert the deletion of the images. If necessary, I can also withdraw my permission as the uploader and author of the photographs in question, if that will help.

Thank you for helping me to understand how the Wiki project works. I wish you well. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mansoor Ijaz: Couple things: 1) It would help if you remembered to log in as I had no idea the IP editing the article was you. 2) It's not as easy as you think it is to withdraw permission for image use as you think it is as you agreed to "irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 licence." Plus there's the fact that some images are supposedly in the public domain. I have opened a thread at the Commons Admin noticeboard to get clarification on this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: apologies, sir. I just forgot. That is why I clarified it to you. I would appreciate the deletions request being honored, but as it is clear I am not welcome in this community anymore, do as you must and do whatever is the right thing to do. I'm not able to contribute anything to the discussion anymore.

--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC) One last favor, please remove reference to my wife in the lead. She is my ex-wife now for over 20 years and has nothing to do with me anymore. Neither did I have anything to do with her decisions to contribute politically. As you have all now succeeded in running me out of the Wiki community, I would ask this as a last favor.

Thank you, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Mansoor Ijaz, I have removed the reference to your wife in the lede. You are still welcome to contribute here but you must understand that not every change you want will be done and some changes you may not like. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: 20:18, 18 March 2014 (GMT) I would disagree with your opinion that the Quantum/Lotus transaction is not in the public interest (but defend your right to that opinion). The transaction has been widely reported in the sporting press and has attracted a lot of hearsay and conjecture by other commentators. Wikipedia's strict npov guidelines mean that it is an ideal place for to present just the facts that are currently known. If the revised paragraphs that I recently sought to add are too detailed perhaps a shorter summary would be acceptable? --User:Ryuichinaruhodo(talk)

@Ryuichinaruhodo: A shorter summary would be good. Please remember this is a general biography, not something like Fortune magazine. Three or four sentences focusing on Ijaz would fit in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: 11:51, 19 March 2014 (GMT) OK, have cut the commentary on the matter down to 3 sentences. --User:Ryuichinaruhodo(talk)

Hi Neil,

Can you explain your reverting of date format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Looker30 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Looker30, please read WP:DATERET and WP:RETAIN. Particularly, "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

St Patrick was related to St David, they were both from Wales. Great Britain never existed as a country also back then. The Kingdom of Great Britain resulted from the union of the kingdoms of England (comprising modern-day England and Wales) and Scotland in 1707. You could say he was born in Romano/Britain, it would be more historically accurate. {Ryangiggs69|Ryangiggs69}

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok I looked about and it's uncertain where he was born in Britain, but he was definatly not born in Great Britain, The Kingdom of Great Britain resulted from the union of the kingdoms of England (comprising modern-day England and Wales) and Scotland in 1707. source: Great Britain {Ryangiggs69|Ryangiggs69} 19:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ryangiggs69 Other definition: Great_Britain#Geographical_definition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Neil,

I´m sorry if i posted to many copyright images, i just want to put a image for the page of Ansel Elgort an actor, but every image is copyrighted.. Do u can find a image of him that works or help me how i put a image here that is not copyright . — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaDrew1 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there are gang-up reverts on my changes rather than improving them, which is exactly the comment you left on my page. Why revert the text I added rather than improving on it, then accusing me of an edit war? Puck42 (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Puck42, if you want content added in, it is up to you to suggest wording on the talk page that will address the concerns of other editors. Stop adding the same wording repeatedly to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neil,

Just wanted to point out the correction i've made to Ratan Tata article about him receiving a honorary doctorate is correct, no need to revoke it. I have included an official university source where it has been done. There is media coverage also available about it in case you'd like to double check.

Thanks, Egor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.98.33.27 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken. What editing? I did no editing, replied back, but did not delte or edit anything. I know better then to delete what other people said. Apriv40dj (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You might have done it accidentally but here's the edit [4] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please show me what I "did" as I did not do anything to change what someone else wrote at all. Not even by mistake. If you find I "did", I want it changed back at once, since I did not it and I have no interest in fake pages. Please change back anything to the way it was. Apriv40dj (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See above. And yes, I've changed it back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I see what happened I went to reply and windows 8 must have deleted the post I was replying to, but strangely, I did not see the post reply when I was replying. But I replied. It would make no sense to have my reply and then delete the original message, I was replying to. The text must have been sucked up and deleted, but yet, I did not see the text there either at the time. I only recalled the post having read it last night, but was too tired to reply and the next morning it was gone. But, I replied even though I could not see it at the time. I think windows 8 selects text and then if you hit a backspace it deletes, but it did not happened on my watch. It must have occurred sometime in between last night and my reply. If I had known it was gone, I would have reinstated it before replying. I don't want to look like I am having an insane conversation with myself online. Thanks for fixing it. Apriv40dj (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the history I can piece together what happened. You made a post last night and stayed on the page. Today, you made a second post using that same page. But in the interim, other editors posted to Cullen's talk page which you didn't see because you hadn't refreshed the page. Wikipedia should have warned you about an edit conflict. If it didn't then that's the software's fault. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt I blame Windows 8, that's a joke, but seriously, I must have been so tired I just left the window open all night. Next time I will be sure to notice if a window is open. I did not see any notice, the text was just gone. Apriv40dj (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Apriv40dj you should be notified of this reply because I linked to your user page. Not everyone does this. In general, if you are involved in a discussion, you should check back every so often to see if there are any replies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be my bad. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, no worries. It would have helped if the IP had left an edit summary so that every other watcher didn't have to check. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neil. I'm curious, how did you dig up the 1966 transcript archived in 2007, here that you linked to in Talk:Koi? I'm rather Orz...^Ref Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I have special magical powers that allow me to mind-meld with Google and... Not buying it? The IP that kicked up the fuss pointed to two other articles here. List_of_longest-living_organisms#Aquatic_animals has the link in question. Rather prosaic, huh? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Heheh! Good one, would have loved to learn the trick if there was one. Thanks just the same. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent talk to me which stated creationism as a religous view. Like you, I don't want an argument, but I disagree. There are scientists (such as Stuart Burgess) who have written scientific contributions and are regarded as scientists, and are creationists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollettDavid (talk • contribs) 13:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

CollettDavid, please re-read what I wrote on your talk page. Repeating it here in bold. To make your change you need to show a majority of accredited scientists regard it as a scientific movement. Not one scientist. Not a hundred scientists. Not scientists who also hold religious beliefs. Find a reliable source that states Creationism is an accepted science within the scientific community. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

CollettDavid, this is very to the point:[5]. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

1. ( .. WRONGFULL REFERENCE OF SOMEONE ELSE BY C.Fred IS REMOVED .. )

Please, do not revert it as it can be harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 20:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi

You seem to have edited/deleted this entry. Are you familiar with UAE and this person for such action?

regards,

RP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikea1829 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No idea who he is. Did you read the message on your talk page? Specifically, "In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Note that you are reaching the final stage of vandalism WP:VAN by committing two illegitimate sectional blanking of [Public's opinions] section in the article Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. Please post your opinion with objective justifiable reasons in the talk page before doing that. Any further sectional blanking will result in the report of vandalism WP:VAN. Thank you. Heritoctavus (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Reported for WP:3RR. [6] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Good job on Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles and stopping an edit war by a user. TheMesquito (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you TheMesquito. And thank you for contributing your views on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Neiln, in Arvind Kejriwal article - New section on list of criticisms has been removed. Criticism list is necessary to paint a fair picture, especially when it is adequately referenced inline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raamdharmaj (talk • contribs)

Raamdharmaj, not when almost the entire section is sourced to charges of political opponents. And no attempt at balance is shown. If you think the section should still go in, please use the article's talk page to see what other editors think. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Neiln, can criticisms be inserted in between already existing categories ? Many of them are not allegations but facts.Raamdharmaj (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Raamdharmaj, yes, criticisms can be integrated within the body provided they are relevant and not WP:UNDUE. Again, I suggest you use the article's talk page to discuss. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You know it. Stop WK her and ignoring the vast evidence against rad-fem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosepea68 (talk • contribs)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm new to wiki, thankx for ur guidance. actually i've tried for change of name from banglore to bengaluru as it is changed its name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vin09 (talk • contribs)

Hi Vin09, you will need to open a requested moved discussion as I pointed out on your talk page and show the common name in English language sources is Bengaluru. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Georgian_war&oldid=601976555

You've undone my edit, I've undone his version because he overworked the whole article with only one point to show the events from his POV. I've made now only a minor edit (why I actually was on the page) with new sources and a new section on the Talk page. --Wrant (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

March 30th 2014 Dear Neil: Hello, This is Michael Kerasotes. I am sorry that it has taken me so long to figure out how to get here to talk to you, Sir. I have been working on this page since December 2009. Elena Salvatore made this page for me then and we have talked via phone and emails. I have had a terrible time with it but of late I have been trying my best to correct the errors of these past few years and am almost done, Sir. I sent Elena my notes. I do apologize for the 'Dad' but in my frame of mind, I was writing about my father and I realize that that was wrong. I tried to correct all that, Neil. I hope I have. I have one more edit suggestion and that is this: Where I have George married Marjorie in Springfield, Illinois in 1947, I think it should go on to say they had two children Michael Patrick 1950 and Robert Anthony 1951. Then perhaps it should say that in 1961 they adopted a third child Flora Beth. I haven't read the page today as I am at the Library and am working on my patent for my star, Neil. I will do that another day. Thank you for your notes. I appreciate the work you all at wiki have done for me, my father, and my family. Would you mind emailing me at [email protected]?

Kindest regards, Mike March 30th 2014 Sunday Afternoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelKerasotes (talk • contribs) 21:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the guy who made the April 13 Homestuck edit. I was wondering why you removed the edit. I believe that Homestuck is somewhat of a staple of pop culture, and something as important in canon(413) should be recognized. But I somewhat just want a bit of a reason why you denied the edit, Thanks, From, Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.238.101 (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I removed it as the strip is not even five years old and has nowhere the influence on pop culture as say Peanuts, The Far Side, or Calvin and Hobbes. In short, I do not think it is notable enough for it to be added to the list. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Homestuck is influencing the teenage generation and is the great first work of internet literature. It is painting a new medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.238.101 (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You'll need multiple reliable sources that back up these claims. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN: Last week on Monday I asked User:Sla and Basal to look at the skating page you were editing and I hope it helped. Your comment on the Talk page there seemed to suggest that there was too much in the "debate" subsection, especially since the Gold and Silver medals are not in official dispute. Since that is the case, then the support and oppose subsections start to look like fan-sites for the skaters A.S. and Yuna Kim, respectively, and not a Wikipage for reporting the official award of the medals at the Olympics. My question is, should those subsections be moved to a separate new Page for the demi-controversy's growing support-oppose comments. Here is the example from the 2002 Olympics which did have a genuine Controvery/Scandal and its own Wikipage:"2002 Winter Olympics figure skating scandal". In either case, I would support you for shortening the subsections (or least limiting them to equal shorter sizes) as you seemed to already suggest doing on the Talk page there. FelixRosch (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Felix. My main concern was that proper sources be used for any support/criticism sections (i.e., not forums or online polls). I think the subsections should stay in the article as the article you pointed to was spun off from Figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics - one article for the entire sport instead of a specific event. Having 2002 Winter Olympics figure skating scandal in there would place too much weight on the event. I am not opposed to trimming the subsections but any specific suggestions should be made on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The problems that you have witnessed on the Street Artists Program of San Francisco article are still continuing. Please read Clark’s verbose excerpt from the article's talk page [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco#Disruptive_Replacement_of_Sourced_Facts_with_Personal_Recollections ]. William Clark continues to repetitively delete the same sourced statements, and continues to post under a number of differing anonymous IP addresses while refusing to register with Wikipedia. His deletion of statements sourced from newspaper articles directly violates the most basic of Wikipedia's rules, and it seems that we need to resort to some sort of page protection for that article, to stop his persistent edit warring which approaches the level of virtual vandalism. Do you know any admins or individuals who we could recruit for some page protection for this article, as it exist for the Baseball article? Please share your thoughts as I am new to this level of edit warring.James Carroll (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, I just noticed that the Kim Yuna page had a suspicious edit. All the additions were uncited and previously in the 'Public Opinions' section on the Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles page. That section was removed per talk page & consensus. Given only one user advocated for this section's inclusion and the edit summary ("just added some edits that kirin13 kept on deleting...."), it makes me suspicious that anonymous user is an editor who's currently blocked. What is the proper procedure in this type of case? Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, I registered as William J. Clark to put an end to Mr. Carroll's nonsense that I am refusing to register with Wikipedia in order to post under a number of differing anonymous IP addresses.

Also, on the talk page for the Street Artists Program of San Francisco article I cited MANY news articles supporting my assertion that the one source cited by Mr. Carroll was in error when it stated CAO Thomas Mellon was given the authority to run the original SF Street Artists Program in March, 1972. I would appreciate it if you would check the sources I cited so that the incorrect statement about CAO Mellon running the original SF Street Artists Program can be deleted from the article as soon as possible.

On the talk page, I also quoted directly from the source cited by Mr. Carroll regarding Joy McCoskey's statement showing her support for the midnight to 6 AM rule in order to show that what Mr. Carroll wrote was inaccurate and misleading and that Ms. McCoskey's statement was tangential and inconsequential to the history of the SF Street Artists Program. Therefore, it should be deleted from the article.

I would appreciate it if you would read what I wrote on the talk page and please honor my request. William J. Clark (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

[7]— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/people/Atheist-fundamentalists/pmredirectshow/6014430.cms

Do we need sufficient proof for a fact which is known as a fact for 7 decades

You act like a troll . Jinnah atheist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunjmenon1 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Arjunjmenon1, there are several sources in Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah#Aftermath which refer to the subject as Muslim. Your single "lifestyle" column does not override these. Please use the article's talk page to discuss and mind WP:NPA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you have accepted if the link was from foxnews .if yes ,your are the typical American

And by the way times now is the one the top ranked news channels here .. If I can upload a sound recording from all India radio through RTI ..will it it be a proof ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunjmenon1 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Arjunjmenon1, you need to dial down the combative tone (P.S. I'm not an American). Single opinion pieces should not trump court findings and suchlike. What does this speech say? Finally, you really should be using the article's talk page to discuss this as other editors will probably have an opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait until Tuesday and we may have the answer. TFD (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's setting a bad precedent to allow forum discussion on talk pages. The guideline WP:TALK clearly states " "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.", That is why I removed the offending section.--Asher196 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Asher196: And other, experienced, editors disagreed with your removal. Common sense is required when dealing with these types of posts. If the post is wildly offtopic, offensive, or deliberately disruptive, remove it. In this case, the post was made in good faith and elicited replies which will help the new editor understand what is needed to get the content he's suggesting into the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see any reference to the article in his post. It's just a general rant about the show. I disagree with leaving the section on the talk page, but I won't continue to fight it.--Asher196 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

For the barnstar. Best 'abuse' I had all day! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I got concerned when I hadn't seen you edit Wikipedia since April 3rd; I hoped nothing awful had happened in your off-Wikipedia life. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, had a bit of a RL vacation :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You recently left a message on my talk page accusing me of 'Canvasing' leaving messages on people of my religions talk pages. I don't get it... anything I do on Wikipedia someone tells me "that's not allowed" or "your violating Wikipedia neutrality policies". SO at this rate I can never change anything or make a difference. First I went and directly changed things my self, then I was told that I must stop b/c I was violating Wikipedia policies, so I was referred to the policy page where I was told I could start up a conversation to change policies if I wished. Now I have done that and have been sending messages to people whom this issue probably matters to and i'm told I am doing something wrong again. This is total nonsense.
Listen in the worlds largest encyclopedia our Islamic holy figures are mentioned in disrespectful ways and not appropriately according to our principles. Over 23% of the words population are Muslims (1.6 billion). With such a massive number it is not acceptable for Wikipedia to maintain policies that would hurt and disrespect these peoples belief.
I will fight for proper respect for our holy people in this encyclopedia no matter what barriers I overcome, it seems these supposed 'neutrality' policies are just the first of many bumps in the road.
By the way it doesn't make sense how Wikipedia can be neutral yet disrespect our holy people in their articles.
I hope this sheds light on my actions.
Hooperag (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hooperag, simply put, you are not allowed to leave biased messages only on the talk pages of users that you believe will support you. End of story. Articles are written by and for Muslims and non-Muslims alike so this issue "matters" to the Wikipedia community as a whole, not a select few. Finally, articles are not written to give respect to subjects, they are written to follow a neutral point of view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Noooooooooooooooooooo FOR ALLAH

My humblest apologies, old bean. I will refrain from making such edits in the future.

Jaylenofan283 (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

High Neil -- that was not a mistake -- i will explain on eritrea talk page Erretnan (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Neil: Please give me a few minutes to add the sources and fix the page; it will remain in a state of disrepair indefinitely if you keep reverting before i can fully fix it. Thank you for understanding Erretnan (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you seem unwilling to let me fix the page in any way, here is some source data on treaties and Eritrea: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/research/ratification-eritrea.html It would make the world a better place if you added it, but I am confident that you will not do that. You have now confirmed my suspicions about Wikipedia. Erretnan (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Erretnan, you really need to use edit summaries to explain what you're doing. All other editors see is you replacing sourced data with unsourced data. If you explained with an edit summary, your edits would be left alone. Do you want me to undo my last revert? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

What to do about him? I recently caught him in this case, and I'm certain that it is him I was responding to in this case as well. That latter article's talk page was once WP:Semi-protected to keep him from commenting there. Like I just told Grayfell via email, "Often, his approach is to complain on the talk page [as an IP] about a matter not fitting his definition and to then show up with a brand new account and make changes based on those complaints, often while acting like the IP is not him." Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are a pain in the ass. All you can really do is watch, tag as a suspected sock, and move on, posting to a talk page of an admin who is familiar with the sock if their edits get out of hand. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. I just hate the idea of having to deal with Picker78 for as long as I edit this site, but I guess that's the hand I've been dealt. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The book referred to is an extended, serious, scholarly discussion. As an academic author, editor and publisher I share the ideal of 'objective prose', and if you glance (without downloading) at the fairly extensive front matter of the Kindle title you will be able to judge for yourself if such standards are met. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JQFW1QQ

Which is easier, to flag this book myself, or get a colleague to do so? Roger1uk (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Roger1uk. The fact remains the book is a self-published work by an "unknown" author. For it to be added to lists of reading materials, you need to show it has some importance or weight within the academic community. Ideally, there would be published reviews. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I would contend that the book referred to is a serious contribution to the topic in objective prose and actually by a known author. It seems I can't attach a PDF here listing 38 publications of mine, including broadcasts and citations, of which 16 are about Christianity, e.g. Review, ‘Dating the gospels’ of Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew D’Ancona, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, [pub. By Doubleday as Eyewitness to Jesus], 1996, Times Higher Education Supplement, 13 Dec., 1996, p.22; 30. ‘In Contest with Satan: Reading the ur-Gospel’ The Glass No 15, Spring 2003, pp. 3-7. Roger1uk (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Roger1uk: Again, the work is self-published. Most authors of these types of works contend they are valuable contributions to the field. The fact remains the book has received no scholarly attention yet and I couldn't find any in-depth analysis of your contributions to the field. Did you read the conflict of interest note and links I added to your talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to catch myself, and I suspect a review of my edits would find such errors, but it isn't quite right to suggest that an image with a copyright cannot be used. It does need to be properly licensed, but that doesn't remove the copyright. Sorry to be picky, but I caught myself making the error yesterday, then saw a couple comments from you, (e.g.User_talk:Meganknudsen#Pictures) . We probably should work on some better standard wording.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: You're right of course. The trick is to convey this to new editors unfamiliar with copyright while still emphasizing the fact that the vast majority of images on the web have an incompatible copyright license. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You act as if im not following rules on purpose. Which is not the case, i was told that the one website you can use for pictures is flickr but yet they still get deleted. Dont ask people to band me when someone could help explain it to me. Ive tried to figure it out on my own and i dont get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganknudsen (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Meganknudsen: Fair enough. I will break down the example I gave you two months ago. If you click on this Flickr search link you'll see a Creative Commons section. You must click "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content" and "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon" to return results which have the proper licenses. Before uploading a new image however, I strongly suggest you ask someone (plenty of editors have posted on your talk page) if the image has the proper license. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@NeiIN:

could you maybe post a picture of alex pettyfer for me please? if i try again i know i wont do it right.

Hi Neil. As you volunteer at the help desk, I wanted to bring your attention to a grant proposal under review. A small team of us want to implement a system of mentorship that focuses on the specific skills new editors want to learn and incorporates the 1-on-1 relationships from the adopt-a-user programs. Please read over our proposal here. At this stage, your feedback would be much appreciated, particularly as you work with new editors on a regular basis, and we want to make our proposal fit the community's needs. You can leave comments on the grant talk page, and if you like the proposal, please feel free to add your endorsement at the bottom of the page.

In addition, we are gathering information and attitudes from experienced editors on the current ways new editors can get help. If you are interested, please consider taking our brief survey here. Thanks very much, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neil,

Greeting from Tasmania.

I was just wondering why you removed my edit for Johhny Appleseed, as a recent example of his inclusion in pop culture.

Here is the sentence and links:

In Melbourne Australia (April 2014) Johnny Appleseed was used as the basis for the song 'Plant That Seed' by Chris Wallace, an anthem dedicated to the re introduction of the Cannabis plant.

http://olentangymusic.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmXZDdOjQV4

Best Regards,

Troy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troylangman (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Troylangman. I removed it because it is unnotable trivia. If you think it should be in the article, please provide a few independent reliable sources that discuss the video's use of Johnny Appleseed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neil, I am very new to Wikipedia, and still trying to work out how to use it, so appreciate your advice : )

Certainly I would not want to add any content to Johnny Appleseed's page lightly, as he is a hugely important historical figure.

I felt that as the Cannabis issue is such a huge one now, and also that the particular uTube video was professionally produced and had a good message that it was worthy of including.

My role is as CEO of the first Cannabis Medicine company in Australia, hence my interest tascann.com.au

If in time it becomes more prominent (as the video is currently very new) can we consider including on the page?

I have sent a similar message to the other editor.

Cheers, Troy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troylangman (talk • contribs) 06:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC) --Troylangman (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Troylangman: If magazines and newspapers cover the relationship then yes, a case for inclusion can be made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I added a name of Paradkar (Babu Rao Vishnu Paradkar) as a notable Journalist. However the entry was marked by you as not notable at 14:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC). You have a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aj_(newspaper) where he is mentioned but there is no link. He is also mentioned in http://books.google.co.in/books?id=0aFH2KFhFOkC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq&sa=X&ei=CR9VU8mLO4WyrAfgwoHgBw#v=onepage&q=paradkar%20vishnu%20rao%20varanasi&f=false

Kindly add his name to the list if the explanation satisfies you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varmashanu (talk • contribs) 14:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Varmashanu. On Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Notability goes beyond passing mentions in books (incidentally, the mention in Aj (newspaper) is unsourced. Have a look at WP:BIO to see what is required to establish notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to not delete Kristal_Kostiew, but what part of WP:TRACK does she meet? in this edit you asserted that she met it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristal_Kostiew&diff=prev&oldid=605189420 and can you add that info to the page? I assume you are refering to 2 or 3 but the pan american games are not a world event, and fourth is not high enough for 3. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

CombatWombat42, #2 - no need to be a World event (look at the examples). I would put the Pan Am games on the same level as those. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There is vandalism on the reading pennsylvania page by 71.126.123.104. 2 vandal edits he made — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whithapp332332 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Whithapp332332: Yes, thanks for removing it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be noted somewhere on the whole page. I don't know what is the problem with the word "recognized", because those sources uses the word "recognized".

No argument that it is a alternative medicine, but like I said that NIH and WHO recognized it to be legit. There are many sources about it.

You can suggest better idea, I think. But again, this whole thing should be mentioned somewhere. నిజానికి (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@నిజానికి: Maybe here: Ayurveda#Outside_the_Subcontinent with better sources (articles in medical journals specifically covering the recognition). And again, recognition as alternative' medicine is not the same as recognition for a drug (as an example) that has been put through peer-reviewed clinical trials. The distinction is important. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You might be right here. I will inform you here once I will be done with my note. నిజానికి (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you help deal with the new editor on this article? I don't know if you want to warn her on her Talk page or whatever, with a view to possibly reporting her, or just revert her and point her to the article's Talk page, where I've begun a thread. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I gave them a WP:3RR warning a few hours ago. I've again reinforced the need to use the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

it is from reliable source only....if you have any doubt then go and check it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkrishna148 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

NeilN]] ^{talk to me} Why did you delete my baseball video.Tylkrby767 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Good Morning NeilN (talk) Sorry for what i did .Tylkrby767 (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello NeilN,
Nice to talk to you again. However I just wanted to inform you that I don't like you stalking my edits.
It is not good Wikipedia behavior and it makes editors feel as if they are being watched and disrespected. You should be reported for this type of behavior and it really disturbs me.
I am trying to make constructive edits and you keep checking up on what articles I edit and then a majority of the time undo my edits.
Please observe appropriate behavior when dealing with editors, you are not a police and have no seniority over fellow editors.
I hope this is the last sort of encounter I have with you,
Hooperag (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hooperag: Given your past edits have been problematic and the edit I undid had a edit summary which showed a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines [8] (the sentence was sourced, your change made it unsourced and misleading and your current change is still misleading - I will be fixing that), there is good reason to examine your edits. You are also wrong in saying I have undone a majority of your edits. You have made many edits and as far as I can tell, I have reverted you on one other article, again when you removed sourced material, stating incorrectly that it was unsourced. [9] I am not asserting seniority, I hope you continue to edit here, and if you have a problem with any of my changes to your edits we can discuss it or you can go to another experienced editor to get their opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems you are not very knowledgeable in this subject and if not for stalking me, the Seyed Khalil Alinejad article is one that you most probably would have never known of or cared about. So as someone who likes this artist and knows quite about this talented artist I am much more knowledgeable in this subject. The theory that the government killed him is not the predominating belief to his death, and this claim is often circulated by those who have problems and don't agree with the Iranian government, it is more of a political stance than a valid theory to his death. I am not a staunch supporter of the government either however this theory is baseless and even in the article you referred to (in the case you actually read it) you would have noticed it offers no reason behind the claim and simply mentions it once; the same goes for both claims. Therefore Wikipedia articles (especially biographies) should not have speculations that would confuse readers and have no factual basis.
This issue is not that complicated, I hope this makes things clear.
Hooperag (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hooperag: Personal knowledge and opinion have no place in Wikipedia articles. We go with what reliable sources publish. In this case, the source and article had:

• Some Iranians say he was killed by rivals inside the Ahl-e Haqq, but many more believe he was murdered by agents of the Tehran regime.

You changed it to:

• "... however it is believed he was killed by the enemies of Ahle Haq."

This is definitely not an accurate representation of the source. If you wish to challenge what the source says then provide other reliable sources which state something else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying to reason with you is like trying to talk to a rock. Don't you have better things to do than police on Wikipedia and stalk other users?
Hooperag (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hooperag, you're stalking accusations are getting old. I suggest you drop them and spend some time actually reading WP:V or else your edits are going to get even more attention from other editors, even if you switch to a different account. This is such basic general knowledge, it doesn't need to be sourced is completely and utterly wrong. Even the source you added after being reverted by another editor does not back up what you added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again NeilN you have failed to read the source, it says "It was also borne by a son of Ali, the fourth caliph" what does this mean? It means the Ali ibn Abi Talib had a son named Abbas, we all know Ali ibn Abi Talib had only one son that was named Abbas and he was Abbas ibn Ali. I have no reason to lie about this subject. In Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Bahrain and other Middle Eastern countries anyone with the name Abbas is named after Abbas ibn Ali! I have many friends and know many people in my community named Abbas, ask them what's behind their name... they will all say they are named after Abbas ibn Ali the son of Imam Ali and brother of [{{Hussain ibn Ali]]. Sometimes its hard to find sources for information like this, especially when so general. I feel as if this info is very relevant to the article and it would be to Wikipedia own benefit to contain this info.
Sources are good, however they should not be needed to prove common knowledge like this!
Hooperag (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

And once again Hooperag, personal knowledge and opinions have no place in Wikipedia articles. Until you accept verifiability ("[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.") is a core policy, many of your edits will be challenged and reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hooperag: - interesting assertion about Abbas ibn Ali (647-680 CE). Could you tell me who was Al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib (566–653 CE) named after then? Was the Abbasid Caliphate named after the older or the younger Abbas? I'm gonna make an educated guess that your assertion is wrong. As Neil puts it, personal knowledge is not what Wikipedia is built on. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you want, however what you say is not true and I swear what I have mentioned above is entirely true. I can't find sources because the name Abbas is largely unknown to the Western World and so there is little info on its history and such. Revert my edits if you like, it's not going to make me frustrated, what makes me frustrated is your inability to think outside of Wikipedia guidelines. You have your own mind and rather than constantly accusing me of lying you could think for yourself and realize what would be my benefit for lying, ad then try to cooperate with me to solve this issue mutually.
Hooperag (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hooperag: No one has accused you of lying. We have stated your personal knowledge is not enough for Wikipedia. The way to solve this issue is to follow Wikipedia policies. Your statement about thinking outside of Wikipedia guidelines is like you showing up to a soccer match, playing the ball with your hands, and then complaining to the other players who say you can't do that that they are unable to think outside of soccer rules. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hooperag, please stop taking this personally. Contrary to what you said above about Abbas not being known in the West, there will be reliable sources out there but all you have to do is be rigorous in checking them out. Look at what I did with behindthename.com - once you added the source, I looked at the page you linked to, and then looked at the website about page, followed by the references page. Looking down the list I was initially impressed but that changed when I saw his mention of Wikipedia. That immediately makes it an unreliable source, because we cannot verfiy how much information he has taken from Wikipedia. Simple as that. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

While it is hard to find a source, I will continue looking for one. Also I appreciate your recent attempt to work in a cooperative manner with me. It is much nicer than having people work against you and constantly telling you are doing things wrong. I don't have a problem with Wikipedia policies, however it can be frustrating when many of your edits (with constructive intentions) are undone by editors who continuously cite Wikipedia policies as their justification. I will work to find a source and add it soon.
Hooperag (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody said you needed to use a source from the "Western World". If the only source you can find is in Arabic or Farsi, for example, it's fine to use that, provided it meets our criteria for reliability. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neil.

Thanks for the message, however, the data that I have provided is completely true and factual data along with proper citations without having any bias nature. I also mentioned the detail of Employee for the sake of citation (I will remove that from the talk page so that it does not have COI), and that too in the talk forum and not at the main article. The details that I have provided can be checked and yes I have cited the correct links. Please recheck prior to reverting the edits, as I have checked my data, and did not give my own opinion on the same. The data I provided was for reference and hence is completely unbiased.

I am reverting the same to my actual edited version mate.

Thank You.

If you require please do check the links I provided.

Thanks again for the update mate.

Vishal Bakhai 17:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybrowne1986 (talk • contribs)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries. But cant it be done the way I did it? What exactly was wrong in it? Since, I understand that I had forgotten to mention bottombox of user on my archived one. However, what is incorrect in the HSBC Archived one? If you can kindly explain.

Danke. Vishal Bakhai Vishal Bakhai 18:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Harrybrowne1986: 1. You archived active conversations. 2. The talk page header stuff (Wikiprojects, what spelling to use, etc.) does not belong on archive pages. 3. The link you left on the active talk page will disappear when that section is archived. 4. The archive title is non-standard. You can look at Talk:Kolkata to see how archives are supposed to be set up. Are you ok with me deleting the archived page and setting up a bot to do the archiving? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have just done the archive in a proper manner and have made corrections. Would request you to look at it and see if all is fine, else if you see that it still is incorrect in a manner, kindly get the bot to work on it, and also let me know of the same. Oh how about archiving your own talk page. I think it is also kind of on the edges.

Danke. Vishal Bakhai 18:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybrowne1986 (talk • contribs)

Hi,

As one of the representatives for a snowsports governing bodies I am updating some of the published content on snowsports in Australia. I added snowboard.com.au and snowboarding.com.au domains today to external links but they have been marked as Spam. These are no different than ski.com.au that these have been added below on the listings and are seen as significant changes to the snowboard industry in Australia as with strive to keep the domestic market alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distortenterprises (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Distortenterprises, the links are the very definition of spam as they go to online shops run by your company. Thanks for pointing out the ski.com.au link - it has been removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, yes they are owned by the business I work for, however the business/company doesn't run any of the online shops it represents, the Australian snowboard retailers do, these are marketplaces that represent them and the Australian snowboard community. No different than Etsy representing a global craft community! Just as Etsy is significant in the history of craft business so is snowboard.com.au in Australia's domestic snowboard market. I am more than happy to hear of a better way for this to be represented on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distortenterprises (talk • contribs) 01:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Distortenterprises, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. Etsy has an external link in Etsy - what other articles does it have an external link in? If you think snowboard.com.au is notable by our standards (WP:CORP) then you can create a standalone article (probably using the WP:AFC process) and place a link there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your note.--Aqua4444 (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am just speculating here, but it appears to me as if you are trying to do away with all Wikipedia rules. The amount of arguments on your talk page are horrendous. I know you strongly disagree with a lot of stuff such as Creationism, religion, and God, but that doesn't stop the fact that people are annoyed. I have had personal experience of this. I hope you see we are trying to help. I may not respond to any answer to this post. 16:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollettDavid (talk • contribs)

CollettDavid, actually I'm trying to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines by removing incorrect edits like this. This sometimes makes people like yourself who are prevented from introducing "helpful" incorrect information, annoyed. If that's the result of my actions, I can accept that. And, if you look at who is doing the complaining and who is doing the defending, so are editors familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ya I agree.. I was just experimenting... I will use sandbox from now on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simkeyur (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, i had done an edit here which was reverted by you. I had just updated the section with a reliable citation and the information added was directly related to the content in the heading. My question is that why my edit was considered unencyclopedic when it included a updated information with reliable citation.

Also please help me to understand Wikipedia:NOTNEWS briefly, as i am unable to understand after reading it so that no mistake is committed from my side anyway in the future.

thanks. Work2win (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Work2win, the pertinent facet of WP:NOTNEWS is this: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." In a biography, the every day details and dates of a court case do not have enduring notability, especially as the subject has been involved in many of them. We should be summarizing details, not adding blow-by-blow accounts of different cases. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN sorry for asking you late again. So what i have understood that a summary should be provided of the heading, not point to point developments in case of articles of living people, is that right?

Thanks Work2win (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Work2win. Yes, that's a good rule of thumb for all articles, not just BLPs. For example look at Arthur_Andersen#Enron_scandal. A summary of the outcome is provided, not the day-to-day details. Of course, this doesn't apply if the article is about the case itself or if the subject is notable primarily because of the case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The Many Worlds Interpretation means anything that could ever happen happens in some parallel universe.So if i edit the creatinoism article stating 'in a parallel universe creationism is real' it may be true.

If i go to a College gameday location site and type 'college gameday will be doing a show in Brunei in a parallel universe' it may be true. If i type that 'Gerald Ford was president of the united states again from 2015-2019 in his 100s in a parallel universe' it may be true

if i type in 'Jim Brown made a comeback at 80 and played in the nfl from 2016-2022 in a parallel universe' it may be true

if i type in 'John Lennon of the beatles was born in October 1954 in a parallel universe' it may be true

if i type in 'Macklemore is against people being homosexual and lesbian in a parallel universe' it may be true

if i type in 'NeilN majorly vandalizes 40 wikipedia articles a day from 2010 utnil 2020 in a parallel universe' it may be true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneylaeeesek22 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Barneylaeeesek22, then please go edit Wikipedia in those parallel universes where these things are true. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you please comment more specifically in Talk. I asked questions there. The references are good. Should I shorten the edits? (both in Diet and Healthy Diet)32cllou (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

hello, i dont know exactly where you can complain about people but since you called him once i write to you, this user above constantly edits the Wikipedia Economy of Russia article to change its position to 9th place gpd nominal. We have 2013 and he for some reasons thinks its 2014 or 2012 or something, he lies about cia 2013 data they clearly show that Italy is below russia etc. and worldbank approves too that russia was above Italy in 2012. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2195.html#it https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2195.html#rs

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD/countries/RU-IT?order=wbapi_data_value_2012%20wbapi_data_value%20wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc&display=default

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=58&pr.y=8&sy=2012&ey=2013&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=922%2C136&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=

here are all major institutions agreeing with my statement, we can come back to 2014 again but currently russia is above italy.--Crossswords (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You are power-hungry… , reverting before fully vetting and considering another's argument. Others if they wish, can look to see how much time you spent looking at both sides, and waiting until the arguments pro and con appeared, before you did your first reversion. (To call it "knee jerk" would be to impose on your process deeper, more thoughtful consideration than occurred.)

Please also note in closing, at the articles Talk page, "not dave"'s ESL apology under Note, in removing… Talk section (today, earlier). Congrats in singlehandedly, and single-mindedly propagating his initial tech-driven rush-to-judgement, and consequent disservice, through your added and equally superficial attention. Even the originally confused initiator better realizes what occurred was overly hasty, than you do in your pride.

Article is now yours to sort, or not. Will give this no further time. You have mucked it up, it's yours now to fix. Otherwise, enjoy the feeling this "chess-counting "victory" you've achieved, faux and artificial though it is. No more time for such silly, self-aggrandizing nonsense. What a circus act this place is. Cheers. 71.239.82.39 (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If others wish to look, Leprof 7272 was defending this version of a WP:BLP using this interesting rationale as one of his reasons: [10] My reply: [11] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If others wish to see the whole description of the conflict that Neil took sides on, which arose after an editor, "not dave" reverted edits in response to a misperceived Huggle ping (see his apology at [[12]]), after which Neil decided to join the reversion battle "not dave" had begun, see: [13]. The following further source will soon expire, but it has the complete dialog and Block history, and subsequent discussion with admins: [14]. In that and other discussion with senior admins, I had two points of Wikipedia naiveté redressed: (i) that it is indeed acceptable to leave unreferenced some BLP material if, as the WP describes, it is uncontentious, and not defamatory (i.e., potentially libelous), contrary to Neil's vehement assertions, and that I just did not know the right things to say, or the right people to turn to in the conflict, and (ii), that once Neil joined "not dave" in the reverting, I was bound to lose, and end up in 3RR (my not fully understanding that policy). Bottom line: I am a Wikipedia-naive subject matter expert that is out of his league here, and not caring to come up to speed on the necessary political science, I am better off doing my public service elsewhere. Now leaving last word to any that needs to have it. LeProf Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If someone is removing unsourced BLP material then they are contending it by their actions. Even seemingly uncontentious material can be wrong or misleading (I found at least one instance of that in the article). If you persist in re-adding it then you're likely to get blocked. Simple as that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit is correct since her account does not even exist locally on enwiki (although her userpage does). However, she does have the global account and it will be autocreated here as soon as she logs in here. At that point, should she be added? πr² (t • c) 19:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

πr², that's a good question. I would say no, unless she becomes active in the talk page. The reason being that the tag could conceivably be added to all Wikipedia-related articles as she's the new ED. You may want to ask at WP:COIN for other opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir!--IamAKorean 4:57, 6 May 2014 (KST)

Sorry, thought that inclusion of a marina was consistent with the category, similar to the existing water park reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.36.48 (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment on my talk page. I just expressed my feeling about her after watching I, Frankenstein.

Relly Komaruzaman | Talk 13:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

…to allow criticism to appear at your talk page. mdr. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism is accepted and considered. "Awards" designed to amplify your self-pity are not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You are so utterly blind to yourself. Mort de rire. Goodbye— have no pity; I ask for none. You, though, are about the saddest I have met here, and I will keep you in my best thoughts. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

…an IP site that is not yours. But that is just the sort you are. Do all bow to you, or only folks here? mdr. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

An IP cannot "retire" nor can it have it's own user page. Please stick to your registered account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

First, please read the relevant pages about the tag that was placed. It does not mean what you think it does. Second, IPs clearly do have their own user pages, and if the IP address I have assigned to me by my ISP is not mine (!), is it certainly not your to intrude upon, and re-edit and control. Please. I am just placing tags to make clear to others, who engender less loathing of me than you, that I am beginning to clear out of this organization. It is not your right, or responsibility, to exert lordship over that activity (regardless of the impulse you might feel to do so, or the history of indulging such impulses that might lead you to continue in this vein). Please, a modicum of restraint, my lord. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, you need to cease violating the WP:Civility policy, and especially the WP:No personal attacks policy, unless you want to see yourself blocked from editing. Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My criticism of others behaviour (practices in exercise of their responsibility, and authority, at Wikipedia) does not rise to the level of personal attack. Certainly you can pursue whatever put-him-in-his place response that you wish. I full well understand that when a group gets together, they can accomplish anything they wish against another here. Cheers. No more to say you, or Neil. LeProf Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, stating "Do all bow to you, or only folks here?" and "You, though, are about the saddest I have met here" are indeed violations of WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks (read those policies). Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware, from the Talk I have seen here over the years, that editors had become quite so sensitive. Note, in the foregoing, the equivalent of "laughing out loud" was included in the comment. But point taken. By the by, does Neil's reference to me, earlier, using the phrase "self pity", fall into your same sensitivity rubric? There are others, similar, I might share if you are interested. And while we are reviewing WPs on respect and civility, perhaps you can review relevant docs that deal with presuming good faith, mutual editor respect, and unwarranted attention (stalking) of other editors. You may find some needing to attend to these important policies close at hand. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hard as you might find it to do so, with one you have grown to dislike for disagreeing with you — I ask again, stick to your own business. The tag added at my current IP address that you intrusively added is being removed, because it is none of your business to presume that the IP will not be in use for some time. When requests for remediation and other higher level discussions are complete, the IP will be changed. Until then, edits may appear from it, and it needs be left alone so that there is can be no further confusion advanced over these matters. Bottom line, this is clearly not—from what I have been told by others very much in the know about these things—your business. Please stop stalking. Please leave me alone, to finish my business and depart in peace. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You were told wrong. User pages are reserved for registered users. IP editors cannot put "retired" tags on dynamic IP pages. You keep on threatening to leave but you supposedly have "requests for remediation and other higher level discussions". I suggest you make up your mind. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My stated intention is clear. To finish ongoing business, then to depart. I am sorry that it cannot be soon enough for you. Last thing I have to say to you. Now please, stick to your own business, and add value to articles. Stop policing others. It is truly shameful. Again, I will keep you in best thoughts and wishes as I depart, and I will let you have last word, here and anywhere else you care. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Neil, I do have to say that "Le Prof" is still a human and treating him with such bluntness is IMO unfair, whatever he did. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@My name is not dave: Have you kept count of how many "I'm leaving!" posts he's made? Even admins are getting fed up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, when he focuses on concrete suggestions to articles without drama, our interactions are quite good. Talk:Nazanin_Afshin-Jam#Sources --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Partial truth exclusion to my ignoring NeilN: There is indeed fine work is being done at the Nazanin A-J, but by Ninja, not either of us. There is no collegial interaction, or substantive contribution by either myself or NeilN at that page. The mucking done as a result of the overly aggressive reversion of NeilN et al was corrected surreptitiously while I was blocked, but returning the article to its prior better state should not be a path that is construed as having my approval. The article is primary interest of others than myself, and I leave it to them to ensure further fly-by damage is not done to the article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I understand that I did not source correctly on my first edit under House of Hesse, however you said that I could go back and add in my data if I could correctly source it, which I did and provided multiple sources that show the factual credibility. I am working on pursuing a career in history journalism and have been researching the stories of the modern royal family lines and am trying to help and add. If I am doing something wrong, would you mind please letting me know how to fix it? I do not mean of offend or aggravate anyone I am simply trying to help with something that I have spent a very long time digging in to and researching.

Thank you RoyalHistoryBuff 17:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalhistorybuff (talk • contribs)

Royalhistorybuff, start by providing one online accessible and reliable source showing that the subject is real. Shouldn't be too hard with all the royal watchers about and all the claims you're making, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Neil N,

First, I would like to remind you of your offer to others to being open to having civil conversations with someone that is coming to you for help. So your sarcastic comment is not appreciated nor will it go unnoticed. I am new to this cite. I am simply trying to ask for your assistance not for your personal tones of you thinking that you are more knowledgable than others on all topics. I have cited many sources. They are books, the classic type of where people go to to look for information. Also, if you understand this particular area of royalty, it is not one that is well-known in the present day. The point of me looking into this subject is to discover the facts that are not as well-known as others and bringing them to people's attention. If you would like to read the books, I will be happy to provide you with the page numbers.

Thank you for your time and I do hope that you will reply in a more civil way next time or I do ask that you refrain from responding. RoyalHistoryBuff 17:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalhistorybuff (talk • contribs)

Royalhistorybuff, it's not sarcasm, it's a valid concern. You and I both know I have reported your contributions to ANI as a probable hoax. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As expected --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I was attempting to add a resourceful and updated link because I noticed one on the costco page that was out-dated.

This link is much more updated and recent http://www.ejobapplications.com/costco-application/

than this one

http://www.jobapplicationcenter.com/department-store-job-applications/costco-application/

Thanks for reaching out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skilled711 (talk • contribs)

@Skilled711: Thanks for explaining. Neither link belongs as they don't enhance the encyclopedic understanding of the subject. For more info, have a look at WP:ELYES. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia incorrectly states date of birth ss 3/3/32 when throughout the article it is correctly stated as 3/2. I am unclear as to why remove family life? Those entries were from birth and marriage records and are not a copyright infringement. I will contact Presidio Press about using portions of my father's autobiography. I am unfamiliar with the procedure. I plan to enter it into Early Life. I will contact the Marine.Corp about the other removed matrrial. Gaylemp (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gaylemp. These series of edits introduced copyright violations, close paraphrasing, duplicate information, and made the introduction way too long. I would suggest making straightforward corrections in one edit and then carefully integrating new material written using your own words in subsequent edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia,

Thank you for taking down that horrible Conoco article down from my Dad's Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, the negative article caused much angst amongst myself and my family, and my updating the site was merely an attempt to give a more balanced review of a great and fantastic human being. The negative article should never have been posted and I am surprised that Wikipedia allowed it to stay on his page so very long.

It would really been wonderful if we could have spoken to someone sooner about the problem via telephone, alas no such listing was available. Nevertheless the horrible article has been removed -- but someone now should remove the link to the footnote which has the entire Conoco article. Thanking you in advance.

Very Best Regards,

Gayle Marie Petersen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.86.85 (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ms. Petersen. Wikipedia is run by volunteers who determine the content of articles (there's no staff who you can call that will edit articles). With 4+ million articles on the English Wikipedia, sometimes issues slip through, especially those which require some investigation. We do allow negative information to be present in articles if it is properly sourced, properly balanced, and is noteworthy. In this case, I have removed the link as the PDF was not focused on your father. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad someone is using their brain. --74.139.195.33 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh. I was pushing save on this just after you posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I happened upon that scene completely by accident (as usual) and watching it play out was frankly a little disturbing, especially the coherent edit summaries given by the IP vs. none by the reverting parties... that's a bad place for "police actions" to sink to. It should be mounted on a plaque like a stupid talking fish and awarded for future episodes of that sort. Anyway, thanks for not falling in line with the mob action. --junkyardsparkle (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Junkyardsparkle: Yes, sometimes anti-vandalism tools make it too easy to click revert. Which is why I prefer Twinkle - no "smart" algorithms making you pre-assume an edit is vandalism. It's a shame the IP didn't accept the apologies, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If 2/3 people want garbage, let them have garbage, I'm done.--74.139.195.33 (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reverts by that block evader. Just wanted to point out the legal threats in the edit summaries on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nativecultnlaw&action=history EvergreenFir (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, yes, I saw that. WP:RBI is the best course of action I think. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, hop, hop, hop. Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP-hopping_sock --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey NeilN,

I have been refering to wikipedia for a long but only recently I have decided to contribute to it. Since I have just started ; I have certain doubts. I have been trying to add a sub section (5.1 Mars-one mission) in Mars page. I have provided a link to the website of Mars-One. Now for certain reasons it is not being updated. Reason #1 : Do you have a source to prove the notability and significance of this mission and why it needs its own section? Scarlettail (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia carries a seperate page about Mars-One. If the mission is insignificant then should not the wikipedia page about mars-one be removed?

Reason #2: Not done Please provide independent reliable sources that cover this. --NeilN talk to me 02:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Mars-One website link is provided as refrence in wikipedia article about Mars-one. How is that a reliable source there and not here?

Pardon my ignorance , but your answer will really help me in understanding where to edit and where not & what refrences to use where.

-Regards (Kg.iitb (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC))

Hi Kg.iitb! Thank you for pointing out Mars One has its own article. What would have been helpful is if you added some of the sources from that article to your edit requests (each article is treated as a separate entity on Wikipedia). I have opened a discussion at Talk:Mars#Mars_One. Please contribute your thoughts. You may have to be patient as Mars is a featured article (one of Wikipedia's best) so any changes undergo extra scrutiny. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

interference with a user account name is strictly prohibited by WP:Policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurker Faraone (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Which would seem to be exactly what NeilN's recent actions prevented: he saw an account that violated WP:Username policy#Misleading usernames and blocked it accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks C.Fred. I'm not an admin but another blocked citing impersonation. The OP should probably be blocked too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Neil, you still watching this article? I'm currently involved with this matter with Let99, and I'm not sure how to proceed. I reverted him here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the talk page, and don't revert my edits until I'm finished. If you read the citations, there is no original research. Thanks. Let99 (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if it seemed like a 'Soapbox' - please accept my apologies! I don't agree with the removal of the school logo, or the school frontage image - could you revert your deletion? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5555hw (talk • contribs)

Hi 5555hw. Those photos will soon be deleted from Wikipedia Commons as they are copyright infringements. Finding photos on Yelp does not mean they're licensed for free-use, which is what Wikipedia requires. I will put more info on your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello NeilN,

About 9 months ago we talked about some reverted changes on the Goliath page. I took note that I had written some things which qualified as "original research" and intended to return and only submit the parts I had citations & research for. So 9 months later (now) I have finally added back a small portion of my original edits just under the Elhanan and Goliath [15] section. I want to make sure that I did it right this time. Do my latest edits pass the revision test?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmnielsen (talk • contribs) 13:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jmnielsen, please note I'm not familiar with Biblical scholarship at all and just check if sources are present and look credible. Having said that, the only thing I would question is the last concluding paragraph. Is it directly attributable to prior sources or is it synthesis? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN All the sources are directly cited, and the quotation from Baruch Halpern was already present before my edit, I just placed it together with Archer's quote. The only part attributable to me that wasn't a summary of the quotes would be this sentence: "However such a conclusion is not derived directly from an exegesis that is limited to the two parallel texts concerning Elhanan, but presents his interpretation of how to deal with problematic implications of the text's reading." I don't know how much explanation is allowed, but I wrote that for comparison between quotes and also so that it doesn't sound so stiff. It might be possible to remove that once sentence though and transition straight to Archer's quote though. Jmnielsen (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Jmnielsen, I'm referring to this: "If this is the case the texts were both less problematic in their original form, and the original presence of 'akh (brother) as preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5 would be accurately attested to in that verse. Many of these issues are a matter of Textual Criticism." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, That sentence is a direct summary of the NET Bible quotation (since it says "Thus in all probability the original text read") and I used the conditionals "If" and "would". I honestly think it is a fair summary given the quotations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmnielsen (talk • contribs) 14:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Jmnielsen, okay. You might get challenged on that so might want to add the same reference to the summary. BTW, there's no need to add my name to your posts here (if you don't want to). I add your name so you get notified that you have a reply here. However you posting on my talk page automatically sends me a notification. If I were to post on your talk page, you would get notified even if I didn't add your name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Jmnielsen (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN: You appear to have reverted an edit inadvertently placed on the non-autoconfirmed edit approval buffer because the buffer was not empty when I placed my edit. As I am an autoconfirmed editor, I was entitled to have my edit posted as an autoconfirmed edit. This is part of a BRD discussion which has been opened on the Talk page at Ukraine over the week-end and should last another 48-72 hrs before a neutral admin closes out the BRD. Everyone wants a short and concise version of the subsection and this "BRD" version is only there for the remaining time of the BRD. I am assuming that this was an oversight on your part and that as fellow auto-confirmed editor you would repost the BRD revert according to longstanding BRD policy that any editor may revert another edit as long as Talk page BRD is opened. It was certainly opened and you can double check this. You are of course welcome to join the BRD and post your opinions of support-oppose on the enumerated list I have supplied there, it would be good to get your input. As I said, the BRD version I posted was only for the purposes of the review of all fellow editors to decide which items to retain at the end of the BRD and which to delete. May I ask for you to repost my edit as a fellow auto-confirmed user and I welcome your joining the BRD. FelixRosch (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

FelixRosch, there are several misunderstandings on your part, especially with respect to WP:BRD. Multiple editors have tried to explain but is seems you're not listening. I will try again.

1. As an autoconfirmed editor, you can approve your own edits on a pending changes protected page. No one else has to do it for you.
2. It was you who made the bold edit here. Other editors reverted such as EvergreenFir and now we discuss. It's BRD, not BRBRBRBD.
3. Admins don't close out general discussions. If you want a formal close, start a WP:RFC
4. I have already joined the discussion, immediately after I reverted. I do not have to follow your suggested point-by-point format because, as Moxy said, people don't think they should be there in the first place.

In short, there were no oversights on my part. I suggest you stop edit-warring to get in a version no one else supports, carefully read WP:BRD so as to clear up your misunderstandings, and address other editors' WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS objections. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that you have read the entire edit history page at Ukraine. It was User:Everg that did the first revert and requested the BRD Without setting up any discussion. User:Mox has been reported for edit warring on ANI on three pages simultaneously. Are you also supporting his edit warring on multiple pages? I will still appreciate that you have left an edit comment at Ukraine, it seems like Oppose across the board. The ability for BRD to be adapted into an RFC seems like a formalistic procedure which could easily be accommodated here by extending the BRD as I have done to avoid the piecemeal edit warring on the Ukraine page for the last two months which none of the editors there have yet effectively addressed. I am still assuming that you would desire to see the edit warring at the Ukraine page lessened in some effective way. FelixRosch (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Lot of WP:IDHT and glue factories. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

FelixRosch, it seem pretty disingenuous of you to state Moxy was reporting for edit warring without stating it was you who did the reporting, that your edits were being reverted by multiple editors, and that the report was declined. [16] And I suggested a RFC because that's the only way you're going to get a formal close by an admin. There is no "oversight" for "BRD" (which happen on thousands of talk pages a day) as you suggested here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)\

To NeilN: Nothing disingenuous intended here, and I am still writing to you on the basis of what was my strong agreement with your edits related to skating competitions at the 2014 Winter Olympics. Edit warring has been directed against me by the two editors above on Ukraine and other pages. I am the one who placed original edits and I am the one who was reverted without ever being asked or consulted about my edits before they were reverted. In the one instance when I did want to revert, I asked for you to endorse it because of the autoconfirm buffer problem at "Ukraine" but you did not like the edit. The NY Times has been reporting multiple reports of death and bloodshed on a daily basis during the last two weeks and none of this appears on the Page at either Ukraine or Russia; the pages look like they are being kept artificially isolated from the realities of the conflict. Regarding the BRD and the RFC, it latter usually requires at least a full week to run in a fair manner and it seemed worthwhile to try to adapt and extend the use of a BRD in this case to get it done in 48-72 hrs. That is the only reason I suggested adapting the BRD rather than starting a full RFC. FelixRosch (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: "The NY Times has been reporting multiple reports of death and bloodshed on a daily basis..." This is the core of the issue. Day-to-day stuff should not be in there. There's already three subarticles covering the events. Ukraine covers over a thousand years of history. Look at United States. Americans dying every day during the Korean War yet it merits a single sentence in the article. Country articles take a macro view and do not report the details unless they eventually become historically notable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To NeilN; Only a very short follow-up in that no-one wants a day-to-day report on Wikipedia. In this case, the day-to-day violence has now exceeded the week-to-week and the month-to-month coverage of sustained tension and bloodshed, and which has resulted in an International Pact to quell the violence. It is the 2014 International Geneva Pact and its aftermath from last month that I am supporting for inclusion on the Ukraine page and the Russia page, not the day-to-day coverage. The general concern for Wikipedia is that International Pacts and Treaties are normally addressed at the level of Notability under five-pillars policy, and therefor not to be dismissed under general "Recentism". You appear not to agree. I have written here to clarify that I do not see a day-to-day reporting as useful on Wikipedia, however the enacted International Pact and its aftermath are Notable as an International response to the protracted day-to-day, week-to-week, and now month-to-month sustained violence in Ukraine. The currect subsection is currently bereft of giving a realistic statement of this reality. FelixRosch (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

After all the work I go to, researching and exploring specific detail of a topic I am passionate about, you send me a rude and aggressive message whilst deleting my content... You must be joking! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFConlinerelations (talk • contribs) 06:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

CFConlinerelations, stop trolling. [17], [18] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you or someone with the ability to roll back multiple vandalism edits fix Holes(Novel) History here? Also dealing with the constant troll that's buggering it up wouldn't hurt either. --74.139.195.33 (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted, vandal warned. I'll keep an eye out so any similar edits will result in a final warning and then a block if necessary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you edit Dr Singh's page to reflect that he is still the prime minister of India? There has been a recent edit that says otherwise. He has not left office like it says in the article. The page is semi protected, hence can't edit. Thanks. 106.51.145.155 (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! Looks like the other editor jumped the gun a bit. I've reverted and placed a note on their talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For talking about "Telephone reality" on Jimbo's talk page. 75* 21:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed Yahoo Answers is not a RS. Sorry about that and thank you for pointing it out. Aiyaiya (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

what has been done is to balance the information previously posted with a selection of press articles and Court Judgments that contradict the previous information.

No opinion has been expressed. Only factual information has been added, all of which is backed up with documentation which is in the public domain.

Justmauritius (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Neil,

Your comments seem to be wrong. None of the edits are cited to primary sources, they all refer to independent public documents and were inserted in the contextual part of the article. please can you explain/reinstate?

Justmauritius (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Justmauritius, court documents are primary sources. If you want to source something like "...however a spate of recent cases judged by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has brought in to question fairness of trials, transparency and impartiality of the courts" then you need to use a law journal, or newspaper article, or something like that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean like this:- http://www.news.com.au/world/mauritius-editor-dharmanand-dhooharika-walks-free-in-landmark-ruling/story-fndir2ev-1226887309713

rather than this:-

http://www.jcpc.uk/decided-cases/docs/JCPC_2012_0058_PressSummary.pdf ?

I am surprised that you say there is a preference for a journalistic opinion over the judgment of the House of Lords. Are you sure that is what is preferred?

Justmauritius (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact on 13th April 2014 you said "Single opinion pieces should not trump court findings and suchlike" so I am really perplexed. Justmauritius (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Justmauritius, let me give you an example. Suppose you want to source something like, "The law has since been used across the Commonwealth and notably Australia, Malaysia and Singapore to silence journalists and their editors despite numerous calls over the decades for free speech to rise over the archaic law." You cannot just link to a couple court cases as examples. The interpretation requires a secondary source like a law journal article or suchlike. As for my 13th April 2014 statement, if you dig into the situation, you'll see the court finding was reported on and interpreted by a secondary source (e.g. [19]) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you are not correct on this point. The transcript and depositions of a legal case are primary source, the judgment is the interpretation and application by the learned court and a press article is one person's reflection and opinion concerning the interpretation by the judges. I would have expected Wikipedia to be more interested to post the learned report of the court as fact than the (sometimes) inept opinion or inaccurate report of a journalist. After all you will have read that Dhooharika went to prison for his report! No offence can be committed by posting a public document of pure fact.

Please consider the eloquent and intelligent reasoning and analysis in the judgment as compared to the more superficial headlining by a journalist. I come to Wikipedia to research facts and dig into the detail, I do not want to read the media sensationalism I want to have the combined benefit of five Law Lords and over 200 years of legal experience and I am sure many other readers would want the same.

Is there a means by which you can take legal opinion on this point or escalate my assertions?

Justmauritius (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Justmauritius, Wikipedia does not run on legal opinion, just consensus of the community. I have escalated the question here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, this [20] press report by a barrister was used as my citation for "Arbitrary Arrest in Mauritius" and also got struck out. Can you explain that one?

I do not mind you being correct but I do mind you being inconsistent! Justmauritius (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Justmauritius, are you referring to these series of edits? All you added is one word to the article. As I said on your talk page, there's no context for some of your edits. You can't just stick a list or word where it doesn't fit. Look at how the article is structured and integrate additions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, so now this is a different issue you have raised? I saw there was a "need for citation" so I provided a citation, if it had said there was a "need for citation and some text to integrate it into the article" I would have done it! Nevertheless, as I am a novice at WIKI, I will try to conform! I have now added some text to my edit and left the judgment and press article by a barrister as the citations. If this now ticks your boxes then I can go through and amend the other edits in the same way? Justmauritius (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Justmauritius, when you posted here you asked about sources so that's the question I answered. If you look on your talk page, you'll see I mentioned context in my very first post. And I've reverted your latest addition. Why in the world would we have a specific paragraph on Mauritius in that article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Why have anything specific indeed, why not just stick to banal generalities? Because Mauritians are people who do not want to promote ignorance. There are many articles on Wiki that refer to specific examples. Alternatively, the article could be put on the Mauritius page under rule of law where the information currently posted is wrong and not supported by factual information. Do you have anything constructive and helpful to say to a new contributor so these items can be posted? Justmauritius (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Justmauritius: Repeating, look at how the article is structured and integrate additions - don't just stick in Mauritius-specific content in a general article. As a start, look at Mauritius-specific articles after reading the discussion at WP:RSN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see new section added at Buddy Rich. Unbelievably, we seem on the same side of an issue. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, I think the editor went to MaterialScientist's talk page, saw your name, and somehow ended up posting on your talk page. And I don't think it's that unbelievable. We both want properly sourced content. I think you believe it's okay to leave significant portions of a BLP unsourced and wait for cites. I believe that once removed, uncited content has to stay out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The never ending argument. Pass. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop editing the Buddy Rich page. All edits are verifiable. I am the source of what I add as I am the person who I'm writing about. The source is me. Look at the credits of all of my memorial concert dvds..I am the producer. Look in the credits of Burning for Buddy..I am the Exec Producer. I am on the road with the Buddy Rich band currently. Look at the Summerfest Web site. I don't have to answer to random people. I am the source of this subject. Stop edition for my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scabeba (talk • contribs) 20:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Scabeba. Wikipedia uses published sources, not personal observations. You do have to provide these published sources if you wish your content to stay in the article. The article is also about Buddy Rich, and not the place to promote your band. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

These are not personal observations. And I am updating the legacy portion so his fans have the most recent information. It is not my band..it's Buddy's band. Leave the edits alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scabeba (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Scabeba, no independent published sources = your personal observations. And Wikipedia articles are not fan pages. Your edits have been reverted two more times. At this point in time, you really do need to provide reliable sources or sooner or later, your edits are going to earn you a trip to WP:ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neil. User:Kadjhgfkad is disrupting the Talk:Sri Chinmoy page by deleting another editor's posts, posting in the wrong place (at the top of sections rather than at the bottom), and posting forum-type opinions and "rants" about the topic rather than about the article. I tried wholesale reversion of this before, and now he has repeated his behavior. Now I'm not sure whether to revert the forum rants, or just move them to the correct chronological placement, and replace the other editor's comments he has deleted. Can you look into this and possibly help decide if his forum-type comments belong there or not? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender. These posts disrupt the current talk page, provide no sources, and make potentially libelous claims against an organization. I've reverted them and warned the user. If the behavior continues, a trip to WP:ANI may be in order. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, before I saw your actions I posted some Talk page guidelines on his page. Softlavender (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey NeilN, why u reverted the useful & correct information i added on this page?!!The information i added is well & acco to facts as i provided in the source link to each & every line of info i added!so kindly plz do not revert any important info i will add again! & Kindly plz add the last info back i added!! I will be very glad!! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SD2908 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@SD2908: You deleted paragraphs of sourced text. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey im not violating any wikipedia rules,im just adding useful information on the article!!so kindly plz revert you decision of so Sockpuppet investigation on this account! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SD2908 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Although I greatly appreciate the quick response, I was wondering how you found my question so quickly on another user's talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi JustBerry. Every Wikipedia page I edit goes on my watchlist. I've worked with Flyer22 before so your question popped up on my watchlist. If you do a lot of editing here you'll find that editors lend a hand by answering questions wherever they might appear. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Why, that's very nice of you NeilN. I see you're a hard worker in lending a hand to others on Wikipedia. --JustBerry (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	True efforts in helping other users. JustBerry (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, The page of the political leader Mr. Khan is probably being continously edited by his political friends and fans. The incident I qouted in a neutral way had been on the Wikipedia page until recently. The incident is 100% famous and has made headlines all over the country several times. The matter was under scrunity in a court in California which ruled that Imran had fathered Sita White's child. Khan has still not challenged the ruling and in fact his ex-wife is still the child's guardian (sincr ofcourse Khan himself cannot take responsibility if he has to remain in Pakistani politics). Can you make that incident a permenant part of the page since his fans have been editing it out again and again citing it is baseless. Ruling from a California court is baseless. And need I remind that rumours which are very famous are present on the wikipedia page of many celebraties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousha hashmi (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yousha hashmi, I will say it again. Please do not ascribe ulterior motives to other editors, especially experienced editors trying to enforce our WP:BLP policy. Please use the article's talk page to gain consensus for your edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean that once someone is an experienced editor he can protect political leaders from any criticism on his wikipedia page and make him look like a saint? That's great. And the thing about talk page is that even if i give a hundred credible sources SmSarmad would not accept any of them and continue eradicating every criticism on the page. Cheers.

Yousha hashmi, you provided one source for your addition which you copied text from and portrayed they opposing lawyer's charges as facts. This is not acceptable in any article, let alone a WP:BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record Khan did not challenge a word the opposing lawyers said nor did he challenge the court's ruling. By the way if I add better and more credible sources that such a "rumour" exists would I be following the Wikipedia guidelines for editing content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousha hashmi (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yousha hashmi, declining to comment on what opposing lawyers said does not mean accepting their statements as facts. Before attempting to add rumors to articles please read WP:BLP carefully, especially: "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives..." Such material must be very well sourced, written carefully, and shown to be of encyclopedic significance. Again, I recommend using the article's talk page to work out proposed wording and sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated you [[21]]. You may delete the page if you object. :) --JustBerry (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd support you. Just noticed that we have both been blocked by careless mouse clicks - loved the edit summary for my: "Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy: on Elizabeth Gilbert after warning by Dougweller". Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi JustBerry, Dougweller. I'm honored but have to decline. I believe the community is looking for editors with content contributions and I'm more of a "fix things that need fixing" type of guy. This may change in the future but right now I'm content with how I contribute. Thank you both for thinking I would be a good admin, though. Doug, if you could stop committing BLP violations for a moment <grin>, as the request hasn't been transcluded can the page be deleted? I glanced at the RFA instructions and did not find any directions for this situation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd support you too. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. I always look at the TOC of my talk page and laugh, wondering what an editor thinks as they scan through the headers. It must look like I have a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde personality. Anyways, I'll definitely keep that in mind if I decide to face WP:RFA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

And Never Mind That JustBerry broke the hell out of the MOS with their subject heading (hint, capitalization). So, question no. 4 (since 1-3 are a given), how would you tell a friendly editor that they broke the hell out of the MOS? Ha! Drmies (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: Like User_talk:NeilN#Bernie_Goetz_reversion_.28un-bolding_names.29 :) But enforcing some aspects of MOS on talk pages... well WP:DICK comes to mind... :-p --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a grammarian, Neil. It's all or nothing. Wake me up in the middle of the night and ask me for an opinion--I'll have one. Wait, Bernie Goetz? I caught a bullet in the long from Bernhard Goetz? I suppose I have to click on that now--edit my talk page and you'll see why. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You truly are an arrogant and rude individual.

I have added comments to "Cerro San Luis Obispo" as a 7th generation resident of San Luis Obispo, CA. Someone who has studied and lived local history for over 50 years. Yet you term my input as "personal analysis or synthesis into articles" which is not allowed? Compared to what exactly? An article in the local paper written by someone who has little knowledge of San Luis Obispo or perhaps someone from far away that happens to get published in another form? Utter hubris. Pure bunkum. You should be ashamed of yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataproducts (talk • contribs) 06:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dataproducts: Right at the top of your talk page are some links which you should re-review. One of them leads to Wikipedia:Five pillars which discusses verifiability: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." This is core policy. If you want to change this policy to allow personal knowledge to be added to articles then you'll have to start a community discussion. However I doubt you'll get very far as Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize published sources and not act as a quasi-blog. Separately, the five pillars also discuss copyright violations. Please review this and refrain from committing them as you did here. That content also makes claims about living persons so as per WP:BLP higher quality sources are needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response and updating me about the wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurjoshi87 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I made a wonderful page regarding all problems relating about playing candy crush. I think is a helpful site and meet Wikipedia requirements. Right now I have 1k visitors a day at a bounce rate 40% and two minutes average time on site. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.92.219 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:ELNO point #11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Well if I change my domain and register to my company based on Romania I meet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source because I'm a little confuse. Following advices on page will make your game running for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.92.219 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why changing your domain and registering it to a company would make it a reliable source. It wouldn't. Are you missing "...published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, whatever...describe "reputation for fact-checking" (If you follow advices on my page any problem related will be solved I check that before) the advices here you don't find on Kings forums. Reputation can be meet with 1k daily visitors ? If your refference point is set to 500 can be meet if is set to 50k can't. I'm still confuse! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.92.219 (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

In this case, it would be other reliable sources in the industry (e.g., gaming magazines) saying yes, you are a good source for game information. The number of visitors to your site is completely irrelevant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Ahmadiyya is not the same as different sects in Christianity. This is becasue Ahmadiyya believe in another prophet after Prophet Muhammad (God bless him).

This is more like adding Christianity to Judaism because Jews don’t believe in Jesus.

Or adding Islam to a Christianity topic because Christians don’t believe in Muhammad.

The fundamental source of the religion (i.e., The prophet and his definition are different)

This I think is an attempt to disfigure the teachings of the religion of Islam.

Ahmadiyya don’t even make 1% in comparison to Muslims. Making their view more central in this article is a misrepresentation of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.134.201 (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No, our Ahmadiyya article explicitly refers to them as Islamic. The mainstream sects may not like it, but that's how academic sources refer to them. If you wish to argue the content has undue weight, please use the article's talk page to do that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN. You reverted one of my edits on the page "Education in Pakistan." May I ask why? I did not see anything wrong with my edits. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justacitizenoftheworld (talk • contribs)

Hi Justacitizenoftheworld. "This is an incorrect interpretation of the science of evolution but a common one." is unsourced commentary and seems to read as an afterthought. The previous text was sourced and directly relevant to the preceding sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

But that is giving an incorrect perception of what the science of evolution truly says and I simply pointing that. How is that personal commentary? I think it still stays relevant to the article.

Justacitizenoftheworld, what about "nearly all Pakistani science teachers rejected the scientific theory of human evolution because they believed that ‘human beings did not evolve from monkeys.’"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I never removed that part. I simply added "This is an incorrect interpretation of the science of evolution but a common one" after it. Though I will admit I did remove the part after that. Maybe I should not have done that.

Justacitizenoftheworld, no I'm suggesting we use the above wording and wikilink to get across they were going against science. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm confused. You say I should let both original parts remain but I can also add my piece of text right? Because that is what I am perceiving. I apologize if I perceiving what you mean wrong or incorrectly.

Justacitizenoftheworld, Sorry, I'm being unclear. I suggested the above as a replacement for your text. I'm not going to revert if you add it again but I still feel it's out of place and somewhat synthy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for clearing that misconception. Have a good day or good night.

Hello NeilN, the reason of removal. Is someone calling the AntiChrist relevant to the subject here? Christians have numereous people named the anti-christ. You can cut and paste what I removed under the section Anti Christ.

The article is about where you can find or see Muhammed/Ahmad in the bible. Not about claims of being the anti-christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.73.234 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is just as relevant as the "Muhammad as the promised Apostle of God to all the creation" section. The article is about how Muhammad's appearance in the Bible is treated by various religions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Various religions or certain people of the religion?

When you say. "Muhammed in the Bible" as your Chapter it is not "Anti-Christ in the bible".

The Koran is Linked through some passages one-on-one to some passages in the bible.(That should be shown here regardless of your opinion)

Not of the interpretation of some Christian priest/pastor/monks thinks how to understand some passages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.73.234 (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Antichrist portion is one section of the article as you very well know. Eulogius of Córdoba's and John Calvin's views on Muhammad in the Bible are just as notable as Islamic writers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Copied to here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi I am having a devil of a time getting a photo on the page of Dr Suzannah Lipscomb. I have many to choose from. I know her personally. I used to edit Wiki years ago and it appears some things have changed. I would like to contribute more. A photo taken at a public event used to be the easiest way to go. Please advise. If you could help me get a photo up it would be much appreciated. Photos taken by family etc should be ok- but I have to admit - I am flummoxed

cheersThewho515 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is to take the photo which is obviously owned by Dr Lipscomb(taken by her Mother)from her Official Website:

http://suzannahlipscomb.com/

and add it as her photo for her Wiki page. I don't remember this being as hard as it is now. I have no problem saving the file. It is the uploading that is giving me trouble. sorry to botherThewho515 (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thewho515, we can't use that. That picture is copyrighted. For living persons, we can only use public domain or freely licensed images. They can donate the image by following the instructions at WP:DONATEIMAGE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

We had this all sorted out at one time. A user "redpenofdoom" has deleted and changed things at random. It must be a troll of some sort. Maybe if you see the discussion it will help out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suzannah_Lipscomb

thanksThewho515 (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thewho515, I've worked with TheRedPenOfDoom before and he's rather a good editor - far from a troll. I suggest you focus on getting an appropriately licensed picture of Lipscomb. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

He seems to be the only aggressive one on that page. He also has retracted 'his' errors. I'll work on the photo at a later date. As someone needing assistance, I find this exchange none to cordial in toneThewho515 (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	thank you for showing me the right way.I am new ,so i am unaware of such things and still in a problem with how to create an article.... Christian Merlyn (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

hello there. a sculpture of the engineer is placed at the willis tower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FRKhan-scultpure-willis-tower.jpg and bruce graham too was a Colombian immigrant so it should be mentioned Look at this:http://khan.princeton.edu/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshbisas (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Rakeshbisas, you realize that photo does absolutely nothing to prove the subject designed Sears Tower, right? And that link does not mention Sears Tower? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

yes it does http://khan.princeton.edu/khanSears.html. also see this please: http://www.ctbuh.org/People/FazlurRKhan/tabid/1579/language/en-US/Default.aspx

here : http://www.seaoi.org/khan.html

Rakeshbisas: "Yes it does" - what does that even mean? Did you read the first Princeton link? And from your second source: "Fazlur Khan, the engineer selected to work on the project, came up with the structural system that defined the Sears Tower." This does not mean he designed the tower. Your last link also has no mention of Khan designing the tower. I have no issue with you adding something to the article but please come up with an accurate caption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

he was the structural engineer of the building. engineers design buildings with architects. well if i write the willis tower was engineered by fazlur khan then is it alright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshbisas (talk • contribs) 18:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

this link: http://www.ctbuh.org/People/FazlurRKhan/tabid/1579/language/en-US/Default.aspx says: "Dr. Khan had been responsible for the engineering design of many major architectural projects." on the 3rd paragraph--Rakeshbisas (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rakeshbisas, what about something like "responsible for the engineering design"? As an aside, can you please try your best to think of everything you want to say and then hit Save? I've had three edit conflicts while trying to reply to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I apologize to you for that. :D I am not really good with these things. haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshbisas (talk • contribs) 18:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"responsible for the engineering design". alright this is good. so how will the whole caption go mentioning that the tower was the tallest building till 1998? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshbisas (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Rakeshbisas, what about "Bangladeshi immigrant Fazlur Rahman Khan was responsible for the engineering design of Sears Tower (now Willis Tower), the tallest building in the world until 1998." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

okay good. thank you.--Rakeshbisas (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Rakeshbisas, do you want me to do it? I will add proper sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I did it.--Rakeshbisas (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Rakeshbisas, yeah, I wish you would be more patient. Formatting references takes time and now I have another edit conflict. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize again. sorry sorry. this is embarrassing. --Rakeshbisas (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Rakeshbisas, it's done. I do thank you for improving the article and hope that you'll continue to edit on Wikipedia. Just remember we all work together and sometimes things don't go as fast as we'd like. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

hahaha. I understand. I thank you for your assistance. I hope i can work with you to improve more articles. have a good one. :D

I am aware someone has an axe to grind here. Taking quite in interest in this page all of the sudden? the person you ask for help tries to start an editing war? Whilst one point may be valid it is being taken to the extreme. This page has been at war for the last year as I see it. It looks like nothing but a personal vendetta to me. Don't use a terse tone in your reply to me either. I will escalate matter. You say civil discourse is welcome? Lets hear some civility. cc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewho515 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thewho515, my terse tone, as you call it, appeared when you called another editor a troll. How is that civil? Now, as you say your personally know the subject, I suggest reading our conflict of interest guidelines. As to your actual edits, we must give Phd's their title is incorrect by our style guideline. You can check our other articles such as Isaac Asimov or Stephen Hawking if you wish. Note that I did not restore the subject's other name as the case for that is iffy. Your second edit, removing the review, can be brought up on the article's talk page with your reasoning why you want to remove the review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The 'Phd' is the exact point as I say above I believe to be valid. So fair play on that. The "other name" is not used in any way shape of form, so that (im my opinion) was a good judgement. I shall bring the "review" up on the talk page. I am interested why only negative reviews of all works are presented whilst several 'positive in nature' are available. I find this exchange useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewho515 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thewho515: As I said above, using the other name currently looks iffy to me so I left it out. If there are other reviews of her work, have they been deleted? Or simply not added? If it's the latter, then I suggest you add them with proper sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think they may have been manipulated. I am unsure. Point taken on the add though, will look into that avenue. Thewho515 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The revert you did for corruption is not BPL. Political opponents did not make that allegation. It was found using RTI (Right to Information) Act which is the most authentic piece of information that an Indian can get from the Government.

Please read about RTI Act which has exposed large scams in India till date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.209.113 (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Which would be great if your sources actually mentioned a RTI report. They don't, so another BLP warning for you. And Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Satpal_Maharaj. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Para six of http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/uttarakhand-cm-seeks-high-command-s-intervention-on-amrita-rawat-issue-114022000780_1.html mentions "The BJP, which got the information on the alleged scandal from an RTI activist, "

Its was due to this can that Amrita rawat was removed from her post and CBI inquiry demanded.I don;t know why wikipedia is suppressing content without veryfying. http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/rawat-seeks-cong-advice-on-subsidy-scam-114022001276_1.html

Search "RTI amrita rawat scam" , google will give links. It was a major political situation in Uttarakhand and you want to remove it without veryfying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.94.6 (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

An anonymous "RTI activist" is nowhere enough detail to back up the claim you're making. And your second source: "...as the party is facing onslaught from the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has been demanding a CBI probe and removal of Cabinet Minister Amrita Rawat, over an alleged 'subsidy scam'." - again, nowhere close to sourcing, "Its was due to this can that Amrita rawat was removed from her post". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The main newpaper in India , publishes it on its website and now you want me to dig that RTI activist's name.Its like getting information from bbc.co.uk . Uff...Neil ppl like you should not be admins on wiki for Indian Pages if you do not know much about India. Wiki not neutral. #needtoquitlookingwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.214.105 (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There are no such things as "Indian pages" and articles are not written for people already familiar with the subject. I expect that a reader completely unfamiliar with a subject can look a reference and say yes, the text in the article accurately summarizes what was in the reference. Plus, with WP:BLP, I expect any allegations are very well sourced and have substance. A name is still "nowhere enough detail". There should be enough info to determine the person is credible and the findings were verified by neutral third parties. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, a major portion of the Bihar page introduction has been deleted. Last day I had reverted to old version (through IP 42.104.1.11) but you have reverted back. Please look into it and revert back to my edit. Manoj nav (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Manoj nav: I was restoring the copyedits made by Vin09, incorrectly reverted as vandalism. Your introduction is not an improvement in my opinion, as it introduces unnecessary detail which is only there to promote the state. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 49.204.79.55 had edited introduction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bihar&diff=607889789&oldid=607749296 ) with a comment "arrangement of sections". I don't think this was appropriate as this was a major edit and he didn't discuss this on the talk page. The paragraph has been well referred. Manoj nav (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Manoj nav: The edit was fine per WP:BRD. Changes, even major ones, don't have to be discussed beforehand. The intro that resulted is better than the one you put back as the current version clearly has soapbox elements. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, The introduction was discussed here below,and have been accepted by people for a long time. The new edits completely deletes the second para. THey contain important information to under Bihar. They are not promotional in any sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bihar/Archive_1#Someone_has_edited_the_introduction_without_discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bihar/Archive_1#Intro_is_again_unencyclopedic_and_too_long Manoj nav (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Manoj nav: You are seriously pointing to two conversations that happened more than five years ago, dominated by yourself, as some sort of consensus for the current puffery that appears? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Is there any rule which says old discussions expires? I have not intention of making a promotional introduction. And I am more then happy if someone makes any constructive contribution to the article. This I am saying as being part of wikipedia Bihar team. Thank you for editing to the introduction. Would you mind if we discuss this on Bihar talk page as this would be accessible to other people as well. Manoj nav (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Manoj nav: Why would you think a discussion in 2008 applies to material added years later? Anyways, discussion opened: Talk:Bihar#Lede. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you reverted my edits where I bolded the parties' names to make it easier to quickly find what's happened to each character since the incident. I guess I could break the section down into further subsections. But since each would be pretty small, I thought just bolding each person's name at the start of the update for that person would be better form.

Either way, unless it violates some rule, I don't see why you spent the effort to undo something to make the information more quickly accessible.

Phantom in ca (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Phantom in ca. Wikipedia has a Manual of style which dictates situations where boldface is used. Bolding names within article bodies isn't one of them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You think / you try / I will find out / playing games / your not good at it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B10C:C04B:A942:7414:CFDF:E73 (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL!! Flyer22 (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I know, right? It's not even a proper haiku! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Why is Alex Jones discredited? Also there is a NY Times article and Time Magazine Article on Brzezinski being associated with Pol Pot. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/17/world/death-of-pol-pot-the-diplomacy-pol-pot-s-end-won-t-stop-us-pursuit-of-his-circle.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.221.149 (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

From Alex Jones (radio host): "He has accused the U.S. government of being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing, the September 11 attacks, the filming of fake Moon landings to hide NASA's secret technology and the killing of "thousands of astronauts". He believes that government and big business have colluded to create a New World Order through "manufactured economic crises, sophisticated surveillance tech and—above all—inside-job terror attacks that fuel exploitable hysteria"

Your NY Times article has: "I encourage the Chinese to support Pol Pot," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser at the time. "The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could." This comes nowhere close to supporting this edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

--Chris (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Why did you revert the change? The article listed definitions of 301s and referred to evidence of why 301s increase prominence. Was that not a useful citation? Surely more useful than not having one?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaddyPassionDigital (talk • contribs)

@PaddyPassionDigital: Because it is typical reference spamming. Please read our conflict of interest guideline and refrain from adding links to your company's website. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I didn't realise there was a conlfict of interest guideline. One question, if I may? Even if the citation is accurate / relevant, is it automatically breaking guidelines as it's our own website? I only ask because throughout Wiki there are dozens of links to outdated articles created by a company called Clickz, which they clearly added themselves. I wondered whether it was the sheer quality of the referenced material which justified them being there ? Thanks again.

Can you please list a couple articles where these links appear? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure - I'll take a look and list them here. I would appreciate an answer to my question though, I'm trying to learn. Much appreciated.

The way I would answer that is to ask if an editor totally unaffiliated with the company would add the link as a reference. In this case, the answer is a definite no as there are much better sources available (example). If you think you have a high quality source, and have a COI, the accepted practice is to post on the article's talk page to get independent feedback. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah ok so posting on the Talk page is the thing to do. Really helpful, thanks :) Oh FYI, I wouldn't use that example as a reference as it doesn't mention PageRank, and therefore has relation to website prominence. Perhaps something like this would be better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Filv4pP-1nw

Muchos gracias!

@PaddyPassionDigital: Yes, good. But be aware that Youtube videos are not generally considered to be reliable sources unless the video can be shown to have been published by a reliable source (which yours is). What I mean by this is that someone saying, "Google says this and Google said that" is not a reliable source. A video published on a channel controlled by Google is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@PaddyPassionDigital: One last thing. If you have a specific change you want to make to an article, consider adding this template above your request on the talk page. This will generally get a faster response (no guarantees though!).

Thanks, again! PaddyPassionDigital (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a kitten - thanks for taking the time to help me learn general Wiki etiquette.

PaddyPassionDigital (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have now made the changes. When presenting your arguments, I suggest that you also take into consideration the entire discussion. Au contraire, the editor to whom I was responding has failed to investigate any of the evidence I have present with regard to the content of the page. You should further investigate this editor for his biased actions, in addition to the way in which he is trying to have a page falsely removed to seemingly fulfill his own biased agenda. Additionally, he has made personal comments about parenting aimed at me in responses to my arguments that were put forth pertaining to direct evidence for the second time. He has also purposely avoided checking the validity of other articles uploaded immediately next to my uploads. You should probably investigate this, too! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Europa6 (talk • contribs)

Europa6: I haven't looked at the AFD in any detail and may not. What jumped out were your clear legal threats which are not permitted on Wikipedia. Thank you for modifying your language. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the update.

in a ping at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Ziaul Haque about promotional editing from IPs. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Opened at ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Best to ping me really so that I can respond faster. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:NeilN. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20