User talk:NeilN: Difference between revisions

If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. NeilN

Archives

Archive 1: Aug 2005 - Oct 2007 Archive 2: Nov 2007 - Jan 2008 Archive 3: Feb 2008 - Mar 2008 Archive 4: Apr 2008 - Jun 2008 Archive 5: Jun 2008 - Oct 2009 Archive 6: Nov 2009 - Dec 2009 Archive 7: Jan 2010 - Mar 2010 Archive 8: Apr 2010 - Mar 2011 Archive 9: Apr 2011 - Apr 2012 Archive 10: May 2012 - June 2012 Archive 11: Jul 2012 - Jan 2013 Archive 12: May 2013 - Jul 2013 Archive 13: Aug 2013 - Sep 2013 Archive 14: Oct 2013 Archive 15: Nov 2013 - Dec 2013 Archive 16: Jan 2014 - Feb 2014 Archive 17: Mar 2014 - Apr 2014

4 July 2024
News and notes: WMF board elections and fundraising updates Special report: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board In focus: How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna In the media: War and information in war and politics Sister projects: On editing Wikisource Obituary: Hanif Al Husaini, Salazarov, Hyacinth, and PirjanovNurlan Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion Gallery: Spokane Willy's photos Op-Ed: Why you should not vote in the 2024 WMF BoT elections Crossword: On a day of independence, beat crosswords into crossploughshares Humour: A joke Cobwebs: Counting to a billion — manuscripts don't burn Recent research: Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps Traffic report: Talking about you and me, and the games people play
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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: [1] My reply: [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 [[3]]), after which Neil decided to join the reversion battle "not dave" had begun, see: [4]. The following further source will soon expire, but it has the complete dialog and Block history, and subsequent discussion with admins: [5]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

…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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. [7] 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)\[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dear fellow, you recently left a message on my talk page asking me to explain my edits.

The total %age of Hindus in whole uk is 1.3% and 1.5% for england according to 2011 census. I corrected that mistake and merged %age of Hindus in other religions %age. That's clearly not vandalism or some thing else.

On article religion in Belgium, their were two different sources with totally different figures making readers confused. Therefore I took ipos mori source and created the pie chart. But another user came and reverted my edit saying that you are making christian percentage look lower. Since I am a mobile user I cannot revert edits so I have to start again from nothing again. I copy pasted pie chart from previous versions but I was not able to rescue the original source of ipos mori. Then you came and instead of rescuing the original source, you reverted my whole edit saying that its source points towards page not found. This shows your non serious behaviour.Septate (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Septate, curiously you avoid answering for the articles I asked about [8], [9]. I still would like an answer please. And here is the link you added to Belgium. What do you get when you click it? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Neil N, I have warned Septate, and informed about Arbitration Enforcement. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

CFConlinerelations, stop trolling. [10], [11] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [12]) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Incidentally, this [13] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have nominated you [[14]]. You may delete the page if you object. :) --JustBerry (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at User_talk:Crazycomputers/WatchlistBot.
Message added 20:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		As one of the editors who helped answer my question(s) at the Teahouse concerning my mistaken csd/afd two step with regards to the article Norman Alvis I hereby present you with this Teamwork Barnstar. Thanks for the help, I can see now both why and how I screwed this matter up so badly, which will hopefully translate into fewer mistakes of this nature down the road. With my sincere thanks, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I put quite a bit of effort on improving the writing of the Begging and Vagrancy articles, sloppy in my opinion. I do think I did more good than bad: By all means, if you disagree with aspects of the edit, undo them. But please don't undo them all in less time than it takes to read them.

Nicolas Perrault (what did I screw up again?) 01:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Perrault, actually I went through the entire diff on Begging and the majority of your changes did not improve the article in my opinion. If you wish me to give examples, I will do so in a couple hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicolas Perrault III: Assuming you are still interested in this and not nitpicking my informal writing, here are some examples. Diff for your reference.

• Intro is less informative and introduces unnecessary restrictions ("money or food" -> not always, "Beggars are found on transport routes, in urban parks, and near busy markets." -> not always)
• Second intro paragraph -> you changed a direct quote
• Removal of useful intro sentence in History section
• "Ancient Greeks distinguished between the ptochos (Greek: πτωχός, "passive poor" or "beggars") and the penes (Greek: ποινής, "active poor") of higher social status" -> less clear
• "Many religions establish begging to social classes, typically to allow focusing on spiritual development." -> makes far less sense than what you replaced
• "Examples exist in Christianity, Hinduism, Sufi Islam, and Jainism." -> conveys no useful detail
• "Begging has been restricted..." -> no need to cut out detail
• "...restrict specific kinds of begging, particularly certain narrowly-defined cases of "aggressive" or abusive begging." is not equivalent to "...restrict rare cases of aggressive begging."
• "resembles" is not equivalent to "based on"

These are the issues I had with the first part of your changes (you'll notice that I listed almost every change in the portion I covered). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good word from William Zinsser: "Clutter is the disease of American writing. We are a society strangling in unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous frills and meaningless jargon."

• I agree with your comment on the introduction. I suggest:

"Beggars are found on transport routes, urban parks..." --> "Beggars can be found on transport routes, urban parks..." (That they can be found in other "public places" is implied by the nature of the list).

• The intro to the History section is a filler and gives no information. The existence of begging in prehistory seems hard to prove. We can guess that it existed, but so can the reader. (Of course, I would favour the inclusion of citable material on the prehistory of begging.)
• Listing Christianity, Hinduism, Sufi Islam, and Jainism at the top of the section doesn't give more information.
• In "Begging has been restricted...", I removed no detail. "at various times and for various reasons" doesn't mean anything. In "...rather than to beg for economic or moral reasons", the "economic or moral reasons" is clutter (there's no other kind of begging) and the "rather than to beg" is implied from context. In the last sentence, "varying levels of effectiveness and enforcement" is another filler: No one would conceive that effectiveness and enforcement of Poor Laws are ever unchanging.

I apologise for the change to the direct quote.

Nicolas Perrault (what did I screw up again?) 11:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Perrault reducing clutter should not mean reducing clarity and preciseness or to transform generalized examples into declarations.

This:

Begging has been restricted or prohibited at various times and for various reasons, typically revolving around a desire to preserve public order or to induce people to work rather than to beg for economic or moral reasons. Various European Poor Laws prohibited or regulated begging from the Renaissance to modern times, with varying levels of effectiveness and enforcement.

proposes some reasons why begging is prohibited while this:

Begging can be restricted to push people to work and preserve public order. In Europe, Poor Laws have regulated begging since the Renaissance.

makes a declaration. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What don't you like in declarations? Nicolas Perrault (what did I screw up again?) 00:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Undid revision 61124065) WP:3RR and WP:EW require an user's page to receive a warning when they are edit warring. Please stop your disruptive editing. You are not Admin. Put your comments on the Romeo and Juliet page if you are defending your friend.)

If you are defending your friend, then make constructive comments on the Romeo and Juliet page where he/she is edit warring and has made a 3RR violation. Be constructive since Prof. Harold Bloom is a reputable scholar and the citation I have given is validated and a respected book in the academic community. Your friend appears to disagree for his/her personal reasons and is contradicting a published and verifiable authority in Prof. Harold Bloom. FelixRosch (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons?172.250.31.151 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If not there, then where? NO admin cat seems to qualify. It's OK for him to cast aspersions on my front page (I appreciate technically it is Wikipedia's not mine)? It would do no good if I just blanked his and wrote crap on his. So where, then?

S Si Trew (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Si Trew, communications are placed on user talk pages. I left a note on Bish's talk page pointing to your post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but ive put a source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradley Wiggins (talk • contribs) 01:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Wiggins, "am//racially/ hh.) 2011" is not an acceptable cite. See WP:CITE how to add a proper reference. And please stop messing about with section titles [15]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and stop deleting my stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradley Wiggins (talk • contribs)

Why are you removing the information about the final judgment? The fact that a US Federal Judge has already entered a judgment is more then worthy of mention in that story, why on earth would you simply reduce it to a stub? I did some edits to make it more cohesive, but the fact that this case has already been reduced to a final judgment in the courts mutes any BLP concerns you may have, this was really well sourced, and I put in some time, as you did to redress its issues, but please restore the final judgment data, thank you! talk→ WPPilot  04:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, please stop, you are really out of line to post this on a Admin board for review then go right into tearing the whole page apart with out any consensus on this, please stop, this as I mentioned on the board is the tenth largest fraud in history and you just put 95% of the sources, in the trash. talk→ WPPilot  04:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WPPilot, WP:BLPPRIMARY is very clear: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." And I did not post this for review, DGG did, with an eye to deleting the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you are removing things that are sourced by the Salt Lake City news agencies, both broadcast as well as print, not to mention the fact that you removed the links to the US Security and Exchange commission websites press releases, how do you fit those into WP:BLPPRIMARY? talk→ WPPilot  04:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WPPilot, SEC orders are primary documents. The only thing sourced to secondary reports is I can see I cut is:

BECKSTEAD entered into an agreement to sell almost all of the multi-family properties to an affiliate of Cortland Partners for $338,500,000.00^[1] Approval of that sale is pending. April 2, 2014 a investor challenged the structure of the planned $338.5 million sale of a multifamily property to Cortland Partners LLC,^[2] contending that the sale’s proceeds will be distributed unfairly. The hearing date is May 19th, 2014 ^[3]

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree SEC press releases are SEC press releases, not ORDERS in any way shape or form. You have trashed this whole article, you never gave it a chance for a consensus in any way, you just tore into it. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=21488877 that is a link to the story on the final judgment, but as you are dead set on destruction??? talk→ WPPilot  04:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SEC PRESS release: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-266.htm

Here if you want to tear it apart, please include the information that was reported upon by the media:

• http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=960&sid=18526079&fm=related_story&s_cid=article-related-2
• http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=960&sid=18725000&fm=related_story&s_cid=article-related-1
• http://www.costar.com/News/Article/Receiver-Sets-Liquidation-Plan-for-$220-Million-Multifamily-Portfolio/148375
• http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/securities/b/securities/archive/2012/07/25/accused-utah-ponzi-schemer-held-in-contempt-for-hiding-assets-from-receiver.aspx
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2011/12/16/father-son-mormon-duped-investors-out-of-220-million-in-ponzi-scheme-sec-says/
• http://www.law360.com/articles/524329/cortland-s-339m-re-deal-shorts-some-investors-court-told

I did not delete any of those sources except for the law360 one you just added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps but the story is so mangled now that it will take a day of editing to restore the stuff that you so BOLDLY removed before I had a chance to update the refs, now it is going to have be written ALL OVER again. Geeeze talk→ WPPilot  04:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you had an admin advocating deletion and two other editors calling for a WP:BLOWITUP a rewrite seems to be in order. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And why then did you remove the law 360 link? You really did just destroy years of effort here. I could have fixed in in under a hour. If you review the links it substantiates via a third party creditable source the ENTIRE STORY, as it was, you have hacked it up into something that really makes no sense and no longer is accurate in details about the 10 largest fraud in human history. Are you going to restore the data with the links above, or do you expect me to do it?talk→ WPPilot  04:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI you in no way rewrote this, you simply butchered it, and left it in a mangled state. talk→ WPPilot  04:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire paragraph as it was surrounded by primary-sourced paragraphs and unsourced trivia. I would hope you continue the discussion at WP:BLPN on what are appropriate sources and details. And on the contrary, the present version is quite understandable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a admin told you to jump off a cliff would you run right over to the cliff and jump? "the present version is quite understandable" but it no longer has any of the actual facts about the case. If a person was to read that he/she would have NO IDEA what was going on. BTW, YOU were the one the suggest it be rewritten. The links that I gave you support MOST of what you have removed. I will restore the story with the proper data using the new sources that I have pointed out. And no the current version no longer represents the case in a manner that provides the reader with a understanding, only confusion. talk→ WPPilot  05:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, I thank you for your attention to this article. I was indeed divided between using bLPN and AFD. WPPilot, what I found utterly confusing was the original article--it took me quite a while to figure out what was important from among the trivia, such as the $ value of the individual items of the principals foreclosed assets. I think primary sources can sometimes be used, but this article was a remarkable example of how not to do so. I don't think anyone wants us to not have an article on the subject; the question is what to do with this article. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Copyright violations? If so, should I go ahead and revert those edits now, WP:Preserve some of the content or what? Flyer22 (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If article text is a copyright violation or close paraphrase remove it immediately (I usually add a link in the edit summary if possible to the original text). The text can be rewritten after the removal if so desired. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a matter of extensive quoting, but from different sources (so there's too many to provide the link for in the edit summary). For example, this type of quoting is fine. While it doesn't make for a good article to have it simply be a bunch of quotes, I'm not sure that these are copyright violations. I know that extensive quoting from a source can be a WP:Copyright violation, though. Seems that I should use this tool to compare the sources and the text. Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I worship at the altar of Moonriddengirl when it comes to non-obvious copyright violations. You may want to ask her. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking of her when I referred to that copyright violation detector tool. I decided to refrain from linking her name here at your talk page in case you didn't want the matter discussed much further here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using original research in the actual edits. I'm saving that for the talk page. Your reverts are unwarranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.130.11.182 (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can pretty much guarantee allusions to conspiracy theories with giving reliable sources that discuss the "mystery" will be removed when scrutinized by any experienced editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC) "with" should be "without". ooops. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Are you claiming that 4.7 * 2 = 8.5 and to say otherwise is a conspiracy theory? I see you have a history of being rude and arrogant, but have many rewards by Wikipedia... And the worst part is, this doesn't surprise me at all. Wikipedia is not objective, nor is it neutral, and it really has no problem with being wrong if it helps its senior editors' confirmation bias.50.130.11.182 (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have tried my best for this as it was my first page. i created this page for him as it is not easy to do something substantial in militant hit state of J&K Rahil Gupta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun7007 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ,

This is the first work of mine . And i did it for Rahil Gupta because He has done something substantial in militant hit state and provided job opportunities to so many people. I don not know much about editing but what you people feel good like you can edit accordingly . yes press releses are ther as secondary intrsuments were needed to my liitle knowledge

Thanks,

Arjun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun7007 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arjun7007. As I mentioned on your talk page, press releases are essentially useless as sources. To expand, they can be used to source straightforward facts. They cannot be used to source self-serving claims or as proof of notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi So could you help me in knowing what kind of reference have to be put here. So that i make necessary changes .

Thanks for replying

Arjun7007 (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun7007, Wikipedia:RS#Some_types_of_sources is a good read if you want to understand the types of sources we look for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind telling me why you are reverting polite requests sourcing for various unfounded statements, along with a spelling correction, and some strikethroughs of accusations that reflect very poorly on the redirect CEO of this corporation? Especially when Nadex has no references anywhere? I am not certain I understand the policy or rationale that allows them to be called either "enough" or "guff". How can one section be enough when there are several talk sections I haven't even read yet? Okteriel (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okteriel, as a WP:SPA who has a WP:COI and is grabbing at anything you can find [16], you should be staying far, far away from tampering with other people's comments. Ask for sources in your own separate posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do? Should I filter my alleged SPA by editing more unrelated articles? Should I go rogue instead of disclosing more about my conversation with Mr Laurent, as I indicated I would do? Should Article Rescue decline to bring fresh independent views? Should Historian be allowed to speak extremely rashly without interruption? The Wikipedia I know is very friendly about allowing {{cn}} or {{interrupted}} in the middle of others' posts. Should I not correct spelling errors in the comment of another friendly editor with a good managed COI? Are you saying I am violating a policy? Since I am coming to you for counsel, would you not tell me how the identity of the article subject can be corrected? Would you mind if I tagged the Nadex article as {{unreferenced}}? If so, why so? If not now, when? Okteriel (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what Wikipedia you know but mine has WP:TALKO. And the Wikipedia I know is pretty unfriendly towards whitewashing with overtones of paid editing. You should be doing things as uncontroversially as possible. And yes, tagging the Nadex article is uncontroversial as it indeed has no sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thanked you for that one, I like being validated. Also, TALKO bows to BLP, does not exclude the obvious {{interrupted}}, which I could use instead but is clunkier, and later on the page it explicitly mentions the talk inline template {{corrected}}. And the editor who restores (by unstriking) controversial material shares responsibility for that material. Why are you so anxious to unstrike unfounded probable BLP violations?

You are also saying I'm whitewashing when I was merely attempting to get self-reverted discussion drafts going. Would you like to tell me how my quick-start improvement drive constitutes whitewashing? Would you like to stay with me and help me improve the article, such as by agreeing that BDB, Ltd, is not BDB Svcs, Ltd, when our article says wrongly it is? Thank you! Okteriel (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you asked, I brought the issue to WP:BLPN#BLPTALK at Banc De Binary archive. Okteriel (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea who it is? Several editors have been targeted, at least 3 IP addresses so far. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's probably originally 79.101.150.85 (talk · contribs), about Igor Janev, though why they are being so persistent I have no idea. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: Yes, that's my guess too. If you want to see an example of persistence have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahil Gupta and sigh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its an ongoing problem see Vladimir Putin#Intervention in Crimean Peninsula - 5 quotes in 3 paragraphs. He even removed the quote tag without doing a thing to fix the problem. Just going to have to keep an eye out for this copy and paste master...see if we can follow and clean up after him. Hes even engaged in an edit war over at Sigmund Freud over an edit that has been there for year (even passed GA review with it) that has resulted in the page being lockedup. Not sure why bold revert discus is such a problem for this editor. Hes not that bad at simple copy editing but when adding info its mostly quotes. -- Moxy (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: It's a somewhat more advanced version of a problem some editors have with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. In this case, it's a difficulty with judging the appropriate level of detail that should go in the article. I think the 2014 events could still stand to be significantly trimmed. For example, in this top-level article about a country with a thousand year history why is "Talks in Geneva between the EU, Russia, Ukraine and USA yielded a Joint Diplomatic Statement referred to as the 2014 Geneva Pact[155] in which the parties requested that all unlawful militias lay down the arms and vacate seized government buildings, and also establish a political dialogue that could lead to more autonomy for Ukraine's region." present when it's unclear if the pact will actually amount to anything? The entirety of World War I, Great Depression, and World War II takes three paragraphs in the top-level United States article as a comparison! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks for your time on Banc de Binary. I reverted CorporateM as they are a self confessed COI editor, who specialises in this kind of work, they even write about it on their wall^[4]. They give a list of companies that they have done work for. Their sudden and overwhelming interest in the page is just another of their COI jobs, but they failed to state first that they had a COI. The page was built up first on consensus and I think that changes should be debated first amongst editors, and after people declare COI.HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HistorianofRecenttimes do you have evidence they have a COI for this article? And I can't help but notice that you are a single purpose account - what's your interest in it? Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @HistorianofRecenttimes: I strongly suggest you read his user page carefully: "In my view marketing professionals and paid editors that covertly edit Wikipedia in order to promote their employer or client are violating the Federal Trade Commission's astroturfing laws, which explicitly requires that those with a financial connection disclose it online in order to avoid confusing them with crowd-sourced participants." He declares where he has COI and has not done so here. In fact, your interest is more suspicious than his. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The have re-inserted the content again on Canadian Tamil Congress.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: Reported here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in any discussion at the source, addressing the specific issue. Posting to my user page smacks of canvassing and leaves you unaware of the specifics of the discussion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: Uh, no. Pointing out policy problems with your edits on your talk page is not canvassing by any stretch of the definition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Skin Game (novel). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)[reply]

My first DRN! Wheee! [17] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to let you know that I'm making a start on reviewing this editor's work, starting with the earliest edits and working forward. With a bit of luck we should meet somewhere in the middle. However, I should warn you that real life is now calling me away from the keyboard, and I am unlikely to be back for the next 15 hours or so. I'll carry on tomorrow, and work on this for as long as it takes. If you could leave a note here or on my talk page of where you've got to, this will give me a stopping point. Thanks in advance. RomanSpa (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RomanSpa. See [18] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, thank you regarding the Charlie "Sugartime" Phillips. I will certainly heed your advice as I do not want to compromise Charlie's standing. I appreciate folks like you who are willing to lend guys like me a hand when it comes to Wiki. Cycushenberry (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hey NeilN! Why deleted the info i added on India page? Kindly plz do nt revert the info again becoz the info i wrote is correct as i given in the links by me! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhir7777 (talk • contribs)

@Sudhir7777: Stop your incessant POV pushing. Now on a featured article, no less. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hey NeilN , thnx for your advise i will follow the rule next time! But the info i added is correct & very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhir7777 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 12 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Sudhir7777: It also has completely undue weight in a featured article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You messaged me the following: Hello, I'm NeilN. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Celtic music in Canada, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 21:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I admit to being a novice at this stuff. You say I can include a citation and re-add it. OK, I got my information from the following websites:

http://glengarryhighlandgames.com/ http://www.leahymusic.com/ www.thebrigadoons.com/welcome.php http://www.choosecornwall.ca/

The thing is, I did not save my text so I don't know how I can re-add it. I'm not a stupid person, but I did not see in the "referencing for beginners" any way I could re-add it, so please tell me what I can do.

Thanks in advance for any help.

IslandMtn (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I restored the archived talk page on MZB's bio because (a)deleting it wholesale seems counter to promoting discussion (b)it covers many topics, not just the recent controversial ones (c)there is, today, a huge debate brewing in F & SF (fantasy & scifi) circles around the controversial bits, and erasing (yes it's archived, but for all but the most techie and digging-oriented of users it's invisible) the WP element of that discussion strikes me as wrong and sledgehammer-y (d) MZB died 15 years ago so BLP should not apply.

You reverted my action and told me to put a CSD tag on the archive if I revert back.

That may be the right advice, but I'd be grateful if you pointed me toward relevant discussions of practices around such a chain of events. At first glance I don't see anything on the CSB page that applies to talk pages or archives. I've never flagged anything for deletion before and I'd like to know a bit more of what I'm doing if I do. Thanks.

P.S. Also any thoughts you have on a-d above are appreciated. Praghmatic (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil N,

Thanks for the speedy and concise feedback today. I think I was able to take care of all of your concerns. I added an "Industry Awards" section. It's not pretty, but I think I have a good collection of sources to support their validity.

Thanks again,

MaximZero (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaximZero. I've cleaned up the artice, condensed the awards sections, and approved it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from 2018 FIFA World Cup. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Please use the talk page and refrain from abusing template warnings. If I experience or encounter any further misuse you can explain your actions at the appropriate noticeboard. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree on using the talk page, and I suggest reading WP:BRD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this use I reverted, a sock of Sudhir7777? — LeoFrank  ^Talk 16:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LeoFrank: Looking at his contributions, I don't think so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could use your help at the Women who have sex with women article. Right now, we have "new editor" Sudendiss (talk · contribs) removing "heterosexual" as one of the sexual identities that a woman who has with women might identify as, even though this is clearly covered by sources on the topic. See here and here where I reverted the editor twice already and where the editor claims to have "checked source" (as in "one source") and states "reliable source is required for the claim heterosexual women engage in same-sex activity." So the editor is apparently confusing sexual orientation with sexual identity. Whatever the case, the editor is not well read on the subject if he or she doesn't know that, just like the topic of men who have sex with men, heterosexual identity is one of the sexual identities involved in the topic of women who have sex with women. I am not sourcing that one bit of the lead when the other sexual identities in the lead are not sourced in the lead and are rather sourced lower in the article (well, with the exception of "pansexual"). Flyer22 (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]