User talk:Neøn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

24 October 2012‎[edit]

Hi I noticed that you added "This article needs attention from an expert in Physics", what kind of attention is needed? Is it about the remark that it is too technical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutnauq2 (talkcontribs) 20:27, 24 October 2012‎

Replied on your talk page. --Neøn (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fructose and mannose metabolism[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Fructose and mannose metabolism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not sure how necessary this is. It's a bit of an add disambiguation, a page that two links to articles whose titles make up the title of the first page? Is anyone going to search for the combined term?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. freshacconci talk to me 00:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Soyuz 7K-L1 article introduction[edit]

Hi neon. I've moved a lot of the introductory paragraphs into the main body of the Soyuz_7K-L1 article & created 2 new sections to accommodate that change, if you'd like to check it out and see if that banner can now be removed. If not I can try and tighten up the wording for the 3 paragraphs that remain in the intro. ☭Soviet☭ (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source for Bitcoin edit. Core Admin risk.[edit]

Bitcoin Core Admin Risk reliable source available with consensus for two days already. Kindly read the reliable source.

Reliable source for Bitcoin edit placed two days ago. Please read the reliable source available for two days already.

You just did not read the reliable source that has been there right from the start. Please read it. The edit is almost a verbatim quote from the reliable source. You just made a mistake. We all make mistakes. Homni (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you can follow in the history that the edit appeared on 11 July in another sector of the article. It was after that suggested by a very creditable editor on this article that it should be moved to Overview. He thus agreed with the edit (consensus). He improved the edit, that he agreed with (consensus), and did not dispute it during the two days that the edit has been in the article - always with the reliable reference - that you completely missed to read. Two other very responsible and daily active editors, Ladislav and Fleetham, who scrutinize every single word on this article daily, day in and day out, never disputed anything about the edit. That is an absolutely clear indication of consensus when the three of them, Wuerzelle, Ladislav Mecir and Fleetham never disputed the edit. Homni (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Homni (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Neøn for contacting me on my talk page. I've commented in the article talk page. It's not that the statement is inaccurate (although in fact Bloomberg is not the original source and rather irrelevent to the discussion) it's just that inserting this single statement without any further discussion - at an inappropriate point in the article - damages the quality of the article. I have neither the knowledge nor the time to understand how to resolve an edit conflict such as this (I'm a pretty ocaisional Wikipedian and I've never been involved in one before) so I'm just going to go away and leave this alone. I'm disappointed to see the article being left in a poor quality state, but it appears that there's nothing I can do about it without getting into an edit war. (Or at least, there probably is something I can do but I don't understand Wikipedia processes well enough.) Regards, Roybadami (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Apus Group[edit]

Hi. I've declined your U2 as the user does exist (and their user page was deleted as spam...). I'm just about to block them for a spam username. Peridon (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Edgar got there first. Peridon (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User talk:Apus Group[edit]

Hello Neøn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:Apus Group, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: WP:CSD#U2 does not apply. This is a blocked account, but it is an account. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Rollback granted[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi Neøn. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal talk 06:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)