User talk:Neil2000

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

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


Such comments and edit-summaries are not useful. Surely you can make your point with greater civility. Abecedare (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

What comment? I used scientifically acceptable terminology.Neil2000 (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


The section "Notable pranks," which you added to the article April Fools' Day, was a copyright violation, having been cut and pasted in its entirety from a blocked eHow link to an article, "What is the origin of April Fools' Jokes," section "Constantine Theory," written by Laura Jean Holton. Per Wikipedia's strict WP:COPYVIO guidelines, I have removed the content. Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Grow up. Doesn't looks like you have much worthy things to do other than getting off of blocking people from doing anything on WP: Stop treating WP like your personal blog.Neil2000 (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Your edit on April Fools' Day is a clear WP:COPYVIO. You have copied and pasted the text in its entirety from an eHow article on April Fools' Day. Wikipedia takes all cases of copyright violation and plagiarism seriously. Please file an WP:ANI notice against me if you think my reversal your edit was uncivil or if I have acted uncivilly to you elsewhere on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Stop icon Your addition to April Fools' Day has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. You've been warned once already, yet you chose to restore the copyvio and then change to copyvio from www.infoplease. If you continue these copyright violations you will be blocked.SpacemanSpiff 18:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow another one of those henchmen of F&F. Do you even have a mind of your own or you just as uppity as F&F. Not going to waste my time on jackweeds like you and f&f. Neil2000 (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to April Fools' Day. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

IDK, maybe because you are copying your information from your reference? You are only modifying a few words, not using it as a reference, but as a copyvio, and you have been explained about this immediately above. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I saw this. Regardless what you tried to say (I can't understand what "Show exactly sentence that's copyright here"), Spaceman message was clear, the text you added is a copyvio. I later checked it and it was correct, you just made close paraphrasing, which is another way to create a copyright violation. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Check them apples! When you have something to contribute - say so. Not just pointing issues. Find solutions. Don't abuse admin powers!!!Neil2000 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Notable pranks[edit]

It just seemed a bit strange to say to the reader "here are all the notable April fool pranks in world history: 1. some US academic in 1983, 2. that's it, just that one". List of April Fool's Day jokes is probably a better place for this kind of thing, if we're presenting it as a standalone gag rather than part of the festival's origins. --McGeddon (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll move it there and create a link to List of April Fool's Day jokes.That's what I call a constructive suggestion. Thanks Neil2000 (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Byrraju Ramalinga Raju[edit]

Please read WP:IMPARTIAL. We avoid using terms like "disgraced" in Wikipedia's voice (especially in the intro) and just let the reader have the facts. For example, we don't call Adolf Hitler evil or Lance Armstrong disgraced. --NeilN talk to me 15:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Also see the discussion about this matter at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Byrraju Ramalinga Raju article -- the word disgraced being repeatedly added. Flyer22 (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

As referred to by Flyer22, It is not my personal opinion that the term disgraced to be used in the initial reference to Byrraju Ramalinga Raju. Numerous articles and newspapers including Press Trust of India, Associated Press referred to Byrraju Ramalinga Raju as disgraced. Please do not see this as name calling but rather a truth of matter. As Dwpaul said, a simple search would reveal several thousand sources. Neil2000 (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

And, as pointed out in the discussion and examples, Wikipedia does not use such terms in the intro. --NeilN talk to me 16:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please point out the section anywhere in wikipedia that 'disgraced' is not to be used. Neil2000 (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not keep a "words not to be used" list. It relies on its editors' good judgment. Again, take a look at the examples. Here are more: John Profumo, Phillip R. Bennett, Samuel Israel III, Nick Leeson. Can you show me an article where such a term is used in the lead sentence? --NeilN talk to me 18:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
See WP:PEACOCK. While Wikipedia does not maintain a banned word list, it clearly has a policy of avoiding words that would by their implication either tend to promote or condemn "the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information." While the policy expressed at the link above talks about promotion, the same philosophy applies in the use of words that denigrate a subject but do not impart specific information about them or their actions. The word disgraced has more to do with how an individual is viewed by society and very little do with facts or history. As I mentioned at WP:BLPN (but you conveniently left out of your quote of my comments), the article stands very well without the use of "colorful" words such as disgraced. Any reasonable person can infer that the subject of the article misbehaved in a reprehensible fashion; if they consider them therefore disgraced, then that is their judgment; we do not need to force it on them. Also, as I suggested, the interpretation of that word may be different in different societies -- hence another reason to avoid it. Dwpaul (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Also see WP:LABEL, actually found in the same guideline article as WP:PEACOCK and possibly even more relevant to the way in which you propose to use disgraced to "color" the reader's judgment of the subject without imparting useful information Dwpaul (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

On WP:PEACOCK, its clearly stated that "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". Since there are several reliable sources that described the subject as 'disgraced', would that justify such characterization as long as the reference is made to the exact sentence while not being subjected to copyright issue? Seems like people look for all sorts of seasons to support a point of view while ignoring how widely accepted reliable sources.Neil2000 (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

" which case use in-text attribution." That is, "xxx called yyy a disgraced businessman." We're not putting that as the first sentence. And you haven't come up with any examples where Wikipedia does so. --NeilN talk to me 16:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
As per NeilN's comment above. My position is unchanged. Here, again, is the problem: "disgraced" is an expression of the esteem (or lack thereof) with which a person is held by society or some segment of it. The fact that news outlets use the term does not mean that it is, in fact, true or well established; news outlets routinely use such "colorful" terms because they are short and make good headlines, not because they are factually accurate. "Disgraced" is a different term than, for example, "corrupt." The fact of someone's corruption can be established by a large number of reliable sources that establish that they routinely broke the law, defrauded investors and/or the public, accepted bribes, etc. Corruption on the part of an article's subject can be shown by reporting (using reliable sources) the actions of the subject and the reactions of authorities (i.e., convictions, etc.). To describe someone as "disgraced" you would need to provide evidence (using reliable sources) that an overwhelming proportion of some population have found him worthy of shame -- a psychographic determination requiring documented research, rather than a simple factual statement supported by other factual statements. So far, I have seen no such evidence. So, you see, I would not have problem with your calling this person "corrupt" (which is what I think you are really trying to say about him). But I continue to have problems with your use of the word "disgraced" (and, frankly, don't plan to discuss it further). Dwpaul (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Stop icon Your addition to Byrraju Ramalinga Raju has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. NeilN talk to me 17:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Byrraju Ramalinga Raju shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN talk to me 17:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you overreacting? four words of a sentence doesn't constitute copyright violation.Neil2000 (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
You have been warned of copyright violations before and told the other person to "grow up". This shows you have no understanding of how seriously Wikipedia treats copyright violations. This:
"In perhaps one of Corporate India’s worst chapters, dramatically stepped down admitting to faking financial figures of the company to the tune of Rs 7,136 crore (approximately $1.5Billion USD), including Rs 5,040 crore (approximately $1 Billion USD) of non-existent cash and bank balances."
is obviously a close paraphrase of this
"In perhaps one of Corporate India’s worst unfolding chapters, Mr B. Ramalinga Raju, Founder-Chairman of the $2-billion Satyam Computer Services, dramatically stepped down on Wednesday admitting to faking financial figures of the company to the tune of Rs 7,136 crore, including Rs 5,040 crore of non-existent cash and bank balances."
Please do not do this again. --NeilN talk to me 03:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Byrraju Ramalinga Raju may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • <ref>{{cite web|url=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


A book title is not a complete reference. You also need to include the page number where the info can be found. Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 20:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Go read it. You guys mentioned that wikiusers are very intelligent. Can't you ready that book? Simple search will do for the uninitiated or as usual remove it. Neil2000 (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Last warning[edit]

This copied a sentence from [1]. You must add content using your own words. The next time you commit a copyright violation I will report you to WP:ANI. --NeilN talk to me 20:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, those are facts.Not subject to copyright. Please report it now. I want to get to the bottom of this idiotic exercise that you are involved in. Neil2000 (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether the text copied says "The sky is blue and grass is green." If you copy it verbatim from a copyrighted source, you are violating a copyright. Wikipedia policy is very clear that you must provide information on the topic using your own words. And yes, an assembly of words about facts can most certainly be copyrighted. Speak with any of the authors whose copyrighted works you have used to compile this article and they will be quite clear about that. Dwpaul (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. SKATER T a l k 21:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not user copyrighted material but rather referred the source. Point the exact copyright violation that occurred and specific policy that violation not some generic Wikipedia policy Neil2000 (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, for starters, refer to the very first sentence in this section. It has links (and I removed other copyright violations from the article). After that, start from the top of talk page and read down. --NeilN talk to me 21:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
As you wish (and only single example):
No court in India or the U.S. would fail to recognize the violation; the very slight rewording does not make the words your own, nor protect you (nor Wikipedia) from the possibility of a lawsuit. ("Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure (this can also raise problems of plagiarism)."[4] If you, rather than Zafar Anjum, had written the book at the link you would want your work to be protected just as they would and will. Dwpaul (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
A follow-on thought; I suggested on the article's Talk page[5] that you might consider whether writing your own book about Mr. Raju is a project better suited to your goals and preferences. I say it again, but in doing point out that if you did, you would be assuming the full risk of your actions. As long as Wikipedia is assuming all or some of that risk, Wikipedia gets a say in how you expose it to that risk; that means you must comply with certain (well documented) policies. If you fail to do so, the community that is Wikipedia is well within its rights to mitigate that exposure, even if it means preventing you from contributing content here, and even if you disagree about the degree of risk. Dwpaul (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. - Also see WP:Close paraphrasing, which explains the difficulties associated with it and the differences between facts and the "creative expression" of facts. Dwpaul (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
An example is here: User_talk:Neil2000#October_2013 --NeilN talk to me 23:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Palepu article should be in different section[edit]

I agree that the reference should be included but it should not be in the first paragraph. See editorial standards on "recentism" and "article imbalance" :



This reference relates to his "Outside Activities" and should be placed in that section.

There are "Notability" issues on this page, and it's debatable whether there should be a page on him at all since he's a professor and not a public figure. Therefore, entries must be written conservatively, as per Wikipedia editorial standards: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Providence500 (talkcontribs) 21:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)