User talk:NeilN/Archive 13

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


Lung Cancer Edits

Why was this content taken off of Lung Cancer? Aside from the username being a company name, which will be changed, the material is in no way promoting any product, service, or requiring any purchase. Wikipedia does not allow for video/animation submissions, so we include a link to view educational resources. Many of the wikipedia articles link to other websites for more information. We are an educational company providing for the general public. Also, we spoke to a wikipedia representative about donating images to the website. (referencing Ticket#2013061010006654 with Derrick Coetzee). I'm unsure why they are being blocked after they have been approved to submit. Blausenmedical (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You are promoting links to your own website which is a conflict of interest. And Wikipedia does definitely allow for video submissions - see Wikipedia:Creation_and_usage_of_media_files#Video. --NeilN talk to me 20:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay so there is a ticket. Yes you may upload the videos to commons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

John Wayne external link

Good morning Neil, I notice that the external link to public domain John Wayne movies has been removed . . . can you let me know what my error was? I am confident that you did not find any movies with a current copyright owner among them. If I erred in some other way I would appreciate knowing how to correct same. My intention is not to spam or offend or add any content that is not helpful to visitors interested in Mr. Wayne. tia, Jimbo Jimbo-Berkey (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 13:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Telangana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telugu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Questions about editing the Page on Goliath

Hi NeilN,

I saw your link to the original research page in reference to the rollback of my contributions to the Goliath wiki page. I would like to refactor my contributions to include mostly citations & then actually resubmit, because I worked on those contributions for well over an hour if not two. Being as I am relatively new to wikipedia editing can you tell me how to do the following:

- Find the best way to politely dispute something already in the article or suggest it be improved. Is that what the talk page is for? Who monitors that and how am I guaranteed anyone will see it?

- If many claims are made in a paragraph and only one citation is placed at the very end of that paragraph may I place a [citation needed] tag at the end of one particular sentence that needs verification?

My goal is to positively contribute but there are some things in that article that I would dispute as to its neutrality unless some clarifications/improvements in the article are made. I tried to expand the information in that article but admittedly not everything was citable.

P.S. Also I saw that Atlan actually rolled my changes back but you contacted me/left a message on my user page. Did he notify you of his undo, or tag it in some way for review? If I also undo someone's change do I need to follow some procedure?


Jmnielsen (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jmnielsen
First question last - Every registered editor has a watchlist that can used to monitor changes to articles. Goliath is on my watchlist and I saw Altan's revert and went to check if he left a message for you explaining why. He did not, so I did. You'll find that a lot of times other editors will jump in to make sure new editors are helped along.
You can use the talk page to discuss changes/issues with the article. Anyone who has the article on their watchlist will see it. You can add {{cn}} tags wherever you see fit. Check if the cite at the end of the paragraph has the info you're looking for first, though. You can also place {{POV-Statement}} after statements whose neutrality you question (explain further on the talk page)
You can undo anyone's change, but if the problems aren't fixed, you will be quickly reverted. If you wish, I can place a copy of your changes in a sandbox in your user space for you to work on. --NeilN talk to me 00:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

RE:A bit harsh

I didn't gave a final warning to the user, I just warned them as any other user, and Huggle already had her/him labeled as "Level 3". Perhaps the warn you gave to the user triggered something. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you didn't mistakenly give an "only warning"? If you are, I will follow up with the Huggle folks. --NeilN talk to me 23:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't. I give "only warning"s in specific cases, and this was not one of them. As I said, at the moment I reverted the user, HG labeled her as "3", I thought she already had three warns. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Made to Benin info Page

Hello NeilN,

Thank you for the welcoming message and the tips for editing. I believe it would be a sham to remove the additions I made to the Benin page without looking at the logic behind them. The original information on the page is utterly wrong. Anyone with any knowledge of history would clearly see this. If you are telling me that Wikipedia is a Western Medium and as such prefers its own interpretation of history, then go for it, for there would surely be no way to refute the faulty assertion that the kingdoms of Abgbomey and Porto-Novo were formed because of slavery as seemingly mainstream Western sources say. However, keep in mind that the same Western sources comment on the Portuguese arriving in the Bight of Benin and meeting these existing Kingdoms centuries before the Transatlantic Slave trade even began. Is that not contradictory?

I think it would behoove Wikipedia to also police these clear lapses in simple logic on that page. I was reading through the page and it is fraught with obviously contradicting information. It was so embarrassing that I made an account to try to point this out. Read the French version of the same page to see how they contradict each other. It is a farce.

With my best regards, Pardessus1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pardessus1 (talkcontribs) 19:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to only use Western sources. If you have other reliable sources, use them. If the French version has other sources, use those as well. If you think something is wrong (and it's unsourced), remove it. Using the article's talk page to point out specific concerns would be helpful as well. --NeilN talk to me 19:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I will edit the page again when I get some time. Thank you for the suggestions.Pardessus1 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Reversion to Edit on Edward Snowden


I wanted to momentarily discuss the reversion to the edit removing that sentence on Edward Snowden describing viewpoints. While you are correct, this does indeed accurately reflect the multiple viewpoints expressed by persons in the wake of the leaks by Edward Snowden, it is indeed possible to see how it could create the potential for POV to become a factor in reading the article. This was expressed by others in #wikipedia which is what led me to make the edit.

Regards, ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 16:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, if you want the material removed, you should make the case on the article's talk page. To be frank, most of us don't care what is said on IRC. --NeilN talk to me 16:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Understandable. Thanks. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 16:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

James Bates (sportscaster)

You keep deleting my entry for James Bates (sportscaster) - The current entry is not correct. I work for FOX Sports South and I am trying update his bio. Please let me know what I can do to get this corrected. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

BLP Barnstar.png The BLP Barnstar
For asking the right questions and initiating the right discussion at WP:DOB NickCT (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks NickCT. I hope the discussion will lead to a policy that accurately describes what we practice. --NeilN talk to me 06:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi niel, I am not familiar yet on the rules of editing articles here in Wiki but I believe my edit is correct and accurate. About the reliable source you are pertaining, i dont know how to do it so im giving my apologies. Can you show me how then?

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 06:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Abacus: Further Reading


You reverted my edits of Abacus: Further Reading to revision 566816145.

I posted my comments and requests on my talk page; please respond to it.

Thanks, Steve Stephenson Sks23cu (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 15:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Jesus in Islam page

Hi, I removed that section because some of it was untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two sources cited. What about those? --NeilN talk to me 15:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


Thanks sir for helping and telling me this thing . I really don't know about this thing can you tell me the thing how many edits are required to upload the Second article .Shavaiz Shams (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


I'm curious how did you get the pdf to work? I click on it and nothing happens. I have no problems accessing other PDF files. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance Friedman (talkcontribs) 18:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

What browser are you using? I just click the link and "Detroit Crime Barometer October 2005.pdf" downloads. Have you tried right-clicking the link and doing a "Save as..."? --NeilN talk to me 19:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I was using chrome and couldn't get it to work, but i just now switched to my ipad and the link worked. Hmm... weird. In the future I'll try to be me careful and double check before putting up dead link templates.Lance Friedman (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
No worries, I've done the same in the past. BTW, when you reply, it'd be helpful if you increase the indentation by adding one more : than the post you're replying to (I've fixed the above). --NeilN talk to me 19:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


re: many cn tags. I think any of them are and will be happily ignored. I intend to delete this stuff in a month and I don't want any more wikilawyering fights similar to "dacha" unreferenced for 5 years. - Altenmann >t 02:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits by Binthaneya

Let's continue this chat on User_talk:NGPriest#Edits_by_Binthaneya?
NGPriest was here (talk | contribs) 05:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Editing kumbhar page

I edited the page by observing what is there in society.And almost it was most filled page with all the details.PLease dont revert back the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRIYC004 (talkcontribs) 14:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 14:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please take to talk page

The name "Mahatma" is an honorific. I should know I wrote most of the first three sections (including) the lead of the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"ji" can also be considered an honorific. And I've replied here. --NeilN talk to me 19:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop making edit conflicts

in Russian mafia until I suspect you're doing it for purpose) (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, WP:AGF. You put a tag on, I'm trying to address it. Check the timestamps - I had no idea you were going to edit the entire article. And you'll have to explain the "who?". It's like asking who calls the Italian Mafia the Italian Mafia or an apple an apple. --NeilN talk to me 02:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I did check the timestamps. The second your edit was after my "in use" tag; the first one - pointless to a point of trolling( You're supposed to familiarize yourself with the meaning of the Wikipedia:Templates before deleting particular templates and asking other users what do those mean. Oh, and to WP:AGF and resort to article's talk even after that. If you fail to do that so far, than there are sandboxes and the like.
BTW, there's a clear sense in asking "who calls the Italian Mafia the Italian Mafia". Because Italians don't). Ukrained2012 (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Edit conflicts - a minute after which means I was already editing when you put the tag on. And I'm quite familiar with the use of templates. I am unfamiliar with the use you're putting them to as your who's and what's mostly make no sense. You'll note that there's no who? in Sicilian Mafia, just alternate names. Like in Shakers. Or French Foreign Legion. Or Ku Klux Klan. Or... --NeilN talk to me 02:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you were unable to see which most possibly evident article flaws was I tagging, and why, than you could just... I don't know... delete your account? Stop abusing your father's computer? Sorry, but that's just my impression from your questions( Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Being a very polite user I hope you'll be ready to answer my questions on the article talk page about your tagging. --NeilN talk to me 04:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Most certainly. Ukrained2012 (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Malawi - Edit War?

You left a message on my User page at 17.34 about Malawi. Let's be clear, all I am trying to do is restore material which I produced, which I think has merit, but which two other individuals seem determined to take down without having notified me or entered into prior discussion.

I make no apology for this, and if this is going to get me banned from Wikipedia, so be it. I think that, unfortunately, there are far too many people involved in Wikipedia who do not produce much themselves but are far to ready to interfere with what other people do.

Shscoulsdon (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No one is arguing it doesn't have merit. Their point of view is that it's too detailed for a top-level article about a country. Why not create a new article? --NeilN talk to me 17:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

My first problem is that I don't believe either of the two individuals have made much of a case, apart from the fact they both acted without prior discussion. One said it was too long at over 8,000 units (its about 8,150, hardly an inordinate excess) and the second couldn't really decide where to put it, but felt able to interfere. My second is that I'm quite certain that neither of the two could have written the section, so there is no question that they could conduct a credible peer review of the subject. I have over the last year or so contribute to a good many existing and quite a few articles on Malawi, an area that still has many gaps. I have to say that this is not the first time that I've been demotivated by the actions of other users, and perhaps it is time that I gave up trying to contribute. So, I don't intend to create a new article, and I'm afraid I regard the section in question as a red line. If it is removed, then I will say a not very fond farewell to Wikipedia.

Shscoulsdon (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi cant find your talk page..

Hi please re-remove the painting of Freya This nude painting of Freya - is only rumored to be Freya, and is not relevant to the context. And is nowhere worthy to be a picture of a Norse Goddess Its a Goddess not pornstar

The painting is a women with a black cat and Not Freya with her boar Hildisvíni

All the pictures on that page are interpretations of Freyja. The one you're removing [1] is by a well-known Swedish artist and is relevant as the rest. --NeilN talk to me 23:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, from the first sentence, "In Norse mythology, Freyja (Old Norse the "Lady") is a goddess associated with love, sexuality, beauty, fertility, gold, seiðr, war, and death. Freyja is the owner of the necklace Brísingamen, rides a chariot pulled by two cats..." --NeilN talk to me 23:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

From the notes on the wikimedia. The cat in the present work is a clear nod to Manet. Dedicated 'To my friend Roosevelt',

This is clearly an insult, to raise controversy and awareness to the artists other works, mainly painting of him self. Hence not in the censor category but, blasphemy category. And is actually illegal.

Only a few thousands Norse mythologist left, means still illegal - i would much rather see the actual file deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to support your contention the image was considered illegal. --NeilN talk to me 02:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Pornography was first legalized in 1969(Denmark to do it first and -1970 ,1971 the rest of the world) - Its hard to find a prober source on the internet after google added filter bubbles to theyre algorhythm

ill google it for 10 min and provide a link if possible

But still please delete it is illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The painting is not pornography and as such is not illegal and will not be deleted. I suggest you brush up on your Fine Arts history, concentrating on Nude (art). --NeilN talk to me 02:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do you delete my comment to the picture!? i provide you with the source. for legalization of pornography. Up until 1970'ies every nude picture/ painting has been controversial, and sometimes problematic.

I suggest brush up you're blasphemy.

Nude art can be pornography.!

Pornography (often abbreviated as "porn" or "porno" in informal usage) (Greek: πορνεία, porneia, fornication) is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual gratification. Pornography may use a variety of media, including books, magazines, postcards, photos, sculpture, drawing, painting, animation, sound recording, film, video, and video games. The term applies to the depiction of the act rather than the act itself, and so does not include live exhibitions like sex shows and striptease. A pornographic model poses for still photographs. A pornographic actor or porn star performs in pornographic films. If dramatic skills are not involved, a performer in porn films may be also be called a model.

Do you actually take full responsibility for claiming that picture is the goddess Freya? Its an insult to a goddess of the feminine. to raise publicity to the other artists works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You have not provided a single source stating the painting is pornography. Your interpretations do not matter on Wikipedia. Please do not let your prudishness affect article content. And your vandalism on Commons will get you nowhere. --NeilN talk to me 02:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wendy Davis

How was my edit about her ex-husband controversial? Jeff Davis was a former Ft. Worth City Councilman and helped her get elected to office. They divorced in 2003. Why should that not be on the page? Thank you. TexianPolitico (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You need a source for all that, especially the "helped her get elected to office" part. --NeilN talk to me 15:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I'll try to find a better one. I don't know why that's controversial though. Thanks. TexianPolitico (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It infers she couldn't get elected on her own. --NeilN talk to me 15:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it does. If Bill and Hillary Clinton divorced would you remove any mention of him from her page? TexianPolitico (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
No, because all assertions about him would be sourced I would hope. --NeilN talk to me 15:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


You reversed a edit I made to repair the section on Arguments for Protectionism. The section had beed defaced and made no sense. I was merely restoring the section to a previous version that was well documented and littered with citations and footnotes.

In the future, please read the content before reversing edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaser47401 (talkcontribs) 15:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There are no proper cites or footnotes in what you're restoring. And Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references. --NeilN talk to me 16:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I see now you will be fixing the cites. Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 16:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


The etymology section mentioned in that article is copied from Telugu language article, modified and used for Telangana article. Even the sources mentioned in them doesn't refer Telangana region using trilinga. The sources were wrongly quoted. Fact is that Telangana got its name as it is the Telugu speaking region in the Nizam regime. Just trying to make the article better. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 13:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


NeilN: I'm currently involved in a dispute regarding edits to articles for Mark Begich and Mary Landrieu. I believe my additions to the articles have been adequately sourced, and I've only deleted content which is unsourced/inaccurately-sourced and subjective/inaccurate. However J has been reverting my edits. As a 3rd party in this situation, can you please take a look and provide your opinion? Thanks very much.CFredkin (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Rick Ross

Your warning is absurd. I was adding a section on a valid topic in article in talk column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You added a link and a quote from an article. Nevertheless, I have restored your edit, moved it to the proper place, and commented. --NeilN talk to me 20:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it pertains to Rick Ross article. Church and Pastor are very notable indeed. If this was a news on an Imam and a Mosque, you can´t dare to post your derogatory terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry I offended you. Please see WP:ORG and WP:BIO for what Wikipedia considers notable. Neither church or pastor seem to have a Wikipedia article. --NeilN talk to me 20:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


Most of the source were in Chinese, and it's hard to find it in English , But you cannot deny the fact that there's another ethnic group in Taiwan that were never mention out, which is Fuzhou people I pledge of you to put it inside in order to let people know the existence of Matsu Islands in Taiwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You can add a source that's written in a different language as long as it's reliable. --NeilN talk to me 04:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but problem is i can't read Chinese, although fact is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Then you do have a bit of a problem :-) You could ask around the Cantonese/Mandarin-speaking Wikiprojects. You can't just insert those facts in the article without a reference. --NeilN talk to me 05:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


Almost all of his/her edits create problems. And after warning him for OR, I read his user page where he clearly knows about OR and is comparing those who remove it to Hitler. I'm not sure what to do about him. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I've given him a final warning here. --NeilN talk to me 13:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've reinforced it. Let me know if you see him doing this again and I'll probably block. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

oh an here below is the that precious sign-off thingy... VC 14:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcorani (talkcontribs)

Already replied. --NeilN talk to me 14:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Aryan Talkpage

Please review the recent activity on the Talkpage fully before issuing me with warnings. It is not me who should be warned. The topics are completly relevant and perfectly acceptable for talkpages.--Waterman0201 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I did indeed carefully review the activity. The relevant policy is WP:NOTFORUM - discussions of your pet theories don't belong there. --NeilN talk to me 14:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you please explain in detail what a talk page is for--Waterman0201 (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Mainly, to discuss what reliable sources say about a subject and if and how to incorporate content found in these reliable sources into the article. So, "National Geographic has an article stating x descended from y. How should we mention that?" is acceptable while "I have a theory that x descended from y is not." --NeilN talk to me 14:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Francois Lenormant was an assyriologist,i am expounding from his theory and using plain common sense in relating my findings He was not nativly Irish so he would not have had indept knowledge of the language,,i do, my brother is fluent in not only Gaelic itself but a particular dialect also,,i have traveled northern india,nepal,sri lanka,burma researching the true meaning of the term Aryan,all my imputs are sourced from my own direct experience and are completly relevant to the talkpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterman0201 (talkcontribs) 15:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Red flag on "expounding from his theory", "using plain common sense", "relating my findings", "sourced from my own direct experience" - please read (again if necessary) WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. --NeilN talk to me 15:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A Red flag for expounding theories on a talkpage is completly unneccesary,,that is exactly what the talkpage is for,,are you suggesting that nobody should publish new findings,and everybody should abstractly research and publish new finding from other peoples work--Waterman0201 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Wikipedia is not the place to publish your new findings! It is here to summarize the findings from reliable sources such as books, journals, quality newspapers, etc. --NeilN talk to me 15:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no such criteria in relation to talkpage topics,,that is exactly what they are there for,and they are excellent tools for extending possible ideas to others so people can make new lines of inquiry,,i am a self educated person and i spend all my time in the field,,others are acedemics and have the resources to research further in ways i cannot,to try and maintain that my imputs are not relevant when i have exposed blatant identical correlations between irish and sanskrit in direct relation to the term Aryan is sheer ignorance--Waterman0201 (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

An admin, DMacks has told you essentially the same thing. I can only say now that if you continue to use the talk page to present your original research, you'll probably be blocked from editing. You'd be better off writing to academics in the field to convince them to write a paper that we could then cite. --NeilN talk to me 15:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ill concider that,,im going to bed now,,good night and godbless--Waterman0201 (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

curious about warning of vandal

This is the second time today this has happened to me and not sure if I am doing something wrong? I reversed a vandal edit a moment ago and when i went to warn the vandal there was already a warning there left by you. Is it for the same exact edit or no? it was for the article North Pole. Just curious Tattoodwaitress (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tattoodwaitress. No, you're doing nothing wrong. You're reverting edits manually while I'm using WP:TWINKLE. Twinkle allows you to start a reversion and put a warning on an editor's page at the same time with a couple of clicks. So what happened was that your undo was a couple of seconds before my revert. My revert got an edit conflict but the warning went through (the two edits are done almost at the same time if you're fast enough choosing what warning to give). I hope my explanation is clear. --NeilN talk to me 17:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah thank you so much I understand completely now =) Thanks Tattoodwaitress (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Editors following me around

Can you please say something to those two guy that are dedicated to deleting my material,,they are following me around now deleting my sourced inputs in the field of surnames.--Waterman0201 (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

One of your edits added your signature to the article, the other was a copyright violation. You can't just paste text from other websites into articles. --NeilN talk to me 14:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Give me a break man--Waterman0201 (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Slavery Article

NeilN, why did you revert - I am in the process of stating my source for that sentence. Just give me a moment (and the benefit of the doubt). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talkcontribs) 18:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ten minutes without a source for a sentence that shouldn't even be in the article? --NeilN talk to me 18:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Talk:Telangana.
Message added 09:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you please reply? Nagarjuna198 (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


Dear Neil: the links I put in those subjects lead to examples of Continuous Wave Doppler Auscultation, and there are no problems with copyright because they belong to me. If it were necessary, I authorize the public use of these examples. Yours sincerely: Mario Mc Loughlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 23:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Talk:Telangana.
Message added 02:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please Reply. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Talk:Telangana.
Message added 05:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please pitch in. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sean Avery

Hi I am tyrying to edit my page. Thank U Sean Avery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campbellsound (talkcontribs) 15:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Directed whoever this is to WP:OWN. --NeilN talk to me 15:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Malaysia and sharia compliant banking

Hi NeilN,

Sorry for the spontaneous change on the Malaysia page, but I found myself on the page and noticed one line that seemed to be missing the point. As a grad student who has recently studied sharia compliant finance in some detail, I felt the lack of reference to asset size to be quite egregious. I'm curious as to why the link I suggested was flagged as unreliable.

The site in reference was for a group in Singapore that frequently works with Sharia Compliant banks in Malaysia. I'm aware of the common advice to question the reliability of websites lacking citation, but quoting an expert on a subject is generally an excepted exception. The Bloomberg article I mentioned in passing was just to prove that the fact itself was verifiable by other sources, but as the Bloomberg article also lacks citations, I am unsure why Wikipedia would be better served by a piece of journalism written by an author who has no specialty in Malaysian banking, as compared to the website of a group who works in the relevant industry. I hope you would agree that just because a website belongs to a company does not instantly make the information untrustworthy.

Anyways, I apologize if I am currently unaware of some Wikipedia regulation for referencing that bars making reference to certain websites. If not, it would be great if you could take another look at the reference I cited, as the fact I attempted to add was both relevant and correct, and the reference given supported this fact.

Warmest regards, JohnBurken252 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnburken252 (talkcontribs) 03:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi John. There's no indication whatsoever that the company can be considered an expert. As you probably know, many companies will say almost anything to puff themselves and their areas of business up. The reason why we go with good quality newspapers is that there is significantly less chance of conflict of interest and there is the assumption of editorial oversight and fact checking. --NeilN talk to me 04:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Neil,

While I cannot claim to be familiar with the referencing methods of an encyclopaedia, in academia, we tend to regard a company that does business in an industry for 15 years to be reasonably knowledgeable on the topic. For example, one might expect Ford to know a thing or two about making cars. While yes, a company is likely to speak highly of themselves on their own website, I don't see the relevance this has to whether or not facts stated on a company website are accurate. I do not believe that the site I referenced is an expert on the subject because they tell me so on their website. I believe them to be knowledgeable because they are a well known company that has worked in the field for a substantial amount of time. As I live in Singapore and have studied Malaysian banking, their name was common knowledge to me, as it comes up frequently when searching for information in the field.

Anyways, I apologize for wasting so much of your time on this topic. While I'm not sure I agree with Wikipedia's trust in journalistic fact-checking over an independent business', if that is their stance, then I will refrain from citing businesses in the future. Thanks for your help in clearing up this issue.

Warmest regards, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnburken252 (talkcontribs) 04:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bench (Furniture) Edit Removal

Hi Neil,

My apologies, I wasn't aware that I was not following wikipedia guidelines. My intention was not to promote the site I was linking to, but to simply add a source about venue appropriateness for bench materials. The material I was referencing is copyrighted by the organization that published it on their site. Please let me know how I can best source the content to add the appropriate material without it being considered spam.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canaree (talkcontribs) 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 15:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

re: 'Sanjay Gupta Kush' weed

Just wondering if a person does something to advance a cause (here, cannabis in general or specifically medical cannabis for seriously ill people) like Jack Herer, and gets a strain named after him, then why is Gupta's quite similar story trivial? His declared position reversal in favor of the cause referred to IS highly notable, due to his prominent public position and the influence it engenders. All I am asking is a reconsideration, maybe "SG Kush" doesn't exactly belong in the top paragraph right after the major serious stuff, like White House advisorships. Which reminds me.. The guy's got both a White House official appointment and an honorary weed strain under his belt. NON trivial to me, but hey. THX- DD Phaedrx (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Phaedrx I think someone not notable naming something after someone notable is pretty trivial if the subject hasn't commented on it and therefore doesn't belong in the subject's biography. Why not post to the talk page and see what others think? --NeilN talk to me 01:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I see that logic so revert is fine. except maybe I'd say the lack of subject's comment on a matter doesn't always imply its irrelevance. In this case, the talk page logic I'd present if I go over there would be regarding this year's historic shift in cannabis legislation locally (WA/CO), nationally, and now even internationally (Uruguay). The fact that one man was a late 90's Clinton White House health official & he's now the mainstream medical community supporter or 'posterboy' for Medical THC if you will. The existence of "Gupta Kush" is the way to summarize all that in a way- it is to signify his importance- not on a Jackie Robinson level admittedly- but this historic social shift is quite pithily encapsulated if one knows that THE Sanjay Gupta guy (who for years argued quite eloquently against it) actually has a strain named after him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaedrx (talkcontribs) 01:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Mayer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:
  • Studies Abroad); it is a [[magnet school|magnet program]] for students wanting to learn Japanese).<ref name=keyofmayer>[[Eliscu, Jenny]] (November 27, 2003), [

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Good bot. Have some chips. --NeilN talk to me 07:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

oh sorry i was bore and i need to just delete or edit but thx for the help --[[User:dyorkerman| —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Red Hair

Stop icon

My edit on the Red hair page is an improvement to the article and was compliant with the concerns raised by the other users on that page. Undoing another editors work, as you keep doing, can lead to you being blocked from editing Please refresh yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines on editing content, you 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. Thanks. SnollyPheasant (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, six editors do not think your picture should grace the article. You're the only one who does. Please use the talk page to change consensus - Talk:Red_hair#Edit_request_on_21_June_2013. --NeilN talk to me 16:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

A Good Editor edits and publishes not put tags! Thanks.

A kitten for you!

Cute grey kitten.jpg

Seems like you need one right now :)

Stuartyeates (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You know, that kitten's expression pretty much mirrors how I felt a couple hours after I made the first post (one sentence!) to the other editor's page. "OMG, how did it come to this?" LOL. --NeilN talk to me 18:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Just stumbled upon this by accident, and I must say it's one of the funnier things I've seen here in quite a while – although I'm aware it must have stopped being amusing to you many an edit ago, you anonymous (I mean, what's wrong with you not to post pictures and personal details of yourself on your user page...?), non-pampering, insensitive, disrespectful, outrageously offensive, misbehaving, newcomer-biting, tech-savvily page-hacking, Third-World problems-ignoring, stalking, harassing, bullying, scandalously helpful, scary, scary monster of an editor... – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
If you didn't use a thesaurus for that, I'm impressed! :-) --NeilN talk to me 19:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The award of good balance for you!

The Blondin award of good balance
You are hereby presented with the Blondin Award for keeping your equlibrium while dealing patiently
with this trying incident. It actually can't have been very amusing… but it seems to me you asked for
help at just the right moment. The image represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales
safely across the Niagara Falls. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC).

@Bishonen - Thanks. Interacting with new editors sometimes is like walking a tightrope! --NeilN talk to me 03:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bed - Bed frame review

Logical Cowboy, Barek, NeilN, Apparition11
Each of you have edited either Bed or Bed frame during 2013. In December 2012, User:Andrewman327 requested that Bed frame be merged into Bed. I opposed the merger. No other comments have been made since then. Based on your multiple prior edits, would you do us the favor of responding to the proposal. If a consensus develops would someone close the request after a short period of time.
Thanks.__SBaker43 (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Todd Bentley

Can you add your opinion to our discussion? You have given no indication of what you think, but you have shown some interest! Hyper3 (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

United Airlines

I will never discuss this......I am not touching this article ever again. Therefore I am backing off!! Leave me alone! Adios!!! (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

??? I'm not sure why you're upset as I placed my request for discussion in an edit summary of an edit done to the article. If you got some sort of notification then that's the Wikimedia software, not me. --NeilN talk to me 05:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bill Green (athlete) Personal Life and Family

NielN: remove your edit to "Bill Green (athlete) Personal Life and Family", the issue has been corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have done so. Thanks for adding sources. In the future, if you fix an issue that a tag highlights, feel free to remove the tag yourself. --NeilN talk to me 17:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What is it with you Wikipedia editing zealots anyway? I have added 16 source references to a profile less than one page. Do you take some sort of enjoyment from messing with contributors, debating fine points of the language they use? In your zealotry, I suggest you read the text of the referenced sources-you obviously aren't taking the time to do so here — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Before the deletions and tagging this was the state of the article. One reference in the entire BLP. And words such as "coerced" clearly go against our neutral point of view policy. --NeilN talk to me 19:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The article also suffers from reporting Green's opinions as facts. Using different language helps to alleviate the issue [5]. --NeilN talk to me 19:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Will you zealots take the time to read the citations!: "Mitchelson brought out the big guns. He told Holt that TAC is empowered by federal law to conduct hearings on the eligibility of athletes. He said they believed that the IAAF had assumed TAC's burden to give Green a fair and timely hearing. He said that their legal opinion was that the IAAF had failed in that and was not living up to the requirements of U.S. law. Holt paid close attention. Mitchelson said that Holt agreed to raise the matter with Primo Nebiolo of Italy, the IAAF president. In the meantime, Holt said, get Green on a plane to the Olympic trials" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I carefully read the article. Holt is with the IAAF. How does the possibly source, "An 18 month suspension from sports was successfully overturned on appeal to the United States Track and Field federation following a 10 month process..."? --NeilN talk to me 20:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous exercise, you editors now profess to be expert on the governance of the sport of Track and Field? You are quiveling over details you don't even understand. The domestic body is a component organization of the international body, and as an American Green competed under the auspice of the country-specific member federation. The article clearly says that he got approval from the from higher (international) agency to compete — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is your interpretation. The article says the TAC didn't suspend him so they couldn't have overturned anything. In these cases, you need to stick closely to what sources say. --NeilN talk to me 21:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Please continue the conversation here: Talk:Bill_Green_(athlete)#Track_and_Field_appeal. --NeilN talk to me 21:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I represented the guy and these are the facts-not interpretations. Your continued insistence on claiming the article does not support the statement in simply WRONG: Holt said, get Green on a plane to the Olympic trials Holt said, get Green on a plane to the Olympic trials Holt said, get Green on a plane to the Olympic trials — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We rely strictly on what reliable sources say, not on people with conflicts of interest. And it's not "Holt said", it's "Mitchelson said Holt said". --NeilN talk to me 23:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Cant you see that what you are actually doing, in your zealous effort to defend these rules, is exactly what you purport to be avoiding: you are re-writing historical events with your editing. You guys take yourselves WAY too seriously. If your policy is to dismiss what is written in an LA Times article as considered heresay, then you better delete 60% of the citations in Wikipedia. What more can be achieved than citing a major news publication like the LA Times on an event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If you think there's something inaccurate in the article, take it out. But don't expect your personal observations to remain in the article. That's why "Some of these were formal product endorsement agreements, unprecedented for American hammer throwers at the time." was going to come out if you hadn't taken it out yourself in the last round. And the LA Times printing "Holt said..." is quite different from "Mitchelson (Green's lawyer) said Holt said..." --NeilN talk to me 00:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So "NielN" is a better expert on real life events that took place 24 years ago than an LA Times article on the subject? You guys really should get a life which approximates the ones you seem to take such satisfaction in re-stating with your alterations. You are obviously taking some kind of perverse satisfaction in what I am reading is called "edit stalking" on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No, but it seems I'm better at reading what the LA Times actually printed. --NeilN talk to me 18:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You are an edit stalker-you have some personal bias. If you do not stop stalking my legitimate edits I will seek further redress around you. Demonstrate your contention that there is something wrong with this source (below)-you didn't even take the time to notice the SIX SOURCES TO THIS SUMMARY LISTED AT THE BOTTOM. And these are real, published books with professional editors....not your holier-than-thou Wikipedia nonsense Games Track and Field History: Men's hammer Throw Final, 1900-2012

Discussion with editor Mark Arsten

I don't understand your edit today.

Are you confirming I am correct in this ongoing dispute with editor "NielN" who appears to have a bias regarding my editing content? I have read the prohibition discussion on Yahoo Contributor Network, but the section used as a reference for "Bill Green (hammer thrower)" is itself bibliographied with six actual book publication sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't taken a side in the dispute, actually. It's important that you avoid edit warring though, please discuss on the talk page instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have engaged in extensive talking with "NielN", who ignores my position and forces me to reverse his edits which are made with a clear bias. His opening comments in editing this page a few months ago cited "inflated' and "bloated" "grand" commentary, and he has not let up since using technicalities to quash my content. This current dispute is a classic example, he cites the Wikipedia prohibition on the use of Yahoo Contributor Network, while ignoring that the contributor lists six published sources for is listing of the Olympic Games results back to 1900. This is not editorial opinion, it is undisputed historical fact-these are simply the Track and Field results from the Olympic Games! Please advise me as to mechanism for redress of editor bias, and how to reverse the mechanics which make my editing now subject to "submission for approval" (I am fairly new to Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Replied here. Thank you for notifying me. --NeilN talk to me 23:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Jim Bell

Appreciate the comment on optical fiber. Surprisingly, I found what looks like a viable secondary source after a 5 second google search (jim bell optical fiber patent). Perhaps I hit the snark a time or two more than needed with the IP. Without it, they might have proved more helpful and understanding of what's needed. We shall see though! Ravensfire (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ravensfire We shall see. The IP's behavior reminds me of Bell's when he was editing here, although noticeably calmer and without the repeated spurious calls for blocks for anyone who disagreed with him. --NeilN talk to me 23:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding self to articles

ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamRajvirSinghRandhawa (talkcontribs) 13:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

ok, i want talk to you my number is [redacted] call me

Sorry, no. All Wikipedia matters should be dealt with on Wikipedia. If you must, you can email me by clicking the "Email this user" link on your left. --NeilN talk to me 14:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

oswalt warning

is bully who threatens to revoke right to speak because they do not agree with what one is saying. please have other make warning to try to maintain face. will find more source. Lakdfhia (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. You cannot write a subject engaged in racism based upon a single source who was also involved in the incident. --NeilN talk to me 06:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

is not from subject who involve in incident. that would be statement from station or government agency. statement on racism alone allowed and none on defense without sourcing, then? Lakdfhia (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@Lakdfhia Salon was the target of some of his tweets. Salon published the editorial. --NeilN talk to me 06:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

make mention of comment and you are party to said comment? ridiculously circuitous route to whitewashing. events from comment out do not impact preceding events. Lakdfhia (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@Lakdfhia From your source, "So the reliably pedantic and thin-skinned Patton Oswalt wants to defend his poorly crafted joke rather than admit it fell short of being funny, and fired off a barrage of Twitter attacks against Salon all afternoon..." Before the editorial was published and therefore we can't take this source as completely neutral. If this was really notable, it would have been covered in other good-quality sources. --NeilN talk to me 06:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

is joke? i give timeline. first, oswalt make tweet. second, salon make comment. is where initial form of article come form--first lines before update. third, oswalt get upset and defend racism. fourth, salon update article to reflect outburst. then oswalt make response on blog and salon make final update on article. is pointed out to be racist before they involve themselves. stop with fascist whitewashing, is not constructive to nitpick source when is obvious you are misinterpret for purpose of serving own message. Lakdfhia (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Bandar bin Sultan

Hi NeilN, can you look at the page, an IP user tries to put clear POV statement to it with three mirror pages. The user violated three-revert rule, too. Can you take your time to look at? Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@Egeymi I have removed two of the sources as they were copies of the first. Right now the sourcing is weak with only one source but if you have concerns with the current wording, you should make them known on the article's talk page so other editors can discuss and hopefully arrive at a consensus. --NeilN talk to me 14:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
As usual many thanks NeilN. Best, Egeymi (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

banned editors

Dear Neil

I posted some material for Jim Bell as its his biography and the information seemed valid and relevant. I had no idea he was banned and would like to know why he is. What is the problem with his patent? Its been approved and there's a story about it online in a trade paper. Links available on request. It seems to be a useful invention that took some time out of Jim Bells life and so worthy of inclusion in his entry. Anyway I won't do anything till I hear from you unless you take more than a week in which case I will review my options. Thanks Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro2rat (talkcontribs) 03:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no problem with his patent application. The problem is that Bell is banned from editing Wikipedia because of all the disruption he caused the last time he was here as well as sockpuppetting. See for example [6], [7], [8], [9]. All this because he was prevented from adding that he found a "solution to global warming" to the article (see Talk:Jim_Bell/Archive_1#Current_Climate_Change_Research and read the collapsed section). More edits like this are on various user talk pages. Basically, he wants to use the article to promote his theories. --NeilN talk to me 03:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't know that before so now I won't post on his suggestions again. I don't want my reputation capital depleted here as I've added material elsewhere in the past ( entry on the CHEKA ) I thought I was doing the right thing so I'd appreciate it if references to meatpuppetry might be removed/modified... with your help? Thanks in advance. Matt Pro2rat (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


I am Edgarzimmer and I edited the Nickelodeon Wikipedia article and made it look like the old Nickelodeon stuff is still with us, but you changed it back to the new Nickelodeon stuff. You better apologize right now or I'm telling the Wikipedia staff! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarzimmer (talkcontribs) 23:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You deleted a whole bunch of content. Why? --NeilN talk to me 23:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at EvergreenFir's talk page.
Message added 01:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just testing! EvergreenFir (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Accidental rollback

I accidentally hit rollback. I was trying to correct it but you beat me to it. Sorry. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions.
Message added 02:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Don't see the "TB button", but if I go to their talk page Twinkle has a TB option so that works. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir You're right. The buttons come from a script I installed - Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host_lounge/User_scripts. [10] --NeilN talk to me 02:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Human rights

Hi Neil,
I know this is not a democracy. Nonetheless, if it will be proved that as much as people that I claimed want to see such a change, will my proposal be accepted, do you think? Wikipedia could put it into a vote and we could see how many people wants it? Do you think is this possible? If possible, where should I mention it, I mean, putting it into a vote? --SeyitCmesaj 15:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

How else can I prove there is a human rights issue in this matter? There must be a kind of voting organized by WP to see how many Muslims think the same as me in this matter. When it is a matter of human rights, there must be exception in the rule I mentioned above. Am I wrong? --SeyitCmesaj 04:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no "human right" to have others call someone what you feel they should be called. As this is a secular encyclopedia, our content comes from secular policies and guidelines. This is why popes and royalty are not styled "His Holiness" or "Her Majesty". And you say you know this is not a democracy but you still want to have a vote. There is no mechanism for this when dealing with article content. You could open a WP:RFC but again, that's not a vote but rather an exercise in who has the strongest Wikipedia policy based arguments. Thus religious-based arguments will simply be discounted. Just as they are in articles like Abortion or Historicity of Jesus or Evolution or articles showing representations of Muhammad. --NeilN talk to me 05:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hadiths of the prophet Mohammad sallalahu aleihi we sellem

Esselamu aleikum we rahetullar my brother

Since you are not muslim and you don't know what hadith means, and you don't speak arabic, and my definition goes along with etymology, why must you change this, if you are doing this of your own agenda with the intentions of spreading false information may you break a leg to, thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeputyBob (talkcontribs) 18:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@DeputyBob You can discuss your definition on the article's talk page. However adding Salallahu Alayhi Wasalam after Muhammad is against our guideline. --NeilN talk to me 18:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Helo.. Im only retrieve the para..

Clan of Kakatiyas

Many inscriptions shows Kakatiyas as the rulers, who were belonged to Kamma ethnic race of Telangana region. Some sources shows that, the two Kakatiya chieftains, namely 'Kapaya' and 'Prolaya' were from the Durjaya clan of Musunuru family belongs to 'Kamma' Caste. And 'Prolaya' was the blood relation of Veera Pratapa Rudra. They were called as Musunuri Nayaks. Kakatiyas were also called as Kakatiya Nayaks (or) Karma/Kamma Nayaks. Among them Beta-I (1000–50) was the earliest Kakatiya Nayak.[1]

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 02:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I did source the material I researched. Am I citing it the wrong way? Jonny555 (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC) --
@Jonny555 I'm not sure if you wrote them, but the last five sub-sections in the History section are completely uncited. That's why I tagged the History section. --NeilN talk to me 03:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh I see. I did not write those last 5 sections. I have just started to work on this article with proper research. Then this guy comes along and starts deleting everything. Jonny555 (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
@Jonny555 Yes, from what I saw, your section is well-cited. Thank you. The other editor is temporarily blocked from editing and there are some other editors keeping an eye on the article. --NeilN talk to me 03:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert of photo request for Hamtramck, Michigan

Hi, Neil.

I found this revert but there's nothing in the edit summary. Why was this reverted? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I immediately reverted myself with an edit summary of "rv - misclick". Sorry about that. --NeilN talk to me 05:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Galaxy Supernova

Don't care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancientwishes (talkcontribs) 22:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 22:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool, tell me more. (: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancientwishes (talkcontribs) 22:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Molly Wood

The information is accurate. Don't read it if you don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyalexander65 (talkcontribs) 20:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeffed. --NeilN talk to me 20:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Saint Paul

Hm, can someone explain to me what have happened to the bottom navbox in the article? It looks a bit like vandalism or a careless way of putting a navbox (which should either be fixed or deleted).--Mishae (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@Mishae Simple vandalism/test on a template. --NeilN talk to me 03:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Yep, that's the one. So, it looks like like it is a form of vandalism, should I report it and if so to whom? Another question; How are you with saints in general (article wise)?--Mishae (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
@Mishae Template vandalism is treated as standard vandalism as far as I know so the user would get the standard escalation of warnings and then reported to WP:AIV if necessary. Given that that was the IP's only edit (3 hours ago) I didn't bother doing anything. And I have no knowledge regarding saints beyond what a layperson would know. --NeilN talk to me 03:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, then the other option will be is to fix the template and wait what will happen, can you do it?--Mishae (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
@Mishae Sorry, I wasn't clear. I fixed it as soon as I found the problem. [11] --NeilN talk to me 03:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know he got warned. Can you check if I was polite and firm enough at the same time? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
@Mishae Looks ok but as it's an IP, it may be doubtful, after three hours, that the person actually doing the edit will see the warning. Also, if you're looking for example text to use in warnings, check out Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. Clicking on a template will show you the wording (or just add the appropriate template to the user's talk page). --NeilN talk to me 04:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I changed the warning text a bit. O' well, will wait till tomorrow to see if further sanctions will be needed...--Mishae (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User Daisy4102

As soon as you left, she did it again. Whats now?--Mishae (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@Mishae Cluebot reported her and she's indeffed. --NeilN talk to me 20:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Yep, just saw it. Sorry for bothering. I wonder if we should put a protection lock on the article?--Mishae (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
@Mishae If a third editor begins the same edits, I will ask for protection. --NeilN talk to me 20:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hm, I just suspected she might use either a sock or do it anonymously... Bear my idea in mind though. :)--Mishae (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
@Mishae Oh, I agree with you. Daisy4102 (created 12 June 2013) and the preceding IP are likely the same person. Once the IP was blocked, she logged into the already created account. Now that's blocked, hopefully the article will be left alone. --NeilN talk to me 21:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope so too, however it makes me a bit scared considering that I welcome newcomers, and if I will welcome her under a different username, I might get the blame. Do let me know if I will accidently greet her, I will remove my welcome per vandalism.--Mishae (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
@Mishae I wouldn't worry about that at all. I've welcomed users who immediately started vandalizing afterwards or turned out to be sockpuppets. It's part of WP:AGF. --NeilN talk to me 21:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Am I not assuming good faith in your opinion? See, another admin already criticized me for welcoming a vandal, I don't wanna be a scapegoat again. I do however apologize if my previous post sounded like I am assuming bad faith. :)--Mishae (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Mishae That's not what I meant at all. Suppose you see a new editor doing a bit of editing not exactly fitting our guidelines, and assuming good faith (as I see you do), you welcome them, hoping the info you put on their page will help them make better edits. Later, they vandalize or turn out to be a sockpuppet. No one should be criticizing you for doing what we all should do, assuming at the start the new editor is here to help Wikipedia. --NeilN talk to me 21:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@Mishae Another IP made the same edits today. Article protection was requested and granted. --NeilN talk to me 18:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Maybe we should tell her to stop doing it and instead come to realization that the information that she adds is destructive. My suggestion would be to get her a nice mentor, rather then a block. However, her edits shows that she only wants that Princess Daisy be featured in Super Mario Bros. 4. In my opinion, she need to take that complain with Nintendo, instead of coming here and posting it. I doubt that Nintendo even reads it. :)--Mishae (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

katni page

please pay attention to katni page. You are allowing phone no on the page. that is correct. and when I made it correct . You made my work gone into vain. Look economy section dear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartikv31 (talkcontribs) 00:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 00:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

ok dear. Thank you for your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartikv31 (talkcontribs) 00:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

how can you revert all the should change the part only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartikv31 (talkcontribs) 00:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kartikv31 Because none of what you added had any sources. If you add something, you're going to be asked to cite it. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. --NeilN talk to me 00:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Victoria Azarenka

Did someone just vandalized one of my favorite players? I wish I can seek protection here too!--Mishae (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

@Mishae Actually the opposite of typical vandalizing. The editor added content that boosted Azarenka's reputation but the content was unsourced. --NeilN talk to me 18:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Now it looks a lot better, the user added a sentence with a source.--Mishae (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
@Mishae The user added different, sourced, content. BTW, I removed the last sentence in that section because it was sourced to a blog. --NeilN talk to me 18:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Now I feel a lot better. Altough because of Azarenka copy paste, I forgot to undo it and post Personal life on six newcomers pages instead of welcomes. I just realized and fix it, I hope the newcomers can forgive me.--Mishae (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Another apparent vandal

This user, VoomPedia, have posted a very odd talkpage heading which looks a bit like trolling. I removed it, and put my welcome, (as I always do). Then, he removed my welcome and brought back his heading. He also posted this on my talkpage where he accused me of not only removing the text but also not signing my comment (even though I always do it when I post my welcomes). I put back my welcome and explained to him the reason why I did so. Later on I removed his words again, and so far no complains, but do watch his talkpage for me. I don't want to be blocked for edit warring. Sounds like he is a troll, Check this out. Block?--Mishae (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Mishae It's a little odd but editors are allowed to have some leeway on their talk pages. If they don't want or remove your welcome, simply move on. And I've replied on Talk:Fuck. --NeilN talk to me 02:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I know that they are allowed some leeway, but its to a degree, I think if an editor will start troll on his own talkpage, its something to be aware off. And by trolling I mean this: Talk about how great I am. I explained though to him that there is a better way to appreciate a user, though to no avail. One more thing, this page will soon need protection Blenheim, New Zealand. Thoughts?--Mishae (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Mishae If something inappropriate starts, then warn them (I have the talk page on my watchlist). New editors will often create a new account, mess around a bit, and then forget all about Wikipedia. --NeilN talk to me 02:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
There should be a reason why people like to mess around a bit. Like, I don't know, I came to Wikipedia for example to greet users and write articles (that's my goal).--Mishae (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
@Mishae Blenheim, New Zealand doesn't come close to the criteria of needing protection (i.e., being vandalized constantly). One edit in a month does not qualify. --NeilN talk to me 03:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
O.K. Then we will wait for tomorrow, and hope it wont vandalized too much by that time.--Mishae (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


Thanks Neil. The corrections/amendments that I made are based on ground realities because, right now, I am at the place verifying it. This means that my contribution is obviously not based on any citation/reference but is the outcome of witnessing the truth first hand. I edit scientific reports and manuscripts so I know the significance of citation but I also know the importance of being the first one to report. What I correted was not just misleading but some of it was grossly untrue. If you are satisfied with my justification and agree with me, please allow my contributions by undoing your edit. Thanks again, and good day. (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Verifiability is one of the core policies of Wikipedia and must be respected. It states that, "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." The following assertions must be cited:
  • Numerous boxoffice-hit feature-films have been shot in BhedaGhat and Dhuandhar as these serve as excellent locations for movie-making.
  • Marble-quarrying is prohibited in BhedaGhat, moreover its quality is absolutely unfit for any kind of statuary.
  • As such, the so-called Marble-Art sold here is not of local origin, all raw material especially soap-stone is brought-in from afar quarries in different districts and states.
--NeilN talk to me 13:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Sir - Academically, we ought to differentiate between original research and first-hand verification of facts/figures already stated in an article on Wikipedia. Without such spot-verification (as the one I contributed), are we not misleading the readers? The existing un-edited information is not verifiable. On the contrary, it is incorrect. Instead of published (hence verifiable) data, I talked to real people. Readers turn to Wikipedia for correct information. Good-faith edits may not always be verifiable though, ideally, they should be. Thanks and regards. (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
If you spot incorrect and unsourced information in an article then please take it out. But you cannot replace it with other unsourced material. --NeilN talk to me 10:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


this is your last warning - stop removing my edits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talkcontribs) 16:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edits will be removed as long as they're unsourced. Multiple editors have told you this on the talk page over and over again. --NeilN talk to me 16:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

its sourced now. what other rule can you come up with in order to silence the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talkcontribs) 16:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The source actually states, "The Slavs' own name, based on slovo, "word," originally identified a person "capable of (intelligible) words..." Nothing about "glory". --NeilN talk to me 16:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

you'll see that you are wrong (again), but for now I will keep it as word, for fear of you kicking me out of the sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talkcontribs) 16:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC) by the way, did you miss me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talkcontribs) 17:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I had other things to keep me occupied. Hope you had a good break. --NeilN talk to me 17:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

well, at least I got my foot in the door, and I have one sentence up, its just a matter of time that the world will know WP:THETRUTH of the Slav vs. slave and glory vs. word debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talkcontribs) 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Instead of arguing how about coming to understanding of one another. I'm a slav myself, so I am a bit confused. Is he comparing the word slav to slavery?--Mishae (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
@Mishae This is about the roots of the English word slavery. Please read Slavery#Terminology and the talk page. I am perfectly fine with changes to that section as long as they are sourced and relevant. --NeilN talk to me 20:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, that was interesting. Never knew it, thanks!--Mishae (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply and for clearing things up about Wikipedia; it is appreciated! It is a shame that 'they' derived slave from Slav; it feels like they added insult to injury. Made me quite uneasy, and some of the things I wrote on the talk page were written in that mood. Anyways, the section looks good (for now). Take it easy NeilN — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talkcontribs) 11:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No, he needs consensus to take it off, and he already broke the 3rr rule. We already agreed to leave on the true source of the word. Why stop at the Greek propaganda? Who are they to provide a meaning to a race's name? The only benefit of the Greek interpretation is to show how racist they are by converting a race's name i.e. Slav, into slavery. They even had a word for slavery, but just because they lost territory to the Slav's, they have to make it as if they had SO MANY SLAV SLAVES. Load of crap I say. Beside's there is no reason not to put it on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talkcontribs) 17:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@ZYXW9876 Your last edit was disruptive. Please do not do that again. And have a look at [12]. The only editor with more than two reverts today is you. --NeilN talk to me 18:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Aditya213 and Aditya123

Can you check if they are the same user? User Aditya123 was warned on image copyright violations, I wonder if he/she just recreated her account.--Mishae (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Mishae I don't think so. Aditya123 stopped editing in 2006 and edited a different set of articles. And it's understood you can create a new account if you stop using the old one (whether you forgot the password or just forgot you had an account) and are not under a block or ban. --NeilN talk to me 20:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Wasn't sure at first.--Mishae (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.


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 thread is "Talk page of the article "Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati", Talk page of the editors themselves in discussion about the subject of the article, NeilN, Yunshui, Ihardlythinkso, Myself, Subject.". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 08:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


Hi, NeilN, I saw your proposal for a RfC contained in the conversation about People Magazine and other "tabloid" sources. I was just checking to see if you were going to file one or if it was a suggestion to move along the conversation in that discussion thread. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Liz I am intending on filing one unless more editors agree with zad. --NeilN talk to me 00:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean AfadsBad? I thought there was pretty much a consensus on the issue when the discussion at WP:BLPN first started. Then it went awry. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
@Liz No, I mean zad68 who thinks the RFC is too broadly worded. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Proposed_wording_for_RFC - Needs refinement. --NeilN talk to me 01:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I used the Tabloid journalism article to define what is and isn't a tabloid newspaper/magazine. But I understand the reluctance of some Editors to have a strict list. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


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

My talk page

Constructive or necessary communication is welcome.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (Talk ) 11:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Online marketplace

Iam Bhargava786 the message you send its true. thanks for advice. Can we add All online market places with out links. Please give me your suggestions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhargava786 (talkcontribs) 05:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You should only add companies who already have articles in Wikipedia (like the others on the list). --NeilN talk to me 13:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The second edit to Barrack Obama was an accident because the screen wasn't loading correctly; it won't happen again

I didn't see that everything needs to be properly referenced, I assumed I could make it MLA later. Is that how it works with all biographies of living persons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talkcontribs) 16:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

1) Please add your posts to the bottom of talk pages. 2) I don't understand what "I didn't see that everything needs to be properly referenced, I assumed I could make it MLA later." means. What's MLA? --NeilN talk to me 16:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Modern Language Association Style Manual


I think the general RFC on People is the issue that arose. I cannot find US being used as a source for BLPs, and I don't see the same editors defending it. Do you use it as a reference for BLPs? I think you have defined a good and necessary RFC and will advertise it well. Please run with it, so I can start disagreeing with you. --(AfadsBad (talk))

See [13] --NeilN talk to me 18:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you can just post it. For now, you could say, "Links to current consensus can be added o this section." When editors find them, the or you can post a neutral statement and the link. Would that work? --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

NeilN over ready reinstatement of official PC wiki article on Chris Laidlaw

Neil your editing and contributions to wiki clearly reveals you be an establishment PC activist who protects the reputation of icons of the left, Edward Snowden being a classic example. Chris Laidlaw was a very controversial figure in NZ in the 1970s and 1980s. Most of my filling out of the wiki article on Laidlaw which its current bald form is little more than official fact data, is pretty accurately, factual or correct interpretation of the sources I quote. Laidlaw was determined to have it both ways. He took full opportunity to play three series against the Boks for glory and the spoils and then ran down the later generation of players that did in 76 and 81. The issue was just as controversial in 69. I was not an opponent of the tour and in fact supported rugby tours to and from SA not out any sympathy or racism but out of a judgement since partly proven that black rule in SA and Angola/ Luanda would gradually go the way of Zimbabwee. Given that Laidlaw is a failed politician and an intitial supporter and enthusiast for the Mugabe regime, I think BLP protection for his image is largely unjustified as most of my version is more than accurately supportable from sources if my version was a bit slipshod in failing to nail him with precision,and every dot crossed. In response to your edit -re Laidlaw 20/9/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who Chris Laidlaw is. But your edits blatantly violated some of our policies - WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:NOR. See Wikipedia:BLPN#Chris_Laidlaw_edits for other views. --NeilN talk to me 01:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC distribution

Hi, NeilN,
Do you think it is warranted to post the RSN RfC at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion? This would increase its also might be posted at the Village Pump. It could help if you aren't getting a lot of participation (I haven't checked in today). Just a thought. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liz. I posted on WP:VPM yesterday. As for Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, I think that is for discussions with wider-ranging impacts than a discussion about using a single source. Like if the topic was "Should all celebrity-focused magazines be banned?" --NeilN talk to me 23:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds reasonable. I just came across Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, I didn't know it existed. I have an RfC in mind I'd like to post in the next few weeks and thought maybe I'd submit it there. Just thought I'd run it by you since I was unfamiliar with that forum. Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
re: self-edit-war :) ~Charmlet -talk- 16:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Sikh Scientists

I have noticed that you have rolled back edits of list of Sikh scientists. Wiki is a source of information and science and religion as inseparable. Please check following pages

So if they all can exist why can't a list of Sikh scientists. In fact just yesterday one of the scientists listed was attacked in Columbia University.

If you want to remove the edit, please make sure that other lists given above are also removed.

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 15:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hope you understand that making a page for every single person will take long time. Anyhow i do not have this much time. So good luck for your 'EDITORIAL' job and keep preventing information from getting distributed just like your 'Editorial' team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punjabi gladiator (talkcontribs) 14:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


encyclopedic content must be verifiable. I was not disrupting. Who are you to block me? I am allowed to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talkcontribs) 18:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@ZYXW9876 This was disruptive. And you are allowed to contribute collaboratively, not edit war against multiple editors. Finally, I can't block you but an admin certainly will (again) if you persist with these edits. --NeilN talk to me 18:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Blocked While I was writing this.


Hey, NeilN. I'm stopping by your talk page to ask if you got my email. If you did, I understand if the reason you didn't reply is because your email address would be exposed to me. A lot of people here have their email address enabled for Wikipedia, but sparingly allow their email address to be revealed to the sender. Flyer22 (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@Flyer22 I did get your email but sometimes it takes me a couple days to come up with a non-trivial reply :-) --NeilN talk to me 15:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
LOL, that's fine. My initial comment in it was a bit trivial anyway, considering that we somewhat know what is up with the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Heads up; I sent you another email, partly related to the previous one. Flyer22 (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ 'Kakatiya Nayaks: their contribution to Dakshinapath's independence, 1300-1370 A.D.' by 'N. G. Ranga'. pp. 11,13,14,15,67,104,161.