User talk:NeilN

If you are starting a new topic, please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new section at the bottom.

St Paddys Day in North Korea

I dont think its spam, the Irish Indo reference would be good without the primary from their website, but "although not celebrated by locals, tourists have the opportunity to visit the capital and take in the attractions around the city, as well as participating in a pub crawl", its not really a celebration, just a bunch of Irish (and presumably others) going on a session on Paddys day in North Korea. Not really what the section is about. Murry1975 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Murry1975. It's obvious from the editor's name that she's linking to her company's website and the tour guide profiled in the article works there too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I didnt see the YPT as anything odd, until you just pointed it out. Old age creeping in. Murry1975 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A bit of help

Hey! I'm still a bit confused on how to make my wikipedia page meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. Does it mean I need to explain why this artist is important? If so, how would I do that?

HeavyDecimation (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi HeavyDecimation. You need to provide published sources that show the subject meets any of the criteria listed at WP:BAND. Do you have any sources that do so? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess not. Well there goes 3 hours of my time.

HeavyDecimation (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Alexandra

hi can you return my edits please? I spend hour making them. Old version is humiliating, abusive, confusing and incomplete, please change back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Ms1 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alexandra Ms1. The old version is merely a dispassionate recitation of an historical fact. Are you taking such offense because it's your name or is it something else? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

first of all, it is mine. Then it is also name for millions and millions if people. Very often, especially meeting new people, I go online to check the true meaning of their names, if I like them - it is like zodiac, even more important. This is a part of personal brand. I can not believe in Wikipedia this is the description if this beautiful name. It is a shame and Shane that people do not see how awful it is to include such descriptions. Who came up with it in the 1st place? Don't you think it is disgusting if your new friend looks at your name and sees the similar history/meaning????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Ms1 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know about the policy. I am not meaning to be doing any warring. All it was is that it was not clear to me what the background is and the motivation. I fid discuss this with each editor. Which I will have to continue doing keeping in mind that sine others will be trying to change and I have to limit to 3 per day. Please could you send me the reference to this "community" thingy where u can reach more people abt this issue? It's first time I registered with wkpda today, so can appreciate some guidance. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Ms1 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Alexandra Ms1, as Wikipedia is an academic resource, it describes the history of a name from an academic viewpoint as does not consider such factors as the zodiac and does not consider a name to be "beautiful" or a "personal brand". If you want the picture/text changed, you should make your proposal on Talk:Alexandra. Please make sure you click the "New section" tab to create a new section at the bottom (you've been posting at the top of talk pages which is the opposite of what we do). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I edited the "tAlk" section - could you now please update? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Ms1 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

re Think of the children

No, sorry, but it doesn't work like that. It's {{WP:BRD]] not WP:BDR. The onus is on the editor proposing the changes to make her case. It's important! I think if instead of WP:BRD we had the policy "changes are assumed to be acceptable, the onus is on the person wanting to reject the change to make his case" we would have a very different, and not necessarily better, encyclopedia.

So let's not edit war over this. That is frowned upon here. I know you will do the right thing and restore the article to its previous state and make the case for any changes on the article talk page. I've opened a thread just for this purpose. This would, I think, be the collegial thing to do, and we can discuss this like reasonable people, I hope. Herostratus (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Sorry, no, I won't be reverting to a version which is mostly unsourced. If you want to go back to the older version and provide references and explain why a list of examples is encyclopedic then of course I won't revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for stepping in with the Yeon-mi Park article! You definitely deserve a good dozen of these. (Unless you dislike them, in which cause you deserve the snack treat of your choice.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: Love cookies! Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So what politics do you keep an eye on?

Instead of Dilma Rousseff. What else do you keep an eye on?. Nikolas.Sudarpo (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikolas.Sudarpo. Articles are added to my watchlist (currently at over 27,000 pages) rather organically. Subjects are mentioned on a noticeboard or talk page, or another editor asks me to keep an eye on one, or I'm cleaning up after another editor, as they make dubious edits to related articles. For example, I've got a whole bunch of articles on my watchlist centered around Telangana as editors disrupting that article sometimes move on to its politicians and articles detailing its history. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on the Cosby change

I provided new wording as per your request on the Bill Cosby allegations here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bill_Cosby#Reiterate_earlier_requests_for_accurate.2C_full_coverage_of_accusations_for_which_sourcing_exists

Could you kindly provide feedback. I strongly believe this more accurate information deserves to be added to his page. Thanks.

Worxpace (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverting your edit on Arizona

Sorry about this, I wasn't sure what you meant when I undid your edit. Now I realize that Ducey won't be sworn in as governor until January so we have to wait until then to add him to that page. Jinkinson talk to me 03:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jinkinson: Thanks. Was just about to post to your page. :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You got mail!

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Indian journalists‎

• Muhammad Zulqarnain Zulfi, — Preceding unsigned comment added by George-mathew69 (talk • contribs)

@George-mathew69: That indicates the person exists, not that he's notable or meets the list criteria. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

References

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for participating in the discussion about Laverne Cox. I appreciate your interest in transgender rights issues and think that you made a positive impact on the discussion. I hope that in the future you participate in other controversial disputes because getting more good comments like yours leads them to resolution. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bluerasberry. I've been editing here for quite a while, including edits related to transgender topics, but the recent attacks and your question as to my intent this morning had me wondering what was up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Violation of Twinkle policy

NeilN,

You are utilizing Twinkle in a manner that violates its end user terms. Please discontinue the roll-back of good faith edits, such as you did on the page Meryl Streep. Labeling a user as a sockpuppet without due process indicates unprovoked malice towards the user and will not be tolerated. Furthermore, it would benefit you to re-read the Twinkle terms of use at your earliest convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.21.51 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll get right on that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

IAC

Ya dude, what you want discuss on talk ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplonSimon (talk • contribs) 07:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are misusing the Twinkle to my edits. You have commited offence you can read here "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used". So what you mean by talk ? 07:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)SimplonSimon (talk)

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 this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "India Against Corruption". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Mdann52talk to me! 08:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

SimplonSimon blocked as yet another IAC sock. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Spandex

Would you look in a few moments for me. Thx. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 01:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog™, put on my watchlist and removed picture from another article. Gotta go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, though looking at this, I think I was being a bit of a drama queen last night. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Helen Elizabeth Garrett

Hi, Neil. I am trying to remove the name "Helen" from Elizabeth Garrett's Wikipedia post. Elizabeth (Beth) Garrett is a longtime friend of mine and has asked me to make sure that her Wikipedia entry is correct and up to date. Beth's full legal name is "Helen Elizabeth Garrett," but she has never used "Helen," and prefers to be called "Elizabeth" in formal contexts such as this. If you wish, you can email her at <redacted> to verify this. Thanks!

Eftonpark (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eftonpark. Wikipedia typically includes the full name if published in reliable sources. In this case, CNN and White House biographies are reliable sources. [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Your supercilious tone

Hi

On Talk:Ganges you've posted Irrelevant. We use tools designed specifically for Wikipedia

a) I remind you that 'Wikipedia' is a generic term including many non-English projects.

b) Your usage of "We" is presumptious and demeaning. I verifiably edit at several other English language Wikis powered by Mediawiki, which includes contributions there on the river 'Ganga'. MonaPisser (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@MonaPisser: As you are editing the English Wikipedia here, you should be assuming that references will be to English Wikipedia tools, policies, and guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I had completely forgotten that "We(e) folk" don't differentiate between the English language Wikipedia and the mythical English Wikipedia.

BTW, I've replied to your suggestion And are you suggesting the river stopped flowing in India or Bangladesh? with this [3] fact. MonaPisser (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Politicians can name things whatever they want. As I and others suspected, all your efforts boil down to an end run around against previous move discussions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A honest request

Dear Mr. Neil hi, As you can view that lots of communication has been made to administrator to correct the true facts based on references. But from last three days Articles and images of Gurjar wikipedia has been removed. I am writing on Wikipedia since last 8 years. I can tell that without facts, i have not posted a single article or information. I hope you will understand the this matter.

Regards, Gurjeshwar (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gurjeshwar: Eight years on Wikipedia should have made you aware of WP:3RR. I gave you the chance to self-revert. You didn't take it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Neil, This article was absolutely right 5 days before, But some writes has changed the whole contents and relates Gurjar Caste with other caste. This is objectionable, but instead of that conrent removal, admin stitush has removed all images related to Gurjar people like Sarat Mihir Bhoja, Sardar vallabh bhai Patel. Please do understand that these persons are not related to particular political parties. Mihir Bhoj was king and Sarad Vallabh bhai Patel was freedom Fighter and well known Gurjat peronality. When other caste detail write their famous persons name and images on Wikipedia then Why this discrepancy is being used for Gurjar. I am ready to debate for relation of these personalities with Gurjar People, But without asking or knowing the facts and removal of these contents from wikipedia is really not good for those who really wish the Wikipedia as unbiased source to get the whole information. I will appreciate your kind act. I will continue to write on wikipedia with my honest efforts. I hope you will try to solve this matter honestly Thanks and regard Gurjeshwar (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, the gentleman has extenuating circumstances in his favour, should he care to use it. Like most of literate India, I suspect he was misled by a mischievous, incorrect and unrebutted report in India's leading newspaper that the other disputant is an Admin at Wikipedia. Hence his confusion. I have advised him to apologise. MonaPisser (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Trolling

Pretty sure MonaPisser is simply trolling right now (see this or this for latest), and testing how long it takes for us to admit the obvious, and block the account. In the meantime, given that we have already addressed the "points" the user raised at Talk:Ganges, I don't believe we need to offer even more fine-grained explanations till the user concedes that they understand (which, per definition of a troll, will be never). Best to WP:DENY unless there are new and genuine points to respond to. Cheers. ( Pinging @Mfield, Serialjoepsycho, Bishonen, Anthony Bradbury, and Sitush: some of the other editors who have extended AGF towards the user so far). Abecedare (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. They're not going to get anywhere on Ganges with their current points, anyways. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if they had raised a genuine issue, and we ended up renaming/splitting the article as a result. My point is that the user doesn't even care if they got their way, since their very aim is to waste as much time, and step on as many nerves, as possible, before they are inevitably blocked. Surely as an experienced user (which they are), they know that vandalism on F&f's userpage will be quickly reverted; yet it offered them an oppurtunity to spin stories of fictional emails; retracted nominations; promotional username; poor English etc... each of which issue, at least one of us patiently responded to (just as you and I responded to their concern about article size at Talk:Ganges). AGF stretches only so far, and our time and attention can be better focused elsewhere (on or off-wiki). Abecedare (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA, WP:AGF please. My discussion with User:AshLin on my talk page, evidences the emails and the withdrawn nomination for F&f. That mailing list incidentally is for all Indian Wikimedians and all Indic Wikis.MonaPisser (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Your dubious actions extend beyond that single issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Abcedare, the agenda of this user is to sully an absent editor's name & another's reputation by misrepresentation. Nothing in the genuine interest of Wikipedia will come about from this reader's editting. AshLin (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you dispute the essential facts. The recent Emails to a list, nomination by a non-Indian, protest by Indians, renomination by an Indian, withdrawal of all foreign names. etc. Do you also seriously suggest that 7 Indians sitting together constitute the "Indian Wikimedian community" to publicly bestow a "National" honor on foreigners which incorporates / desecrates the Indian flag in its "rosette" ? Read the flag code 2002, pleaseMonaPisser (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find the number of other Wikipedians on here who care about whatever you're going about up above to be approximately zero. You've been told not to touch the user page. Drop it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Now CU blocked.[4]. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As Bish said, very gratifying catch. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleting material capriciously

Would you please stop deleting partially complete edits of NEW material. You may want to read the material before you delete whole sections of text.... again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.239.21 (talk)

Please get consensus before adding NEW material. You don't have it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Security News Desk

Hi NeilN - ref you message about online Newspapers and my post in the examples section - this is not meant as self promotion but to inform using 2 relevant examples - advice as to how to reword it to meet Wiki rules would be appreciated.

Thanks Philipingram65 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipIngram65 (talk • contribs)

@PhilipIngram65: Your first step would be to write an article on Security News Desk to show notability. However since you have a conflict of interest (which you should disclose on your user page), I strongly recommend using the Articles for creation process to create a draft for someone else to review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed this discussion when checking up on refspamming by PhilipIngram65, adding content on The Security Institute linking to the source website by way of his own site (instead of linking straight to the source) to attract visitors to it, so I thought I'd add my 2p to the discussion. Security News Desk seems to be a website that re-reports news from other news sources, as opposed to providing own unique material, so there's IMHO very little chance of them passing the notability-threshold and getting an own article here. Thomas.W ^talk 12:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I can assure you you are 100% wrong - the vast majority of the content in Security News Desk is original and written by the Security News Desk editorial team. This is unlike most other publications that support a particular industry by just reproducing PR. So forgive me but your 2p worth is worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipIngram65 (talk • contribs)

• (Since PhilipIngram65 posted the same comment both here and on my talk page I'll reply on both pages, but further discussion should be kept here...) Then why does the page (on your web site) that you linked to only link on to the website of The Security Institute? If you wrote the article you ought to be able to publish the content on your own web site, instead of just linking to another site. Thomas.W ^talk 12:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

For the simple reason that that is how The Security Institute asked us to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipIngram65 (talk • contribs)

@PhilipIngram65:In that case you should have linked straight to where the material is, i.e. The Security Institute's web site, and not by way of your own website. I'm moving this discussion to User talk:NeilN, so please keep the discussion there, and please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~~~~ ) so that everyone knows who he/she is talking to. Thomas.W ^talk 12:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No you miss the point - Security News Desk has a greater reach and audience - The Security Institute requested it be done this way so their message would get out further - please do not try and educate me on something you have not been party to If you actually look at Security News Desk you will find it full of original content and look at the News Paper Tab and Media Tabs to see even more original content — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipIngram65 (talk • contribs)

@PhilipIngram65: The bottom line is that you want to add Security News Desk to a list or two. For that to happen, an Wikipedia article on Security News Desk should exist to show it's notable by Wikipedia standards. Using the AFC process is the best way to go once you gather independent published sources that have covered Security News Desk. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@PhilipIngram65: Which has nothing to do with what I wrote. Reference links should always point straight to the source material, not to another website that then links to the source material, the way you did (in an obvious attempt to attract visitors to your website). Thomas.W ^talk 14:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

First Attempt at Wikipedia Edit

This is my first attempt/experience at editing a Wikipedia article. I’m still trying to figure out how it all works. So perhaps I should first apologize that I started with yours. Lol. I imagine you are probably thrilled to have inexperienced editors to your page [sarcasm intended].

I attempted to edit the page on Fundamentalism. Specifically, I was hoping to remove a particular bias in the article. The use of the phrases “orthodox theological doctrines,” (orthodox literally means “right teaching”), “classical theological beliefs of Christianity,” and “reaffirm key theological tenants” are phrases that bias the article toward a belief that Fundamentalist Christian Doctrine is the “right” and “classical” (hence RE-affirmable) Christian teaching.

A couple of examples of why that position is problematic include: On Inerrancy, Martin Luther (the so-called father of the Protestant Reformation) claimed he saw no evidence that the book of Revelation was written by the Holy Spirit, and that he thought the book of James was a “strawy epistle” full of law and absent of grace (See Martin Luther’s Introduction to Revelation and James). On the doctrine of atonement, for the first one thousand years of Christian history, the "orthodox" doctrine of atonement was Christus Victor (e.g. Augustine). The sacrificial theory of atonement didn’t appear until the middle ages with Anselm (Read Gustaf Aulen’s Christus Victor, which is about the history of the three main Christian atonement theories).

Again, my goal is simply to remove the bias so that it doesn’t appear that the peer-reviewed Wiki-Community thinks that Fundamentalism is the authentic, right and classical Christian teaching. Rather, Fundamentalism is an interpretation of classical Christianity, and it is an interpretation that is both historically and theologically problematic for many Christians.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MdivstudentBriteDivinity (talk • contribs)

Hi MdivstudentBriteDivinity, welcome to Wikipedia. Always happy to help new editors out. You bring up valid points but the best place to discuss article content and changes is on the article's talk page (Talk:Fundamentalism). By posting there, your points and reasoning will be seen by any editor who is interested in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Guerrilla marketing

Guerilla marketing Wiki page

How was an Article about Guerilla Marketing not a resource. Especially when Google's Android just teamed up with Kit Kat to launch a guerilla marketing campaign. where there is a link in the references section of this page that has nothing to do with Guerilla Marketing http://www.media-street.co.uk/marketing/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBVolcom (talk • contribs)

@AndyBVolcom: A PR release written by a marketing company to shill for their services is nothing but spam. I've removed the other refspam you pointed out, thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Racism in Canada

Hi, me and User:Introspectress are planning on adding history to the racism in Canada page. We're new editors and we'd like some suggestions on making our sections sound less like a university essay, instead of undoing our changes. AboriginalAbel (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi AboriginalAbel. Did you read my second point on the talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your assistance and we will definitely utilize your critique! AboriginalAbel (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please reconsider General Authority issue

The position of general authorities is not an occupation, it is a position of leade4rship. We have articles on Catholic Bishops that lack sources that even have the depth of description that we have on Latter-day Saint General Authorities. The whole campaign is being driving by PBP's claim that Mormon sources are by definition "unreliable". This to me seems bigoted. If he were to try to delete articles on African-Americans because he claimed African-American sources were "unreliable" or on Jews because Jewish sources were unreliable, he would be called out as the bigot he is. This campaign privaleges sources that are antagonistic to a group, and works to restrict the groups ability to be presented as it sees itself in Wikipedia. This is the antithesis of the principals of broder inclusion that Wikipedia aims for. It privaleges certain cultures over others, and leads to a narrow and skewed narrative of groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

JPL, if I may, my premise of unreliability is based on two legs: a) Church websites are not independent of church authorities (this holds true for any church; it holds true for non-churches too; you can't source a rock band member solely from a rock band's website); b) Church websites are not peer-reviewed and therefore not as reliable as books or academic journals. This view doesn't privilege antagonistic sources; it actually privileges sources that don't side one way or t'other. And it is nothing like African-Americans or Jews, sorry. The equivalent would be an African-American college professor being sourced solely from his college's website; or a Jewish businessman being sourced solely from his business' website. pbp 20:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: You're twisting Purplebackpack89's rationale to suit your own purposes and insinuating some very ugly things. Some comments:

• "The position of general authorities is not an occupation, it is a position of leade4rship." -> It does not matter. "Leaders" are not exempt from notability requirements.
• "We have articles on Catholic Bishops that lack sources that even have the depth of description..." -> If you find an article with no independent sources after doing a WP:BEFORE, I'll put it up for an AFD myself.
• "The whole campaign is being driving by PBP's claim that Mormon sources are by definition "unreliable"." That's not what he (or I) said. Our position is that sources owned by the Church cannot be used to fulfill the notability requirements for a member of the Church. As I said in another AFD, a newsletter distributed by GM to its employees and partners cannot be used to show notability for an engineer featured in that newsletter.
• "...works to restrict the groups ability to be presented as it sees itself in Wikipedia. This is the antithesis of the principals of broder inclusion that Wikipedia aims for." This is completely misguided. No group should be able to dictate how it is presented on Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors use secondary sources to interpret and weigh most of a subject's views; they are not presented without analysis or have their notability unquestioned.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Islam

The article 'islam' when referring to 'zakat' makes no mention of the requirement of 1/8 of zakat to fund fighters/jihad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt13046841 (talk • contribs)

Hi Matt13046841. What is your source for this? I can't see anything in zakat that supports your statement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Residences

I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy listing sources in the small, right-side (shorthand) bio box for public figures. I obtain my data from public records, and it is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammsl (talk • contribs)

Hi Grammsl. We need a link or a cite to a published source per our policy on verifiability. The current residence is sourced in the article body. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources for navier-stokes-first-exact-transformation

Dear NeilN!

Here (11 Yet another solution proposed?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Yet_another_solution_proposed.3F you wrote:

These should be treated as good primary sources but we need secondary sources to validate and weigh. --NeilN talk to me 20:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Which of this link is good secondary source:

1.TOP NEW NEWS Latest News and Hottest http://topnew.info/navier/navier-stokes-first-exact-transformation

2.Navier Stokes Existence And Smoothness http://www.socialscapes.com/search/navier-stokes-existence-and-smoothness-wikipedia-the/

3.Han Geurdes. A simple exact solution to the Navier-Stokes equation JOURNAL OF PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS J. Part. Diff. Eq., Vol. x , No. x (200x), pp. 1-5| http://www.academia.edu/8480418/A_simple_exact_solution_to_the_Navier-Stokes_equation

4.BOOKSREADR.ORG in the social media http://booksreadr.org/pdf/navier-stokes-millennium-prize-problem-alternative-solution-194170446.html

5.Проблема тысячелетия (millennium prize problem) для уравнений навье – стокса разрешима классическими методами математической физики козачок А. А., Киев, Украина http://ru.convdocs.org/docs/index-2701.html Alexandr (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alexandr. You should list these sources on the article's talk page where subject matter experts can discuss. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear talk to me!

You can see the “list these sources on the article's talk page” . Therefore I hope you will begin to discuss these sources as other editors are silent. --Alexandr (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello NeilN. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Discussion of Natty4Bumpo at ANI: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

On Kannada Language Edits

There is a new section opened in Kannada page and some vandals are removing entirely sourced section (please verify all links) so that I reach 3 reverts and block me. Also talk page contains a huge number of anti-kannada and pro-tamil comments and are derogatory and racist in nature. I request a protection tag for the article and also cleanup of talk page. And yes why are you removing the complete edits? Aren't you vandalising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karnāṭa dēśamaṁ (talk • contribs)

Replied at ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Yeon-mi Park

That's what I was doing. Read the article. Please learn to read better. The article needs to make reference to "liberty" and "humans rights activist" or it's a shockingly poor and incompetent article. There's no excuse for such blatant incompetence and inaccuracy. KyZan (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)KyZan — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyZan (talk • contribs)

@KyZan: The article or the talk page doesn't need to become a soapbox proclaiming how great the subject is. Making sure the article has a neutral tone is not the work of "vandals and trolls". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: I repeat: please learn to read better. Calling Michelangelo a "painter" is not an act of "proclaiming how great the subject is." It's accuracy and competence. And repeatedly deleting such a reference for obvious reasons of bias clearly is the work of vandals and trolls. Park is a full-time human rights activist. It needs to be mentioned. I know what a neutral tone is. You do not. A neutral tone is precisely what your comments lack. Evidently you lack the ability to think and comprehend. Fine. But please stop spamming me. And please stop vandalizing the Park article. KyZan (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)KyZan

@KyZan: What's the first sentence in the article? "Yeon-mi Park (also stylized as Yeonmi Park) is a North Korean defector and human rights activist currently in South Korea." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Your recent editing history at Barack Obama shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.
You need to read Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_78#Legacy_of_first_term_.2F_Evaluations_of_first_term again (or look up the definition of WP:CONSENSUS)

You appear to be baiting and edit warring with new editors. Please stop. There is a Talk page at Obama which you appear to be ignoring. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: Competency is required on your part as usual. Why do you insist on copying warnings to you here? And I'm assuming your edit summaries on Barack Obama are your poor analysis rather than purposefully misleading. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment.

Interesting that, a non-sensical rant. You must be an encyclopedian. How about if you self-appointed subsidized boys and girls obtain some formal education, instead of spending your time on a known social psychological experimental site, that has a reputation of NOT having any clear directivity whatsoever, AND filled with fast levels of schizofrenic gestalts. Wikipedia, is a subsidized instance subsidized by and through philanthropical drain end accounts, most any of these accounts, being defacto a fast inflation creating instance.

Perhaps you should send in a complaint to the sponsors, and have the board fired to add deterministic directivity, instead of allowing that board to sponsor half-ashed articles in fast opinion, most of a political or propagandistic nature.

Read the NOTE: A FAST majority of articles ARE dyslexic, have NO clear directivity, ARE haphazard, and have more in common with an institute and asylum for those with forms of demencia, then much anything else.

Stop sprouting the wants of some subsidized think tank, do some needs.

Ahhh, neil,

Piss off fellow, go see a psych, you´ve been handling psychopatic literature to long.

Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.189.225 (talk)

Alison Brie

Re: She and Dave Franco have been dating since 2012.

Hollyscoop IS a reliable source. It's a NEW MEDIA Hollywood news source. Are you familiar with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk)

It's an online celebrity gossip magazine whose quality (or lack thereof) is shown by the page you linked to. Plus, Wikipedia articles don't follow the style of celebrity magazines. They don't document who's dating who unless the relationship is significant as documented by reliable sources, not gossip sites. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Greetings!

I haven't been editing in a bit but I would like to get back into the swing of things. I remember you as a helpful and fair admin before, and hope you don't mind if I come to you with any questions or requests for assistance or advice. Thank you for your work!

I enjoyed the following exchange:

I wonder if there is a competition for edit #499999999 and what the prize is? I sure could use a vacation. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 17:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

500000000 edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Nein! Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 01:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 11:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Obotlig, welcome back. I'm not an admin but will certainly help where I can. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

STOP UNDOING MY PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED EDITS AND SETTLED ISSUES

This is about the living persons page for Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky. We discussed issues of name-dropping earlier and substantiated the claim as requested. This was a settled issue that was brought back again. This should kindly stop. Thanks.

@Westcott001:

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Complaint about you at WP:AN3

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:NeilN reported by User:Westcott001 (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Added copyrighted material without permission

Dear Neil, I did use material that was copyrighted but I did not avoid copyright or plagiarism as I reference both of my sources below.

As to my user name, I did not know, I will change it! thank you for your help. Hotelnafsika (talk) 7:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and understood! Hotelnafsika (talk) 8:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Objections to Evolution

Neil - OK, so between 1612 and 1637 you've now seen that I did your previously mentioned "This needs to be worked out on the talk page" a few weeks before posting ... hope that helped a bit.

Privately, I'm not sure that guidance works in general. It's useable to sort out background some of the time, but the volume posters seem to be naturally of the short attention time, post-only, non-reading behavior, so not much discussion. Binksternet being an example -- deleted twice before any comment why, and talk post only after third ... and he's not added to article or discussion. That's part of the readership too so a good viewpoint to have, just not going to be part of work in TALK discussions I think. Markbassett (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Markbassett, silence does not imply consensus, especially when you're adding content contrary to Wikipedia policy. Binksternet gave you a succinct and accurate reason in the edit summary, "rv... no sense in adding an unclear paragraph with a fact tag." That's more than enough to keep the content out of the article, especially a good article. An agreement between you and one other editor doesn't change that. If the content is unsourced, it's unsourced. Wording can certainly be discussed after sources are provided. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you look but do not see that content start date I guess. Eh, seems moot now, bye. Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the help you've given me these last couple days. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Took me 9+ years but...

My first article: NetMarket --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Heheh well done! But I suppose you contribute in a different way than most to this project. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring and discretionary sanctions

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

I have already written on ARTICLES TALK page. Why youre not discussing it there ? Not tata (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Because you are very likely to be blocked as yet another IAC sock/meatpuppet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Link deleted in "Translation" article

Hello Neil:

I'd like to ask you to reconsider the deletion of the link I included recently, for the following reasons:

- The link takes people to a comprehensive glossary of Translation Terms. - Many of these terms are not yet explained in this article or in other Wikipedia articles. - There is no other link to a similar glossary, and as far as I know, after doing the appropriate research, there is no other glossary as complete as this one (in this field), and in my opinion, not as good. - At the end of the Glossary there is a list of references used to compile the glossary. Some of these references are very recent, academic and are not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Specially those of Anthony Pym, Mona Baker, Lachat, and Beeby, Ensinger and Presas, deserve to be quoted although that would require editing the body of the article. - There aren't so many external links at the end of that article. I have seen articles with much more links and even with very similar material.

Thanks, I'd like to know what you think.

186.107.36.37 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Link edited: http://www.sinclavos.cl/transgloss.php

Hello. My initial check left me with the impression that the site was just translating some terms. I see now that it's also defining terms used in the area of translation. I've undone my revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Neil. Thanks for your work and understanding. Have a nice week.

186.107.58.82 (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Spam link reported

Hey Neil, re: this reversion, I reported their link to the spam noticeboard yesterday, so fingers crossed. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks. This shows no presence of the link right now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal blogs

You cited a rule regarding self-published materials, but the key word in that citation is "largely." The rest of the section reads "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." We published a book at Gunderson Dettmer on how to structure VC funds--see http://www.gunder.com/about/publications. Did you even research beforehand whether I am an expert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallacrw (talk • contribs)

@Wallacrw: I note you said "we". I don't see your name anywhere on the page you linked to and there's no reason to make an exception for your personal blog. And, as an "expert" on venture capital, you should be aware of what conflict of interest is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually don't see any conflict here other than what would always apply with Wikipedia links: I wrote helpful info, and I'd like people to read it. In that sense, I do have an interest in the link, but it doesn't conflict with the interests of Wikipedia, which is sharing authoritative info. Would you care to explain the conflict you see here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallacrw (talk • contribs) 21:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wallacrw: You are adding links to your own personal blog which helps promote you and your views. Pretty simple. Similar to a VC adding links to an article on a company they've invested in which lead to "helpful" views on the company. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So is the issue who made the edit or the citation itself? You've completely changed your reasoning now; just looking for some consistency in this kangaroo court... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallacrw (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wallacrw: Perfectly consistent. Your blog is not a reliable source and you have a conflict of interest. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Jill Kelley

Neil

Please understand that TParis seems to have a suspicious motivation, and it's ironic that I noticed he's called every editor a PR agent or a relative of the subject. The new edits I made included the reference from a national media article, detailing the former appointments and positions. It's as ridiculous as not acknowledging that Bush was a former President. I find TParis to be abusing this page and harassing editors continuously. Can you please allow the 1250 characters remain that have been on this page for over a year -with corrected grammer and facts by numerous editors. I find it unecssary and inappropriate to remove all those characters that have been there over a year, including the newest addition of her former appointments which is significant piece of information that should be listed on a wiki page Thank you for understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewstokyo (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Chewstokyo: What I see are three experienced editors - TheRedPenOfDoom, TParis and myself - trying to keep a neutral point of view in the article. IP editors and editors with few edits have stuffed the lead with the subject's POV. If you disagree, the place to discuss this is Talk:Jill Kelley. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Quelle surprise --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Problematic editing going at the Sex offender article and related articles

I'm probably going to need your help with this and this matter. It's about two "new editors" (ViperFace (talk · contribs) and Noterie (talk · contribs)) popping up to edit the same relatively inactive articles, with one of them (ViperFace) engaging in noticeable POV-pushing at various articles. They want me to believe that Noterie simply popped up to edit the same relatively inactive articles as ViperFace. The only articles so far that Noterie edited that ViperFace has not yet edited are the Hebephilia and Ephebophilia articles, and that is only after I told ViperFace that I would not tolerate his type of editing at the Child sexual abuse and Child pornography articles. If they are not WP:Sockpuppets or WP:Meatpuppets, this is a strange coincidence. I'm also going to alert Herostratus and Legitimus to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please conduct the investigation, I have no connection to other user. Also if you wish you should see the talk page of [sex offender]. I'm being accused of POV-pushing for adding critical views that have been presented on several sex offender related articles, but I maintain that my edits are covered with sufficient references. I don't think that editing articles covering controversial topics "too keenly" should be reason to automatically flag POV-pushing and bias. Since accusations are thrown out, I might as well accuse Flyer22 of POV-oppressing. ViperFace (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, please check the history of the talk page to see where we are at. Some of my messsages got deleted by a bot. I don't know why. ViperFace (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Your messages didn't get deleted by a bot. Flyer22 (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of new editing going on in these articles. I'm guessing this IP is Noterie. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No. The list of things I saw when I clicked on "this IP" are not mine.Noterie (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this really how things work around here? Accusations fly, both ViperFace and I say to run whatever check we're being threatened with, but no check happens and Flyer22 (and whomever else she recruits into the discussion) just assume the result of the check never run?Noterie (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You are asking us to believe that it's a coincidence that there is all of this sudden editing at these different, relatively inactive sex offender articles. Yes, these articles were relatively inactive before this sudden editing. What has caused it, if not WP:Sockpuppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry? A big commotion on the news, and news affecting people from different regional IP locations? NeilN and I are far too experienced at editing Wikipedia, and have seen this type of thing over and over again, to believe that all of these are coincidences. WP:Assume good faith does not mean "play stupid." Flyer22 (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, NeilN, that IP is very likely ViperFace instead of Noterie, if going by ViperFace's expansion style and Noterie's WP:Copyediting style. Flyer22 (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

ViperFace, if that's you, you need to remember to log in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, ViperFace claimed the IP at the Sex offender talk page. Given the different editing styles of ViperFace and Noterie (though editing styles can be faked), I am willing to believe that they are two different editors. Flyer22 (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN The IP is mine like I claimed on the [sex offender] talk page. I have forgotten to log in on few occasions, I try to pay more attention to that. Also I don't like the tone this discussion took with Flyer. IMO he is implicitly asserting that I am some kind of NAMBLA member for editing those articles. I think I have used pretty reliable sources, but I assume that Flyer didn't even check them, but instead started to accuse me of lying and using double account or something, merely because I have added majority opinion of academics and treatment professionals, which contradicts with the majority opinion of general public. ViperFace (talk)

ViperFace, I am female, and I explained on the Sex offender talk page what my problems with your edits are. Your characterization of my problems with your edits are off-base and a sign of your bias on the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeated bad edits with self made non referenced material by the same user

Hi, on 15:34, 26 November 2014‎, you removed the repeated bad edits, probably vandalism of the page Afghana by the user 80.56.86.118, a user who continued his bad edits despite being informed about it. Now it seems he is doing it again under the name of Work number1987. It seems to be the same user because the edits are more or less the same i.e. self made erroneous non referenced information written completely out of context to the material on page Afghana in poorly written English and bad grammar. Giving this person the benefit of the doubt, I think he is mistaking Afghana with an unknown figure of his own family as per his family history. He wants to add info about this historically unknown figure without any references to the page Afghana.

Please look into the matter and providing protection to the said page might also be advisable as he has been doing these edits despite explanation for the last few weeks.

Thanks Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC).

@Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan: Not sure that Work number1987 is the IP as Work number1987 edits differently. However I have reverted their change as it was unsourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Fallon edit that was deleted.

The comment about Jimmy Fallon butchering the English language is neutral because it is objective. He constantly uses terms such as "so fun" often more than once an episode. His use of English is a fact and objective. Please restore the comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.23.205 (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Butchering the English language" is your opinion. Another opinion is that he uses catchphrases and colloquialisms. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC re-worded for clarity

FYI, I have reworded the RFC on the wikiproject Buddhism page if you are interested. Dorje108 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dorje108. It's probably not a good idea to change the wording of an RFC after there are responses but if no one objects I guess you're fine. I think my original objection still stands. You could have asked that these types of sources not be automatically excluded from being considered reliable. Being considered reliable automatically prompts the question, "for what?". This is nicely illustrated by the info you're asked to provide when posting to WP:RSN:

1. Source. The book or web page being used as the source. If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc. If it's an online source, please link to it. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html]. 2. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. For example: [[Article name]]. 3. Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Neil. I agree that your wording is more clear. I may propose to the group that I reword the RFC. I doubt there will be any objections. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI, please see proposal for new RFCs here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Wording_of_RFC. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Afghana page

Yes alright thank you for the neutral point of views, must stay untouched with sources and a Master Wikipedia. According to the timeline Afghana died in Indian Gandhara, nobody has filled in that Afghana died in India. Did Afghana died in Afghanistan or in India around 920 BC. Qais Abdur Rashid has claimed to be a descendent. Their are many others of that place to claim descendents as well. There are also some Indians to claim to be descendents at Gandhara timeline. I don't want to ad information from my own familyline because Afghana is in a Indian timeline and not in an Afganistan or Pakistani time line. Afghanistans and Pakistans are mistaken an Indian timeline and they want to ad their timeline for Afghana. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan must be coming from Afganistan or Pakistan and is aiming for a Pathan Islamic timeline for a Jewish king that has an Indian timeline. Ofcourse it must be of a neutral point view with reliable sources, books and media but the timeline is Afghana of India and not from Pakistan or Afghanistan, the claims Qais Abdur Rashid are seperate of king Afghana. But it stays untouched ofcourse Afghana now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs)

Hi Work number1987. I don't quite understand the points you're trying to make so I'll leave this general advice: If you want to add/change something in the article please provide a reliable source for the change. If you don't think something is right in the article, and it's unsourced, take it out. If you don't think something is right in the article, and it has sources, start a discussion on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Neiln, thank you I understand now, so no changes can be made without sources. There is nothing Wiki Users can't do without valid sources others it will be count as an act of vandalism. You can only see if people make changes when it is done it will be counted as vandalism, when people don't know nothing and don't have sources it is not true. But of you are an South Asian for the Afghana page like me you always know the true story Neiln, you have normal Wiki User and you Neiln are a very good Wiki User, so you can see the timeline of Afghana, ofcourse nobody can touch the timeline of Afghana but can't you see when Aghana died and where? Don't you see information is missing? Can't user NeilN see where Afghana died and maybe he see any effort in it? I just would not to dare touch anything on the Afghana page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs)

• Neil, re your comment higher up on the page: I think it's become clear now, from the edits to User talk:Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan, that 80.56.86.118 and Work number1987 are the same person. There doesn't seem to be any avoidance of scrutiny involved, just newness. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC).
  • Looks like you're right, Bish. Work number1987, I don't know why you're changing another editor's comments but please stop. Adding/changing article content without sources is not vandalism in that it is usually not a deliberate attempt to damage articles. However repeatedly attempting to add unsourced information is seen as disruptive as facts like the ones you're trying to add must be published in reliable sources. The article provides two possible burial places for Afghana and provides sources. Do you have another published source (not your own beliefs or education) we can use to add more information? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Afghana Jewish King topics who are Indian related, The guardian article saids that Indians are also close to Afghana DNA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/17/israel-lost-tribes-pashtun

The Jewish virtual library in the link information: They had found a manusscript 1000 years ago in present Afghanistan but it was still then in India, does this count as a reliable source, it also saids in the 7th and 8th century Persian Jewish settles in India (Now Afghanistan, North Pakistan

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Afghanistan.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Town School for Boys

Hi NeilN. I'm sorry I'm not posting my message in the proper form, as I am new to editing and do not know how to leave the message in the forms like the ones below. Anyway you deleted some of my edits. I added a citation but it is not saving it for some reason. Here it is as I would like you to put my edits back. - BitFarmer ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by BitFarmer (talk • contribs) 08:08, 7 December 2014

Hi, I noticed your message and moved it down to here. On a talk page, you can click "new section" at the top, then enter a subject line, and your message, then add a signature consisting of a space then four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the last line of the comment. It looks like this relates to Town School for Boys which you have edited. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Pune

Hello NeilN thank you for getting in touch. I have redone the changes that you have done and added references to buttress the point that I was trying to make. I believe that this is in accordance with Wikipedia standards Harshavardhan deuskar (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sangram Singh

Hello NeilN

Thank you for telling me what you think. But I am from Sangram Singh's office and I even have the official email sent to him from the office of Dr Amit Kumar Agrawal, Deputy Commissioner cum Returning Officer, Rohtak Parliamentary Constituency, Rohtak (Haryana). If you want I can email it to your email id. I am just trying to let people know about Sangram Singh being a part of this awareness campaign. I did attach the news Links related to it too. Later on he went on to host a Show for a Indian News channel Live India called "Tau & Bhau". The youtube links of that show I was attaching for you to see, plus get to their website links/ wikipedia page too. But before I could do that you Undid my Update. Please check again the links that i posted. I am just giving the audiences the career update of Sangram Singh. Sangram Singh (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivraj1978 (talk • contribs)

Sir can you check the links and update the information according to your views. As I posted all the original links but I dont know how better to rephrase it. You may check the links and rewrite the content but please do not completely remove it as it is a career update.Sangram Singh (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivraj1978 (talk • contribs)

Hi Shivraj1978, a couple things:

1. If you work for Singh's office then you have a clear conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly. Please carefully read the guidelines I posted on your talk page.
2. If you are not proficient enough in English to rephrase the source text in your own words then add the link to the article's talk page and ask other editors to help. Under no circumstances should you be pasting copyrighted content into Wikipedia pages.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Does misusing links to copyrighted work fall under that? Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 09:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Obotlig. What do you mean by misusing links? Obviously you can't link to copyright violations but did you mean something else? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that's what I meant. I was not asking whether you "can" link to them or not, however. :) Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 17:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Jewish King Afghana ment for Pathans of Hindu descent and ancient India

Afghana Jewish King was born around 1000 BC where Islam and Christianity did not excist. When he was send by King Saul and his father Irmia (Jeremiah) he had to travel Asia and finally ended at one of the places of the North West Indian Kingdoms where the Hindu Pathans once lived now Afghanistan. The number of Hindu Pathans are in India as well but it seems that the Pathan etnicity has given to all Islamic people of North Pakistan and Afghanistan. The story of Aghana only excist in an Indian storyline and a time that muslim people did not excist. Second Jewish people of European descent who have lived in Afghanistan and Pakistan had to made the storyline of Afghana related to the Muslims who already lived there while discriminating the Jews who where married with the Hindu Pathans. That a muslim of Pathan descent can claim to be descent of Afghana so can a Hindu Pathan because Afghana only escist in Gandhara. Many Afghans steal Indian Jewish stories of North Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is full of Asian relics and only existed because England had devided India. Second those Afghans used to be Pathans Hindu to the late 14 century and the Afghan royal family used to be Parsi converted to Islam. Second Afghans and Pakistanis are mistaken to be Jewish that actually Hindu Pathans are the descendents or real Afghana blood line.

There are topics who are Indian related, The guardian article saids that Indians are also close to Afghana DNA because they have been Pathan as well. The Jewish virtual library in the link information: They had found a manusscript 1000 years ago in present Afghanistan but it was still then in India, does this count as a reliable source, it also saids in the 7th and 8th century Persian Jewish settles in India (Now Afghanistan, North Pakistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/17/israel-lost-tribes-pashtun

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Afghanistan.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Work number1987: It would be easier if you write the text of the exact change you want and the source you want to use. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You speak ESL? I couldn't make anything out in what the troll, excuse me, qualified and earnest editor, typed. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 17:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Afghana or Avagana Father Irmia (Jeremiah) Born Jerusalem 1000BC Died Ghor Province Afghanistan, alternate version; buried in Zhob Sulaiman Mountains Pakistan Religion Judaism

This are the links who I going to use

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Afghanistan.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara

The text must be changed in this because of the Indian time period where Afghana ruled, died and buried are two different things, Afghana can die in Ghor Province but had a preference to be buried at that place Zhob Sulaiman Mountains that was Gandhara, there is no alternate version because he was buried somewhere else then Ghor.

Afghana or Avagana Father Irmia (Jeremiah) Born Jerusalem 1000BC Died (Greater India) present Ghor Province Afghanistan, buried at (Gandhara) present Zhob Sulaiman Mountains Pakistan Religion Judaism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Work number1987: The Jewish virtual library does not have that information and that sentence in Gandhara is unsourced (Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other articles). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This really seems spurious on the face of things. User:911, excuse me, User:Work number1987, is pushing some kind of agenda content and not even explaining why, or cannot or is feigning the inability to express ideas in English while trying to add content to the English Wikipedia, and is being insistent about it. I know we are supposed to assume good faith but this is either a mockery is a mockery of a mockery to my eyes. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 18:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Obotlig: Working on non-Western-focused articles sometimes means you work with editors who have English as a second or third language. You try your best to accommodate, as long as article content is not degraded. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes in Afghana page if possible because of Indian timeline

Afghana or Avagana Father Irmia (Jeremiah) Born Jerusalem 1000BC Died Ghor Province Afghanistan, alternate version; buried in Zhob Sulaiman Mountains Pakistan Religion Judaism

This are the links who I going to use

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Afghanistan.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara

The text must be changed in this because of the Indian time period where Afghana ruled, died and buried are two different things, Afghana can die in Ghor Province but had a preference to be buried at that place Zhob Sulaiman Mountains that was Gandhara, there is no alternate version because he was buried somewhere else then Ghor.

Afghana or Avagana Father Irmia (Jeremiah) Born Jerusalem 1000BC Died (Greater India) present Ghor Province Afghanistan, buried at (Gandhara) present Zhob Sulaiman Mountains Pakistan Religion Judaism

Other changes of the first Afghana page with the link because Hindu Pathans als excist also in India who have left from North Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pathans of Hindu descent also believes in Afghana story and married Persian Jewish. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/17/israel-lost-tribes-pashtun

Afghana or Avagana is considered in Pashtun folklore a tribal chief or prince of Bani Israel (Israelite) origin and a progenitor of modern-day Pashtuns, The largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and second largest in Pakistan. The ethnonym "Afghan" is believed to derive from his name

must be changes in to this

Afghana or Avagana is considered in Indian Pathan Mythology or Pashtun folklore a tribal chief or prince of Bani Israel (Israelite) origin and a progenitor of modern-day Pashtuns, The largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and second largest in Pakistan and a very small Pathan group of Hindu descent in Afghanistan, Pakistan & India. The ethnonym "Afghan" is believed to derive from his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Work number1987: I've addressed your first paragraph already. Please read the preceding section. The Guardian source does not mention Afghana. Any conclusions using this source would be synthesis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheryl Cole

Perhaps this was unneeded, but it's certainly not disputed, hence why after four requested moves, the article it still named Cheryl Cole.  — ₳aron 14:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Four requested moves = disputed, no? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No, not when it keeps being opposed by the majority every time. Just because one person thinks it should be changed...  — ₳aron 14:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Calvin999: One person? That's not what the discussions indicate... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Two out of the four nominators are vandals/IP users who are just irregular contributors/fans who want the name changed. Everyone else who understands that Cheryl Cole is still her most commonly associated name gets that it shouldn't be changed. Fact is, people keep voting to oppose because changing it wouldn't be reflected of what people search for when searching for her. That it also why there is a three month interim period of all requests to change the name of the article being denied. If everyone agreed that it should be changed, then four requests to move wouldn't have been denied. Just because her legal name changes, doesn't mean it changes with her.  — ₳aron 14:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Calvin999: "Two out of the four nominators are vandals/IP users..." -> Excellent demonstration of WP:AGF there. "Everyone else who understands that Cheryl Cole is still her most commonly associated name gets that it shouldn't be changed" -> Yes, yes, ignore all the other Supports. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, you haven't had to deal with the vandal. Leave all the WP stuff out. Yes there are some supports, but not enough to change it. Fact is, people still Google "cheryl cole" above everything else.  — ₳aron 14:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Calvin999: I did not know that WP:COMMONNAME changed from "(as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)" to "(as determined by what we guess people Google)". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Earth

You can't say "the Earth", just say "Earth". You would not say "the Venus" etc. Jodosma (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Already posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This linguistic exception has already been discussed at the Earth talk page. One editor noted that while extraterrestrials might refer to our planet as "Earth" (just another planet waiting to be conquered), we, the residents of our planet, mostly call it "the Earth". It is the only Earth we have, after all. Grandma (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Santa Baby

Hello Neil ,

Its great to see you are here for help other editors . I edited Santa Baby page for few additions of it for 2 times but i saw you always revert back my changes .

Here is the source link for you http://theconcordian.com/2007/12/cynthia-basinet-ten-years-of-being-santas-baby/ About Text that you referenced " Cynthia's version has influenced nearly every version recorded after 2000 "  !

Also we found some one removed Cynthia basinet page Noble Peace prize nomination .Here is th references for it . http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeaceWomen_Across_the_Globe

Now Help me in few things such as you mentioned in a comment info box was not necessary because you did not found a Chart on "Cynthia version"

Tell me what are the Basic requirements for published a info Box and what kind of references you need for it ? Now Am i able to revert back my changes for Santa Baby page else what kind of references you need for that !

Looking forward for your reply . Thank you ≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by CynthiaB2014 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@CynthiaB2014: As far as I can see, the Concordian source has nothing about "Cynthia's version has influenced nearly every version recorded after 2000". The Peace Prize nomination is not notable - the committee awarding the actual prize takes no notice of such nominations. I also see you are part of the organization that nominated you. Lastly, based on the present version of the article, your version must have at least charted to get an infobox. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Attraction to transgender people

Please stop to rollback my editions, i'm patriotic and my country is not gay!. 186.212.216.71 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

See homophobia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Earth

Can you really not see the difference between earth and Earth. "Earth" is the name of a planet in our solar system. "The earth", or "earth" is the ground we walk upon, Would you say "the Venus", or "the Mercury". If we are talking about the ground we walk upon then it is "earth", people living on Mercury would call it "mercury" and people living on Venus would call it "venus" unless it begins a sentence, when it may be "The earth upon which I was walking", but " I was walking on Earth" means that I was walking on the surface of the planet which we have named "Earth". Jodosma (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jodosma: Right now, I don't care. I do care that the article uses consistent terminology and not "Earth" for one half and "the Earth" for the other. Half of your ongoing changes was undone by I'm your Grandma. who probably didn't notice you did two consecutive edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There is only one right answer there, to use the capitalization and implication of the definite article exactly as Jodosma stated. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 19:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Obotlig: Talk:Earth#To_.22the.22_or_not_to_.22the.22. Have fun! :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeonmi Park

Hi Neil, I just updated the photo on Yeonmi's page to a version without my watermark. I hope it's alright now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juddweiss (talk • contribs) 22:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Juddweiss: Thank you! Great photo! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Provide Valid interviews for Mandela

You continue to engage in war over edits and it is you sir that does not comply with Wikipedia rules in regards to editing. None of the links provide is valid and none can show an interview or actual quotes from Mandela. This is not a gossip site or a liberal vs. conservative war. In the name of Academia please do a better job. You also violated the three edits rule. After reviewing you editorial history it appears that you do have a "gay" agenda instead of a "fact finding" agenda.Rfrf101 (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Rfrf101

@Rfrf101: I'm not the one who removed properly sourced info three times from a good article without bothering to discuss on the talk page. Your "review" of my editing history is about on par with your understanding of sourcing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rfrf101:; as one of the two editors that ensured that the Nelson Mandela article attained GA status, I can confirm that NeilN's actions were appropriate here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

White Privilege

"White privilege" is a theory used to explain racial disparities.

A theory is simply one potential explanation. A theory has NOT been empirically proven.

Hence, to maintain objectivity the word "alleged" or a similar such word MUST be included in the "white privilege" explanation.

As it reads, the existence of "white privilege" is not in dispute.

The explanation of "white privilege" for racial disparities is in dispute, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.7.36.191 (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"The term white privilege (or white skin privilege) is an alleged phenomenon..." makes little sense. Terms aren't alleged phenomena. "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges..." is correct as that's how the term is used. If you disagree, please use the article's talk page to continue the conversation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Some unknown people are editing and vandalizing Indian articles (latest being Goa)

Dear Sir,

My Apologies to you and Wikipedia. the Goa article was fine and in good condition till 2012-13. all data was true and were based on facts. The Portuguese editor whoever he may be, is unnecessarily editing the article based on his local facts. I appeal to you to kindly go back in time and compare the 2012-13 article with the current edit of Portuguese explorer editor and find out the truth for your self. if any changes needs to be done it has to be done by an indian, who understands this issue more then anyone else.

best thing is to revert the article back to 2012 version and to lock it, until a Govt person comes and rectifies all the issues.

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty3594 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Qwerty3594: Unfortunately you show little understanding of how Wikipedia works. Articles are not locked to your preferred version. Any editor in good standing can edit any article they wish to. And we're certainly not going to wait until a "Govt person comes and rectifies all the issues." No editor, no matter who they claim to be, can control article content. You'll have to actually discuss and analyze the changes on the talk page. This does not mean asking for the article to be reverted to a two year old version over and over again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, for understanding, Ok I agree to you that all editors have the right to edit here, but SIR, a person living in another country (Portugal Explorer Editor) cannot edit or make changes as per his wishes of another countrys article. Its not fair to add what one feels to another country article. And yes I will abide by all rules, and also respect the same.

Sir, the User:Portugal Explorer Editor keeps undoing and vandalizing the revert you had made in the article. Sir I request you to revert it back to its previous form and to take strict action against the User: Portugal Explorer Editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty3594 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

regardsQwerty3594 (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Qwerty3594: You still don't understand. "a person living in another country (Portugal Explorer Editor) cannot edit or make changes as per his wishes of another countrys article" - yes they can. Wikipedia does not care where you live as long as the content you're adding/changing meets content policies and guidelines. And there's no guideline that states that natives of a country get to control that country's article. That being said, PEE has been reported for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

hI,

Change the current contents only if there is a reference that contradicts the present information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugal Editor Exploration (talk • contribs)

@Portugal Editor Exploration: When you get back from your week-long block, please use the talk page to discuss and defend your changes. WP:BRD would be a helpful read. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

New Deal

Regarding the New Deal, I would like to know why you left a portion of the entry that clearly invoked facts that were entirely fraudulent. Specifically, with regards to the content I attempted to remove, the content makes the claim that there were 70 non-southern Democratic senators and fully 270 non-southern Democratic House members in the 1935 Congress. This is completely wrong. From my reading of the membership composition among Democrats in the 1935 Congress, there were barely 50 Democrats in the Senate who did not qualify as being from the South at the time, if even that many. In turn, there were barely 200 Democrats who were non-Southern at the time in the House. So I found the content you restored as being factually incorrect, which is why I removed it entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Saiyan Master (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Super Saiyan Master. If you look at the edit summaries [6] and the note on your talk page, you'll see why your deletion is being reversed. You need to at least give a brief explanation in the edit summary about why you're deleting content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Breaking Bad

Regarding the Breaking Bad page, I attempted to install an entry outlining the retired program's notoriety among viewers, referring to its rating as listed at IMDB, as was augmented with a clear indirect link to the page itself. I could have provided a direct link proving specifically, per IMDB, the expired program's viewer acclaim exceeding that of all of the other listed 858 nationally broadcast and syndicated television series going back to 1951. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Saiyan Master (talk • contribs)

@Super Saiyan Master: Once again, look at the edit summaries. [7] - "Not sourced properly.", "Imdb is not a reliable source and wikipedia doesn't use Imdb content unless really necessary" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Marhc vandal

Hey Neil, with regard to this vandal, I'm not sure what other info you have on them, but I've been calling them the "Marhc vandal" because their edit summaries are typically meaningless, but occasionally he would misspell "March" and it seemed an easy identifier. See also:

• 100.4.101.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 173.71.157.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 98.90.89.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2602:306:25A5:92F9:A518:7E2A:14B4:546 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Lemme know if you gots any info or questions. And thanks for sending them to AIV. I stepped away from my desk for a little bit, else I would have participated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for the info. They hit an article on my watchlist so I took a look at their other edits and had to chase them around for a little bit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith a fatal mistake

Assuming good faith was a fatal mistake I made when I started out writing. There are people out there for them who bank on other user's good faith to perpetrate their sentimental biases over the entire philosophy of free and fair information and knowledge. For the people out there a knowledge is free as long as it doesn't hurt their religious sentiments and biases.Thinkmaths (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: WP:AGF isn't really optional here as it's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. In practice, it means don't make accusations against another editor or a group of editors without providing specific diffs to back up the accusation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: There are some things which are so obvious that I need not even point them out. In fact, sufficient evidence can be obtained from the talk page of the article to accuse a particular editor of biases. There is a reason why the page of Islamic terrorism is not subjected to such scrutiny in context to the usage and validity of the term while so much of noise is made about it on the talk page of Saffron terror, and it is obvious enough for me who has already experienced these kind of people on the Hindi Wikipedia article. I care about what's true, and I am going to protect whatever's true.Thinkmaths (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: Actually, Talk:Islamophobia and its 17 archives makes Talk:Saffron terror look like a walk in the park. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Oh, wait, this is just the beginning.Thinkmaths (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There must be some rule about threatening to troll. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 18:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Obotlig: I read that as Thinkmaths is expecting more editors pushing a POV to post to the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"halv timme" Swedish Language. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 03:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

With less than ten edit in all from Thinkmaths and jumping right on a contentious discussion to claiming "when I started writing"... this is an obvious sock account! With the latest IP edit on the talk page... I think I have a fair guess about the sockmaster, but I can't take it to SPI just now because the evidence I know is from real life, the IP revealed just enough info. That talk page section is better collapsed, there is no positive outcome going to come from that brawl. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: [8] Special:Contributions/14.139.128.14 - NQ (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: What gossiping about me, behind my back? I am Thinkmaths, I am no one's sock. And why do you think I have less than 10 edits in all. Go and check the Hindi version of Saffron terror, it is all my work. Isn't it a splendid piece of work? And why do you say that the talk page has collapsed, why not just say that your plan has collapsed? So many interesting arguments and counter arguments have been made there and the talk page reflects a lot about everyone who has ever been involved in a discussion there. Future contributors might look at the talk page would be able to get a glimpse of who we might be in real life.Thinkmaths (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN:See, did I not tell you that you only had to wait. Do you still think the discussion is like a walk in the park?Thinkmaths (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

fyi. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihar Brahmins..

Please change the page bhumihar... Bhumihar Brahmins are one of the branches of Kanyakubj brahmins. Go to .. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyakubja_Brahmins. But wikipedia says that they are not brahmins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anant57 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anant57: The article already has, "The Bhumihars claim Brahmin status, and are therefore, also called Bhumihar Brahmins." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Its too funny.. Wikipedia says Bhumihar Brahmins are known by this name just because they claim that they are brahmin. That means if I clain that I'm President of India I will be known as Pesident Anant. Wikipedia is giving wrong information at the page Bhumihar. The real fact is that bhumihar brahmins are one if the branches of kanyakubj brahmin. Please change the contents of the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anant57 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anant57: No, sorry. There is ample discussion on the article's talk page on this and you can make your case there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this needs to be addressed

Kautilya3 continues to allege canvassing on AfD page instead of taking it to the right place(ANI) despite being warned on his talk page that it is considered attack to repeat it indiscriminately. He alleged WP:FACTION before and was warned for that too by Sarvajna. I feel the accused editor is being baited. It is not warranted on the AfD page and Kautilya3 has been politely pointed about this but the behavior continues. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Added a note here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. --AmritasyaPutra^T 04:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

From before

I detailed the issues at Talk:Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor). I've gone through Parloff's misguided arguments, rebuked Sullivan's manipulation claims and Toobin's lack of research. I've highlighted Cintron's invalid arguments based on error which ignores the actual problem McCulloch made. Lastly, Rudy Giuliani's comments of support were turned to criticism and I highlight how it is an issue. Cwobeel's additions actually gloss over the reality of the situation and provides no insight or balance. In my own arguments on Toobin and Cintron I give two very clear points of valid criticism that does not rely on malice. Sorry for the delay, life calls. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your role as editor is neither to question the validity of opinions, nor to question the motivations of those holding these opinions, all you need to be concerned about is reporting,. without bias, the significant opinions published in reliable sources, in proportion to their prominence. You argumentation is simply outside of the remit of Wikipedia. That is WP:NPOV 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: I have to say that I largely agree with Cwobeel. You seem to be refuting the opinions of experts with your own analysis. That veers towards the territory of WP:NOR. If you wish to challenge these opinions you can either a) find other sources that contradict the opinions, b) show the sources are not considered reliable, or c) show these opinions are the minority viewpoint. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No. I sourced the parts that would be controversial. I presented the evidence and provided context. In the first case, I mean seriously - I can source that like nothing, do I need to point out how an accusation of bias and manipulation in a BLP is an issue? I do not think we are in dispute that criticism exists, but most of it is in gross disproportion to actual fact. I did apologize for the Godwin's law reference, but Adolf Hitler is far more NPOV than McCullough's page. Since we cannot possibly disagree that there is overwhelming bulk of negative sources on Hitler, why would McCullough's page be given such wide latitude when counter information exists.Here and here and here. The whole fact that the state law was not changed and this is a criminal not civil case means that on inspection, Wilson could have challenged any conviction because of the state law. The Garner ruling likely does not apply and the state law remains on the books, McCullough deserves criticism for having the grand jury ignore the state law and make said request before deliberations. I make a fuller argument on the page, but the criticism exists - the criticism is just not well-founded. A source of real criticism is ignored in favor of a far weaker complaint. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is a real problem. Not having these basics in place will mean that our discussions will not be productive. If you have an issue with content policies, best would be to bring these to the attention of the community, rather than argue against them in content disputes. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

but most of it is in gross disproportion to actual fact - To put it bluntly, though. We are not here to question what sources say, or if the preponderance of sources got something wrong. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

As for the St. Louis public radio articles, nothing is stopping you from adding relevant passages to the article. But deleting significant opinions is not an option. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

thank you

Just wanted to thank you for warning user Tarnhall. I have noticed on too many occasions that he's trying to jeopardise The Danse Society page at his own amusement, as he is clearly Gilmartin that left the band in January.

May I please suggest some more edits? I have noticed that on the official website of the band, which is reliable since 2011, more edits should be added but I would prefer not to do it myself to avoid confusion due to the repeated vandalism. Their website suggests that the lineup has currently Sam Bollands at Keyboards and Jack Cooper at the bass, while Paul Nash (founder), Maethelyiah (member since the reformation) and Iain Hunter remain in the lineup. Their website is still being updated on a weekly basis since 2011 and it's here Please have a look as the band are still in business and have now a new single out with a new album coming soon, which should be included on the Wiki page, but as I explained I would prefer not to edit myself and see what you think first.

Thank you JA Journalist astronomist (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ans van Dijk dangerous Nazi women in the Netherlands during world war 2

An English wikipedia page about Nazi women Ans van Dijk during the second world war 2. I do find it an interesting topic for people who wants to know who could be a Nazi women in the Netherlands or German empire. Second she has done high treason on innocent Jewish families, making counts from 700 to 1000 to Auswitzch. Innocent people who where caught by this Nazi women who lived in the Netherlands. I mean these are innocent people lifes who head to live so many years and still now, could this be an English wikipedia page about this women Ans van Dijk.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/12/on-traitors-and-victims-the-ans-van-dijk-story/

http://www.annefrank.org/en/Subsites/Annes-Amsterdam/Timeline/After-the-war/1946-1949/1947/Betrayer-Ans-van-Dijk-sentenced-to-death/#!/en/Subsites/Annes-Amsterdam/Timeline/After-the-war/1946-1949/1947/Betrayer-Ans-van-Dijk-sentenced-to-death/

https://books.google.nl/books?id=XnMAAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=ans+van+dijk+nazi+women&source=bl&ots=neG0KLLo1E&sig=qsUcgwxr_dSDZ5Wwy5jYTynDM74&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=Os2VVOqxK87easOYgbgO&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ans%20van%20dijk%20nazi%20women&f=false