User talk:NeilN

Ubi CANVASSing

I note that you agreed with my edit at Thomas Blake Glover -- Ubi then canvassed a slew of people (8 to be precise - telling each they were "involved" or might be "involved") for his AN/I complaint [1] that the edit was personal harassment of him which made precious little sense if any at all. You might note the posts at that closed thread - I have no idea where Ubi gets the idea that his "sources" meet WP:RS at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree raising the matter at ANI made no sense. At least it brought more scrutiny to the article and questioning of the sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding recent Energy Medicine Edits

Hello,

Thank you for your reply. This concerns edits made by 76.121.150.157 All but the one edit regarding reference[24](Jonas a& Crawford) are entering discussions with other editors (which I support you joining if you feel so moved). I am new to this interface--the many types of pages and protocols governing them-- so please be slightly more explicit in general than you would with more experienced users...

the edit regarding the History section of the Energy Medicine article describes a misused citation. The first sentence of the History section contains a reference to article [24](Jonas & Crawford) that is supposed to account for it. However, there can be no mistake that no such sentiment exists in this article, having read it twice myself. Therefore, please also uphold the removal of that reference from the support of that sentence. Or, at the risk of cynicism, perhaps there is some type of committee where this type of issue gets belabored...

Thank you for your consideration, Kmpentland (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Tropes vs woman.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tropes vs woman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Radha Madhav Dham

I am in charge of promotions at our Hindu Temple. Our temple is under the management of our Board of Directors. We are legally under a new name. You are inserting comments about an individual that have nothing to do with us. You are trying to damage and defame are Hindu Temple unfairly. We do not appreciate this. Please stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dktaylor2013 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Was that a bot message to me?

I added several sources in my edits to Peking University, from within Wiki articles for the most part. Did you really have to remove the entire section, or could you have marked some of it as needing more work? As it is, I only see your repeated reversions of cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriksq (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

False allegations and vandalism

I made an edit to Martin Narey's profile and you vandalised it without justifying your reasoning. You state my edit was 'poorly sourced' yet is was taken directly from the UK Parliament's website and based on his own words. You also removed large sections of the profile without and explanation whatsoever. How would I report you for vandalism as your actions where wholly unjustified. Please provide details for why you removed well-sourced and cited material for the page. I will add the section again and if you disagree with it then raise it in the talk section. Do not just remove and destroy pages without good reason. Be a good Wikipedian. Newuser2111 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied here (removed copyright violation and editor's "reference" did not match their soapbox text). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Martin Narey uses the term 'forced adoption' to describe the practice here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16157124. On page 77 of this document: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmeduc/137/137ii.pdf Narey calls for the increase of such adoptions by 50% or more. Is this satisfactorily sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newuser2111 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No. He answered this question, "It is clear that you lament the reduction in the number of adoptions and you have actually said it should be radically increased." The question did not refer to forced adoptions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And what's your source for "Martin Narey is a one of the mots staunchest and vocal defenders of the Forced adoption in the UK..."? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue of adoption raised in the document stems from the issue of forced adoption, it is clear from reading it in it's entirety that they are discussing forced adoption. I'm sure Narey would admit that he was one of the most staunchest and vocal defenders of the policy, in fact I am sure he is very proud of that fact. You removed the section for being 'poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content'. I have provided the source for the material and there is nothing defamatory about it. The issue of forced adoption is controversial but there is no controversy about Narey's support for the policy. Suggest a rework of the section rather than complete removal. Newuser2111 (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not clear and the fact that "you are sure" does not affect what gets put in the article. You can propose a rewording on the article's talk page (with sources) and others will comment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I propose the section is added as follows: 'Martin Narey is a staunch and vocal defender of the UK's policy of forced adoption and has suggested that he would like to see adoptions, particularly of new-born babies, increase by 50% or more. He is in favour of forced adoptions of children who have not suffered any kind of neglect or abuse.' This is fact and is cited in the source I provided. Newuser2111 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not, per above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There are ample sources that show that Narey is a staunch and vocal supporter of the policy. I can provide multiple citations to show this. The document I linked to clearly states that he would like to see adoptions increase by '50% or more'. What point do you disagree with now? It feels like nitpicking. Suggest a constructive alternative rather than dismissing any mention of his support for the policy. Newuser2111 (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Find sources that claim he is "a staunch and vocal supporter"
2. Reword to make it clear the 50% applies to adoptions, not forced adoptions.
3. Page in source for "He is in favour of forced adoptions of children who have not suffered any kind of neglect or abuse"?

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

1. The fact that he is a defender of the policy is self evident. I have provided more than enough citations to support this sentence.
2. It is clear from the wording that the 50% refers to adoptions and not forced adoptions.
3. Reference to "He is in favour of forced adoptions of children who have not suffered any kind of neglect or abuse" removed for now.

Newuser2111 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You have again maliciously edited the article despite ample sources being provided. You are promoting your own POV and have shown an unwillingness to reach a reasonable compromise on the matter. You will be reported. Newuser2111 (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Do note that as a WP:SPA your own edits will be scrutinized as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that NeilN is a repeat offender. He also maliciously edited the article on Julia Mulligan despite ample sources being provided simply becuase he did not like the facts presented. I see little point in reporting him. He is typical of the people running Wikipedia.

88.117.45.248 (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm sure my fellow Wikipedians will be happy to know we're succeeding in keeping people like you from turning articles into personal soapboxes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Pi Day

The source is no longer affiliated with the University of Florida and is now called The Independent Florida Alligator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent_Florida_Alligator The source has been independent since 1971.

If this source still does not suffice, I have found another source. http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120314/ARTICLES/120319769 Please let me know if I can reapply my edit. I am new to the Wiki editing process. Thank you! --Jveingrad (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

bikini - external links edit

Hi - I saw you made a couple recent and proper edits to the external links for the article bikini. I don't understand how it is that extremely experienced editors know how to go make small edits to lots of different articles, but it seems like that's what you did here - which is cool. I just wanted to know if you would be willing to spend a few mins on the bikini article assessing the image selection throughout the article and provide any feedback (even if it's just a short "imo it's fine as it is")? I haven't been able to rally any other editors around the article during the past several months but think that it would be good for there to be at least one person critiquing or applauding the image choice and layout. Anyway, thanks for your time. Azx2 08:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Arts Administration

Hi NeilN. I'm new. You reverted a post, i'm sure it was warranted but I'm not sure I understand why.

You recommended I use twinkle and included the link, however, after redirecting to the page and attempting to follow the directions (going to the gadgets section and enabling twinkle) twinkle wasn't availabel as an option. I'll give it another look but is there another work around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwgreer (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jonwgreer. It looks like you're pretty confused. Have you read your talk page here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes on all fronts. Doing some more reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwgreer (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

regarding removal of my articles

i am extremely disappointed as my edits were removed without prior notice. i agree that i should not give my inputs as as personal remarks. The matter on reliance infrastructure was fully trustable as i am very close to that company since tose facts are available on their website rinfra.com. Even my edits on reliance power was removed . Even Mr. Anil Ambani is a graduate from university of Pennsylvania. once again im very disappointed for this rude behavior. i'll deactivate my account if my queries are not solved immediately.

Aakash Singh

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

ok alright i am going to deactivate my account right now . good bye and thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakash Singh India (talk • contribs) 16:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden Infobox "disclosure" reversion

Reversion of my change … "whistleblowing" replaced with "disclosure" … is inappropriate. The Whistleblower Protection Act excludes members and organizations that are part of the intelligence community, and the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act specifies that report and disclosures must go to members of Congress, and members of Congress only. Accordingly, the actions involved are, at least from a legal standpoint,the use of the term "whistleblowing" is open to dispute on the basis of law, while the use of the word "disclosure" is not disputable on any factual or legal basis. I should think that the Infobox content, in particular, ought not contain information whose veracity is debatable. My change should be restored. ~~Bruce Wheelock ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucewh (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit summary, "whistleblowing" is a common English word and American laws or Congress do not get to decide the definition of the word on Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hovind picture

Please explain how [2] is a copyright violation? You are assuming that it is a copyright violation, when you have no proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feefeefee3 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to provide proof permission was given. Do you have any? If so, please see Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

my links had been removed,I'm HOBOBE

I specialize in helping English-speaking users to understand China local information, and there is China National Tourism Administration of the information support, I have collected information about China network blind spots, only Chinese local talent to know the information in hobobe.com to synchronize to the exception of China users, such as: the latest route, schedule, price lists, etc. I hope that through wikipedia show to more people, I do not know why they had been removed, please give me a reasonable explanation, or provide standardized criteria, I will be based standards established information index. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panguozhang (talk • contribs) 02:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Panguozhang. Links at the bottom of articles are supposed to go to websites with encyclopedic information about the topic, not travel information. If you wish, you can bring up the matter at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Help with Vandal

Help! What can a relatively new editor do when a longtime editor with a clear bias keeps stripping a page of all content? I've directed the editor user:quac to Wikipedia's BLP policies, which read, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." User:Quac's actions are clearly illegitimate blanking.

First of all, you've be warned a number of times not to call Quac a vandal. Continuing to do so will probably result in a block. Second, it's not just them. Collect, who is a very experienced editor, has been taking out excessive detail. If you feel that the material removed is important to the biography, discuss it on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope that wikipedia will allow me to continue to allow me gather more information on the topics.

I am currently working on having more information for the current topics , so that it can be more informative, with real facts on top of travel services. The examples I mentioned are not exhaustive, currently, I am able to provide the history of the current topics, information about the current situation and other graphic information. It is more than just travel information. I hope that wikipedia will allow me to continue to allow me gather more information on the topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panguozhang (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My user page

Just wanted to say thank you Neil SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully the IP read the warnings before deleting them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Obama article

I've been watching these discussions for years now, and there's some pretty deliberate intransigence about the sources in this article. If someone challenges the "Orator" sources, then it's discarded instantly: "How can you question anyone on the paycheck of high-profile publishers?"

But if someone presents some other position proffered by a mainstream academic, then WP:RS is followed to the T: "what makes this source reliable?" Well, of course, there's never an answer, really. If we really want to ask on every single politician's article why the Huffington Post or the Toronto Whatever meets WP:RS, we'd have to re-evaluate the policy—because as the policy's written, they're not. But these discussions are always closed because they're fringe and disruptive, etc.

Nobody wants to have the obvious conversation when it's so easy to declare everything out of procedure and insincere.

Just taking a step back, the sniff test clearly puts Noam fucking Chomsky above any trivial Canadian journalism major when it comes to subjective judgments of state leadership. I'd be happy to take it all out or throw it all in, but the double standard is just silly. —Designate (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

tina ambani

As per box-offcei india.com only 2 hits Tina has with rishi kapoor - karz in 1980 and katilon ka kathil in 1981 and rest 4 movies were disasters and so not mentioned even in the site in top 10 or 20 list in respective years.Lionbase1234 (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to add a source a stating that only two of her films were box office successes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Just see now I have provided.

Now you see.Lionbase1234 (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The source isn't great, as it only lists the top 25 films. I think you need something that actually says, "only two of her films were box office successes". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

talk page stalker Yes, NeilN is right. Making the inference that a film that is not on the list is not a box office success is original research at best and speculation at worst. --bonadea contributions talk 13:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Which source told you that Aap Ke Deewane or Yeh Wada Raha were successful? Why is there a need to mention the names of film Yeh Wada Raha. The films Karz and Khatilol Ka Katil deserved to find a mention only because they were successful moreover NeilN earlier you had told me in my talk page to show whether these 2 filsm Karz and Katilol Ka Katil were successful - so I have showed that.

Still I have gone ahead and found out refs to prove Aap Ke Deewane was flop - http://www.insidestorymedia.com/life-history-of-bollywood-actor-hrithik-roshan/

and the google book proves http://books.google.co.in/books?id=l3heZ8I-k9AC&pg=PT276&lpg=PT276&dq=Yeh+Vaada+Raha+(1982),+based+on+Danielle+Steel's+novel+The+Promise,+directed+by+Kapil+Kapoor,+wascritically+appreciated+but+commerciallya+flop&source=bl&ots=-7NOEEJ79y&sig=j0lBSEptjXpZxpKfoyEFYceWHYA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MQ7RUbCKJsSH4gSal4HoDg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA says Yeh Vaada Raha (1982), based on Danielle Steel's novel The Promise, directed by Kapil Kapoor, was critically appreciated but commercially a flop.

Another reference http://www.boxofficeindia.com/cpages.php?pageName=top_actors and an interview - http://www.mid-day.com/entertainment/2013/jun/070613-from-action-to-production.htm says Deedar E yaar was a disaster. I have proved my point - that the other 4 were flops.Lionbase1234 (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you copy this to Talk:Tina Ambani so other editors can comment. I'm not really interested in the details. All I care about is that "...in six films of which only 2 were commercially successful" is properly sourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I did what you asked me to but some other user named bonadea is reverting it and did not respond to the same questions which i asked you. You at-least gave me reply but that user just reverted without any discussion. also observed today another user Hijnaas has incorporated same details in wikiedia article of rajesh khanna and mentioned reasons for why khanna refused to marry tina and how Tina was fan of rajehs since her childhood. but bonadea has reverted even that in article page on rajesh khanna. http://www.bollywoodmantra.com/news/the-unheard-and-untold-tale-of-rajesh-dimple/9374/ - this link has been used to show the reason as to why Khanna refused to marry Tina.Lionbase1234 (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The best way to engage Bonadea is through the article's talk page. That way, all interested editors can see the discussion and chime in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ya I have done that.Lionbase1234 (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Manny Pacquiao edit

It's not really undoing "someone else's work" when your the one that put it there to begin with. What I put wasn't entirely accurate. So if someone tries to put it back I'm gonna revert it --2Nyce 23:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

edit on Rachel

I left no description because I was using the beta editing feature on my phone's browser. The edit was for the lack of NPOV in the description of the two descriptions of Mashiach (son of Joseph and son of David), which were thoroughly influenced by Rabbinic Judaism. Even the Wiki for the Mashiach himself describes him in a more comprehensive way than is presented in the Rachel article. I am biased as a Christian, yes, but that is precisely how I knew the description on the Rachel article was not NPOV. I deleted enough to make the reader have to click through to the Mashiach article itself (with the differing perspectives found therein) to decide if Mashiach ben Joseph and Mashiach ben David are two different figures and if they are future figures or ones who already came. natemup (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Bot Roast

No idea how to find a reliable source for court rulings, but this blog from 2008 says he was sentenced to imprisonment for the crime. --Onorem (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We still have to consider WP:BLPNAME though. If the guy isn't well known, and is only mentioned in conjunction with this case, should we still have his name appear? I'm fifty-fifty on this one and won't protest if someone adds it back in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Anil Ambani

Why are u changing the updated profile of Anil Ambani....These updates have been made by his office...

Because your edits are unsourced, full of peacock terms, and have way too much detail about Reliance Group. Since you have a conflict of interest you should not be editing the article at all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The profile has been updated by the team of Mr Ambani and i therefore see no reason of any conflict of interest. The source has been addded for your info. Pl get in touch with us if you still have concerns or give us your mailid so that we can write to you.

Then I suggest you read WP:COI again. I believe your changes will be removed soon enough. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am new to this. pl help me with the norms and ways to get this resolved. guidance would be helpful

First, stop undoing everyone's reversions immediately. It's going to get you blocked. Second, use Talk:Anil Ambani to discuss what you want changed and why. Tip: stop inserting stuff about Reliance. It does not belong in a biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for your wonderful work in assisting new user Sgatet! Hope you enjoy these strawberries! Regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! It's been interesting... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Dimitri Papadimos

I would like to thank you publicly for being the only person that actually helped me in sorting out the problem with the footnotes...you are the only person who by actually edited the page yourself and explained to a "beginner" how to go about editing the article...I have re-submitted the article and I hope the problem is now solved and it will be published...again if there is something that I ommitted I hope you or the next person will not only point it out but supply me with "hints" of how to go about sorting the matter...again many tks Yani papadimos (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Northfield School Edit

Hey NeilN, sadly, there is no sources available, it was a close in-school fact. If it can't be placed for that simple reason, no worries!

Pad Thai

Hi NeilN, Sorry about that. I'll not make that mistake again. scope_creep (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleting references and Note detail

Why did you delete my references on Miranda Cosgrove? What is your point in doing that? What's wrong with the Note added with the references? Who are you anyway? Katydidit (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Because it was purely trivial. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Tami Erin lives in Walnut Creek, California

Checkingfax (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I know, but adding that bit of trivia is not worth it if you have to reference her arrest. See Wikipedia:BLPN#Tami_Erin for more info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are nothing but trivia stitched together to make cohesive encyclopedic articles. You need to chill. LOL Checkingfax (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

And it seems you're trying to get around our guidelines. [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

See BLPCRIM. Do you consider Pippi Longstocking to be relatively unknown? Checkingfax (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

See the reliable sources policy. TMZ is a tabloid scandal sheet, explicitly not a reliable source acceptable for contentious claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to read the Biographies of Living Persons policy. An anonymous blog article sourced directly to a sensationalistic tabloid Web site is two, two, two unreliable sources in one. Such is unacceptable on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Duarte

The page should still go because she's not even the focus of that article. It's just a passing mention. However, I don't want to piss off a fucking "improve your web presence" group any more than I may have already done. Should we send it to AFD? I've already done the same for two of her co-stars whose pages have also been produced by another company.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have a neutral position on the page that I am working on however you are basing the novels written by the author and denying the information to be placed on the page to be based on self published without knowing the facts. There are thousands of self published authors on Wikipedia and can be referenced to you and to the Wiki authorities for same. This is a biased reason for removing anything around the novels written and published on behalf of Mrs. Martin Duarte. I also consider this revision vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fact reporter1 (talk • contribs)

No. You do not have a neutral position. You have told me you work for Mrs. Martin Duarte and Ms. Martin Duarte. Authors who have paid to have their books published means the book has been self-published. And stating that "there are thousands of self-published authors on Wikipedia" cannot be proven, and if so then they are not worthy of coverage either. Fact reporter1, please do not contribute to Wikipedia in areas in which you have a vested interest.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The specific quote was: Yes I work for the individuals in order to create blogs, web pages and wiki page upkeep. They are television celebrities and have hired my group to oversee all. [4]. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

How is this different from what Ryulong said? As for the books - articles are not here to promote subjects' vanity projects. Are there any published reviews in newspapers, magazines, etc.? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)