User talk:NeilN

Telangana

Article telengana is affected by Vandalism. some editors are aggressively trying to insert non nuetral arguments into it. Plz ensure page protection for the article. Sorry if I used the word incorrectly in any situations.Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rameshnta909. TheRedPenOfDoom, who is a very experienced editor, disagrees with your assessment. Please use Talk:Telangana to discuss why you feel content should be removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree with the opinion of TheRedPenOfDoom on this particular edit but there are lot of instances of vandalism in the page like blanking of page and aggressively inserting non nuetral arguments. plz ensure page protection for the article.Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rameshnta909 - I'm not an admin so I can't protect an article. Please make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rameshnta909: I have fully laid out my rationale at Talk:Telangana#Tehelka_as_a_source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Page protection tag

Sorry i added page protection tag in the article telangana by mistake. Thank u 4 reverting.Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I am wondering

just what "situation resolved" (or something) at the Talk:Toll Brothers page means? I believe that I was the first editor to stumble onto the "threat" and I am curious as to what finally happened. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carptrash. The IP and his socks were blocked either indefinitely or for a year. There's nothing further for editors to discuss or speculate on. WMF Legal was given a heads up but I doubt they'll hear anything further given the specious nature of the threat. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Just curious. thanks for getting back to me. Carptrash (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Potential superpower

I suspect that the IP at Potential superpowers is none other than this guy. He was temporarily blocked for his unconstructive edits, POV pushing, personal attacks and harassment. The administrator who blocked him made the observation that hes using proxies (thus the reason why he edits under many different IP addresses). If he continues his behavior on Potential superpowers ill report him. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I placed a talk discussion to further talk on this matter on Potential Superpowers. I reverted back because there was no discussion on January 1st[1]. Since there was no discussion on these edits, I reverted back simply because

I felt there no proof on the article was done in good faith as good sources were removed with using talk.--185.35.164.107 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I see participation on the talk page by both Antiochus and Arnoutf on January 1st. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That was only population, that wasn't on other matters. Sources were removed without talk{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Potential_superpowers&action=history] So I ask we talk about those matters. I placed a discussions on talk, you see what I added there.--185.35.164.107 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Three editors have reverted you and you've been reported for WP:3RR. You need to stop reverting and discuss as this is not just you and Antiochus reverting each other. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I edit the airsoft page?

can I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:22FF:3EF0:0:0:0:3B (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I recommend reading at least Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines before you get started. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Ok.

Rahul Gandhi Revert

I changed the Gandhi starting to Rahul Gandhi. Because in that article lot of references to Rajiv Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Nehru-Gandhi Family etc.. This will confuse with Rahul Gandhi by simply saying (Gandhi). Also in India if you say Gandhi then it normaly refer to the Mahatma Gandhi, Father of the Nation. If you go for a google search just "gandhi" then you will get the pages of Mahatma Gandhi. Ok this article is about Rahul Gandhi but I think it is better to use Rahul Gandhi insted of just Gandhi. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ranjithsiji, the references to the other Gandhis are very minimal. In fact, I took a second look at the article just now and found there are already way too many instances of "Rahul Gandhi" right now. I will be shortening most of them per our other articles like George W. Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Superpower article

Hello, I opened an RfC at the talk page of the superpower article. A particular IP has been making some rather unconstructive edits (pushing POV material and undoing mine and others edits). I would appreciate it if you could join the discussion with a brief comment expressing your opinion, or something like that. Thank you. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Contact

Hello there,

I need your help... is there anyway I can get in direct contact with you in private? such as email?

Thanks.

@WebsiteTalent If you click here, you'll be taken to a form where you can send me an email. Please read the notes carefully. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you, I have messaged you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebsiteTalent (talk • contribs) 00:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Replied. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

...Yess....vhat did you think?...--98.16.129.220 (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Not much. Please contribute more constructively. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --2602:304:B0FD:BF10:DC61:8E1E:22A1:B638 (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Very funny. Try reading WP:BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision

If under attack attack meant that your opponent has a move to that square, then a king would be allowed to threaten the other king if it was protected because the square the king moved to wouldn't be under attack because the other player couldn't put their king in chack to capture your king and I know that that's not allowed in chess. I sometimes attempted to move my king right beside the other king in Chess Titans when my king would have been protected and Chess Titans said that square was under attack so I know what under attack means. It might have been better to wait for somebody to modify what I added in to have it state what I was trying to say more clearly. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Blackbombchu, That, along with "A square is under attack when by a player when that player would have a move to that square, even if it weren't for the restriction that they can't put their king in check." is completely unclear and I play chess. The current wording leading off the Check section is accurate and concise. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

reference links not intended to be spam. suggestions?

hi, im new to this, im attempting to present factoids of songs written about people on their wikipedia articles. however, the best references I found were links to the amazon pages for said songs. any suggestions for alternate links I can use as reference to avoid deletion for "spam", which is not my intention ..would magazine reviews of those records suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozfanboy (talk • contribs) 05:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

please do not black list me

i added a whole lot of stuff with similar links before i realized i had messages, alright? im not spamming, just did not realize those links wouldnt work as references. I will have to do better research for references. I am sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozfanboy (talk • contribs) 05:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

sorry!

I'm a newbie at this. Thanks for letting me know. Was not trying to spam or shill. Just being overly OCD thorough. I see your point now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozfanboy (talk • contribs) 05:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we're good. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

putin

tataral inserted that "mafia state" nonsense/false information again, can you please do something about that Kalix94 (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kalix94, while I am somewhat sympathetic, your edits, edit summaries, and potential sockpuppetry have me unwilling to do more than I have already done - a couple of attempts at removal and pointing out on the talk page that the sentence was to be removed as per the RFC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Soviet union

why did you revert my version, it was according to Template:Infobox_former_country/doc Kalix94 (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kalix94, Because there is an ongoing RFC discussing it. Wait for the outcome. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

so you mean we shall just ignore wikipedia policy? no you cannot do that Kalix94 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kalix94, What policy are you referring to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

this: Template:Infobox_former_country/doc#Preceding_and_succeeding_entities Kalix94 (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kalix94, That's not Wikipedia policy, that's template documentation. About as different as an elephant and a mouse. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Instant reversion of my intro change to "Unidentified Flying Objects"

The intro as it stands now is historically inaccurate and highly POV. Different governmental and private studies have indeed come to widely differing conclusions about the significance of UFOs (including the USAF, which has produced both), whereas the current intro states that the conclusions are all negative. That is simply FALSE (in caps, because it is without question factually inaccurate).

I linked to the list of various studies in the Wiki Ufology section as a reference, because that would demonstrate the point (studies both positive and negative), provide further links for further reading, and simplify the intro by removing a list of links to various studies within the intro itself.

I don't understand the rationale for removing this (self-referential Wiki link), since the rest of the article and all of Wikipedia is full of cross-referencing Wiki links. In fact, the intro you reverted to uses three self-referential Wiki links, but only to negative UFO studies. Would you prefer a list of studies, positive and negative, within the intro, all with links outside of Wikipedia?

The key point, however, is that the intro as written is currently factually incorrect.50.0.95.136 (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please log in with your account and use Talk:Unidentified flying object to discuss. Also, please see the sourced Unidentified_flying_object#Scientific_studies section. Finally, you are factually inaccurate (do I need caps?) in saying the "intro states that the conclusions are all negative." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Davis

I now know that you made a comment on the talk page, but I can't see it. There must be something wrong with my cache.--NK (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed it - it was a unclosed tag from a previous post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Davis (2)

Her page is being edited by political enemies to distribute lies about her personal life. I've tried to edit the page to remove them but I was told I didn't leave an explanation. What can be done to stop the personal attacks on her life on her page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoolsbelly (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is User NazariyKaminski telling blatant lies about Wendy Davis on her page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoolsbelly (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Schoolsbelly I've been checking over the content and have not come across any falsehoods. What are you referring to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

How about the article they keep referring to is full of blatant lies http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20140118-as-wendy-davis-touts-life-story-in-race-for-governor-key-facts-blurred.ece

How about if I just donate to Wikipedia and you keep user NazariyKaminski from editing her page. He's works for the GOP in Texas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoolsbelly (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Schoolsbelly You're just going to get yourself blocked if you keep editing as you have. Wikipedia treats the Dallas News as a reliable source. If there are errors in the article, you need to provide other reliable sources that point them out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Davis (3)

You removed a legitimate CNN reference by A Killough And you removed "under oath". I can see you removing "under oath" but the reference to her being supported by her husband etc, which is still in the article was in the CNN article. That is why it was cited. You should not have removed the citation.

I will add the Federal court transcription record as a link showing her taking an oath and showing her stating that she received no money from her husband.

The citation to CNN and the Washington Post are reliable sourcesa nd are ubiquitous in the media.

The citation you removed will be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/4am.pdf These are the records of her testimony. These are court documents.

I will add to article as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your reversion of Undo is wrong. The phrase "did not want custody" did not appear in the edit by NazariyKaminski 17:14 jan21, 2014. If you would simply read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Then make your case on the talk page why your version is better instead of falsely calling something as vandalism. Wikipedia has a strict definition of vandalism is and what it isn't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Great job liberal denialist spinbot. You do not like, so you edit out obvious encyclopedia content, presented by neutral sources are you 12yo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing deters users greater than endless spin from agenda ridden editors and their gangs. Not performing any service for anyone by attempting to revise history.

I complete agree, but alas, we still try to guide you into becoming constructive editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For numerous reversions of vandalism, especially over the last few days. Green Giant (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Green Giant. I really appreciate that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Review Management page

Hello! I received your message that you removed my citations on the Review Management page because you were concerned they were promoting a business - this was not my intent. The article is listing services that review managing companies offer - my company offers several services that are typical to online review managing so I was trying to show that was the case. I totally understand that it does lead to my business site though, so if you need to remove it, I understand that as well. Thank you for your consideration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impressionsrm (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Princess Daisy in Super Smash Bros 4

Is Princess Daisy going to be on Super Smash Bros 4 for the Nintendo Wii U? 173.59.11.76 (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know. Don't really care. If you do, that's great but you need some reliable sources stating that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Invicta

Hello,

I read you post about reverting the Invicta article. Unless one looks at two links posted from a known watch forum and a blog owned by a respected member of the watch and clock association, almost every thing related to Invicta is put out there by the current ownership which has been caught in many,many lies. I have seen something similar with Doxa watches. A brand which went out of business and then was re-invented by the new owners. I know someone who posted on the largest watch forum in the world, owned by a magazine in fact who exposed Jacques Coustea as a man who forsook his country during WWII. He posted the information because a watch company was touting the relationship. That person was banned for telling the truth.

Wiki has become almost a advertising site from business rather than an objective site.

Granny lalo (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Granny lalo. As you noted, I reverted to a much, much less commercial version of the article. Is there particular text still troubling you? Or do you have reliable sources we can use to add new information to the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

-) Deb (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Breast article

Neil, can I get your temporary or long-term help watching the Breast article? I just reverted a mostly odd edit there. And that editor is likely to revert and/or object on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted. I'll probably ask on the talk page for the editor to explain if they revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And notice that the source about orgasm from nipple stimulation only claims that some women can orgasm that way (the orgasms are still genital orgasms, regardless); it mentions that a few men have similar response with regard to how the brain reacts to breast stimulation, but it doesn't state that those men achieved an orgasm from such stimulation.

Anyway, thanks again. And on a side note, I was going to state that, if you're interested, there is a move discussion at the newly titled People (American magazine) article. But now I see that the article has been moved back to its current title (moved back minutes ago). Not sure how you feel on the subject, but I felt that you might be interested in that discussion, given our past involvement in "People magazine as a source" discussions. If a new discussion about that mater starts, I might ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines (though it's generally inactive) and the people at Wikipedia:Disambiguation to weigh in on it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Dispute Ayurveda

Why are you ignoring the clinical research that I have presented? I am presenting facts. You have no right to ignore facts and distort the truth for the sake of for-profit corporate interest groups who make a big income by NOT curing cancer. I am going to provide you with the clinical research that I suggest you take a look at before you sensor the truth. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304383595038873

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-46401-5_21#page-1
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/10/20/6847.short

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/7/7/1894.short http://repository.ias.ac.in/5196/ I have much more, and I suggest you review these clinical research articles before you are so hasty as to censor the truth. You can't argue with science. You seem to be more interested in propaganda than facts, so I am going to research what actions I can take against your refusal to allow my first ammendment rights to be infringed upon. It is one thing to censor false information. It is quite another to censor facts that are backed up by science. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased,therefore, I took out information that was not based on facts, and I added information that was based on facts. I did not remove all information that represented the corporate biased allopathic view, only the information that was not fact-based. I allowed for the corporate allopathic view to express their opinions, as well, but countered it with the facts of scientific research. I intend to dispute your actions with all of my time and power. People like you are why misinformation runs so rampant in the world. I hope you can sleep at night knowing that millions of people are dying from a disease that allopathy has no cure for, thanks entirely to your closed-minded, corporate sponsored, unscientific censorship of the the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.245.114 (talk)

You need to understand the studies you're citing. They do not study if curcumin has the potential to cure cancer. They studied if a regular dosage resulted in any "discernible toxicities". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

please published the proof about telexfree is working with ponzi scheme to talk about it

please published the proof about telexfree is working with ponzi scheme to talk about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Segago (talk • contribs) 03:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Segago, I replied to your post on the article talk page and listed four sources the article uses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Saraiki Language

It is conform that Saraiki is a language. Also Jhangvi dialect is dialect of Saraiki. Riasti dialect, Shah puri dialect,Multani dialect, Multani language, Thalochi dialect, Thalochi ,Derawali dialect are same. I suggest merging these articles , as the all these are same. And also be Redirected to Saraiki language.

Extended content

Kindly See these External Links http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=skr http://globalrecordings.net/en/language/16338 http://votebits.com/sweet-and-interesting-languages-of-pakistan/ http://www.ankarascene.com/haber/pakistan-823.html http://thepolyglotexperience.blogspot.com/2011/01/pakistan-language-map.html http://languagemaps.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/languages-of-pakistan/ http://mazhar.dk/pakistan/ http://www.dostpakistan.pk/geography/languages/ http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Ethnic_groups_in_Pakistan http://siraiki.blogspot.com/2013/12/languages-of-punjab.html Department of Saraiki, Islamia University, Bahawalpur was established in 1989 and Department of Saraiki, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan was established in 2006. Saraiki is taught as subject in schools and colleges at higher secondary, intermediate and degree level. Allama Iqbal open university Islamabad, and Al-Khair university Bhimbir have their Pakistani Linguistics Departments. They are offering M.Phil. and Ph.D in Saraiki. Five T V channels and Ten Radio Stations are Serving Saraiki language Twenty distracts in punjab, Pakistan and two distracts from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan are saraiki speaking area. Bahawalnagar Bahawalpur Bhakkar Chiniot Dera Ghazi Khan Dera Ismail Khan Jhang Khanewal Khushab Layyah Lodhran Mianwali Multan Muzaffargarh Pakpattan Rahim Yar Khan Rajanpur Sahiwal Sargodha Tank Toba Tek Singh Vehari Frontier Region Tank Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan These distracts are also Saraiki Chakwal Hafizabad Mandi Bahauddin Okara Fazilka Sri Ganganagar Saraiki is spoken in India, United Arab Emirates and Afghanistan also. Saraiki is second largest language in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with more than 2.5M. In United Kingdom. Saraiki is spoken by 400,000. In Canada, China, South Africa and United States saraiki is also spoken.

182.186.111.216 (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

So far you and your past IP's have mostly added links to blogs and tumblr pages. These are not reliable sources. Find academic papers or newspaper articles that specifically back up your changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You may check the reference as given above, and do the request to write Saraiki as languge.182.186.111.216 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I decline to become your meatpuppet. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhural/Archive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am also Sorry, on What you are writing. You must do the same as I am requesting. Because I am giving correct information. my account is not that you are understanding. I am other person, mind it.182.186.111.216 (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You can make your arguments on Talk:Saraiki dialect as has been done before. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have done the same but in vain. you may see,182.186.111.216 (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:DR, specifically WP:CONTENTDISPUTE for steps you can follow. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Silesian German

I reverted only one, two editions is bold (see Wikipedia:BOLD), . Kwamikagami make 2 clear reverts. Please, rebuke him. Franek K. (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Franek K., WP:BOLD is is no way a free pass to edit war. Whatever gave you the impression it was? These are the only exceptions: WP:3RRNO. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Bieber

Hi NeilN. You said on Talk:Justin Bieber#Legal troubles section that you have "no objection" to trimming of the removed section to three or four points. I have posted a new trimmed section in purple near the end. It is five sentences, compared to the previous sixteen or so. The first of the five sentences is the topic sentence, half of which is already in the article already. I would like your further comments on it. Thanks. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: What's wrong with the current paragraph? It adds the Canadian charge. I do think the Style, image and fans section should be updated though, with sources like [2]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not that there's something inherently wrong from the content in the current paragraph, but I believe something is missing. Which is why I am proposing some elaboration of his troubles before his first arrest, which were profiled in many reliable sources when his first arrest was reported. This demonstrates long-term notability. I am not trying to change the content currently in the article, but I am trying to add more information. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 01:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your comment, I see your point. The content on his image change (I do have more source for that, and can use your source also) can go to the Image section, but the actual previous incidents I am proposing should go to the Personal section. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 01:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, I'd just like to say that I added your provided source to the article to the Image section (with content from that source). That part has since been reverted / removed by Collect. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! Caden cool 23:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi page

Thanks for the condescending comments on my talk page.

Please read the second to last paragraph on the NY Times article. The quote I provided was directly lifted from there.

Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.184.132 (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. You need to read the sources you're providing a lot better. [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Just to let you know that no good contributions to the wiki ever goes unnoticed. In which case, I will present you with this barnstar! I found it lying in my attic, no clue how it got there. Well, since I look bad giving myself a barnstar, here it is. K6ka (talk | contribs) 04:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Hi, I am Anil and I want to know that those Ayurvedic books was not promotional, and you should read the Wikipedia guidelines It says "If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, " . If you want to verify you can sure check the website and download those books and read them, then take any action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Anil Singh Pokhriyal, the "fact" you were referencing by adding a link to a book was that the author wrote what looks like to be a self-published book. Wikipedia is not the place to promote such things. The only way the book would merit a mention in the article is if it is widely considered an influential and historically important work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

First you should read about the author in Wikipedia and then see there he was died 4 years ago how can he promote his own books he didn't even copyrighted the books he dedicated his whole life for human kind he was very well known social activist in India and you are saying it was not influential and historical. Please read about the author Rajiv Dixit and please don't make this place hard

Anil Singh Pokhriyal, you are advertising his books. And please read what I wrote carefully. The book must be widely considered an influential and historically important work. The author's bio doesn't even mention any work in Ayurveda, besides noting he wrote a book. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia welcome page says "If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, or suggest them on the article's discussion page." If you want to verify you can go to website and check books. How can you edit a page like ayurveda when you don't know anything about it or hindi language. Please after verifying the books undo my editing yourself.Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Anil Singh Pokhriyal, you're still not reading what I wrote. Here it is in a different way: We do not add text about non-notable books to articles. We're not interested in advertising "facts" about such works. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

But everyone who reads article about Ayurveda wants to explore more on this topic and want to read a book which is not written by some hobo the author was expert in his field he even cured a person effected with radiation which is not possible any other place. What else you want and next time please mention me to the line where its written in Wikipedia guideline that a reference should be world famous.Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Anil Singh Pokhriyal, you have provide no sources indicating the author was regarded as an expert in the field. You have provided no sources showing the book is notable (Wikipedia:Notability (books)). And you are not using the book as a reference. You are essentially saying, "hey, this book is important enough in its field to have a specific mention in the article" without providing any proof that it is considered significant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok you want a proof I will give you. Read about Ramdev and then see the video of Rajiv Dixit giving lecture with Ramdev on health topics. See youtube video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY67VAMZqeE. This time if you won't revert it I will assume you are being racist because all the lectures and books are in Hindi language.Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Anil Singh Pokhriyal: Doesn't even come close to establishing that the book is influential or historically significant. See WP:SYNTH for starters. And I would keep your assumptions to yourself - WP:NPA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Tell me your email Id and how many emails you count as significant, a million would be enough or moreAnil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Go to google keywords research tool and enter Rajiv Dixit there and see Rajiv Dixit has more 50,000 searches per month and Ayurveda has 160,000 per month.Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Anil Singh Pokhriyal, doesn't matter. We rely on published reliable sources that state if a work is significant in the field (in this case, probably academic sources), not email and google search counts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Answer These Questions:

Do you have knowledge of Ayurveda? Can you read Hindi? Do you know anyone in India?

If none of them is yes, then how can you verify that he is a notable person or not. I have given you video link where he is giving speech but you can't understand because its in Hindi. First find someone who know Hindi than research on that person and don't throw random links at me. Read 1st, 3rd, and 5th point of (Wikipedia:Notability (books)). And this time if you won't revert my changes, tell me how can I report to the Wikipedia support that you are trying to harassing without even having the knowledge of the topic.Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Anil Singh Pokhriyal - Answers: No (besides what is in the article), no, and yes. And per WP:BURDEN, it's up to you to provide references explicitly stating the book is significant enough to mention in the article. If you want to escalate this content dispute, see WP:DR. If you want to report my behavior, see WP:ANI. I think you'll be disappointed in the responses you'll get in both places, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For listing Valentine's Day at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The "best friend" material added to various WP:BLPs

Did you see the dispute going on with regard to Pass a Method, StAnselm and Sportfan5000 across various celebrity articles, such as here and here at the Brad Pitt article? Quite trivial information. I would have already reverted Sportfan5000 at the Brad Pitt article, but I was busy with other matters and was waiting to see if anyone else would revert. Still waiting. Sportfan5000 was reverted at other articles on this "best friends" material, such as here at the Jennifer Aniston article by Lady Lotus and here at the Justin Timberlake article by XXSNUGGUMSXX. We certainly don't need a "best friends" precedent set for WP:BLP articles. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: anyone else smell sock puppets? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What the hell? Are we going to add, "Her favorite color is purple and her favorite food is pizza" next? All reverted. This is an encyclopedia, not Stars Weekly. The only reason why that kind of relationship would merit a mention is if sources wrote about what kind of notable impact it had on the subject's life. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. An example of actually notable friendships I can think of that had impact on career and such would be Matt Stone and Trey Parker since they frequently work together on projects (notably South Park). StAnselm also reverted the addition of Rihanna being the best friend of Katy Perry. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There is still Courteney Cox and George Clooney to go, and then I think we've cleaned it all up. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Lady Lotus, Sportfan5000's editing style is completely different than Pass a Method's editing style...generally anyway. Sure, if you look at Sportfan5000's earliest Wikipedia contribution, it's clear that Sportfan5000 was not completely new editing Wikipedia, but that's likely unrelated. For example, Pass a Method generally never types as much as Sportfan5000 did in that first contribution. And I'm comparing those two because StAnselm was the one trying to remove the "best friends" material.

Exactly, Neil. Thanks for reverting the rest. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Sportfan5000 actually provided references, dubious though they might be. Pass a Method added them all in with no sourcing whatsoever, and then seemed outraged that I reverted him. StAnselm (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok those two are gone (did 11 by my count). To be clear, I have no issues with editors re-adding the material in an encyclopedic context. Say, for example, how the friendship of Cox and Aniston has affected their careers or made an impact on their personal (and notable) views. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be fair to mention "with friend ______" if involved in an organization or project of some sort, but to say "is best friends with ______" is rather unnecessary except for friendships like the one between Matt Stone and Trey Parker. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This kind of stuff is also used by publicists so watch out for that. Adding {name of famous celebrity) is best friends with (name of less famous celebrity) in the former's article to drive traffic to the latter's article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I could make an exception for Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, but it'd need to be covered well...like Neil and XXSNUGGUMSXX stated. Not like this piece, which Gareth Griffith-Jones reverted. But then again, the Damon and Affleck connection is covered well enough in their articles. Also, if we were to cover such relationships in WP:BLP articles, and in an encyclopedic way, then do we duplicate that exact material in both articles? Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so as the effects of the friendship would likely not be the same on both parties. Hypothetical: Celeb A credits best friend Celeb B with getting him sober after a long stint of alcoholism. That would appear in A's article but not necessarily in B's. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No I wasn't saying StAnselm was a sock, it just seems convenient that Pass a Method and Sportfan5000 are backing up this kind of edit so hard. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

We knew that, Lady Lotus- no worries XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that for sure; wasn't sure if Lady Lotus was aware that StAnselm was doing the opposite. So that's why I stated above, "And I'm comparing those two because StAnselm was the one trying to remove the 'best friends' material." And then Lady Lotus responded to that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Out of interest, Sportfan5000 has called my reversions "disruptive". StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

StAnselm When I revert something like that, an edit summary of "unsourced trivia" covers both bases :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment; the way i'm reading some responses is that the only thing that is notable about BLP's personal lives should be a) their spousal relationships b) their religion and c) any family members they may have. I mean i know a lot of people who attach more importance to their friends over their family members so why shouldn't wikipedia reflect real life? Pass a Method talk 04:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • And I know people who love their pets more than their family members. The fact remains we need reliable sources covering how important the relationship is and its impact. Marriage/kids have implied importance and are standard biographical details. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Did the friend(s) play a significant part in the person's career and/or personal life (i.e. crediting friend for helping recover from alcoholism, depression, drugs, etc.)? If not, then the friendship is trivial. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Italy is a great power

Data and even articles talk for her.Can i add them in the Talk of Italy?I want to see your good feith.Gemina4772 (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

So let's start even the better place should be great power talk page.THE PAGE IS STILL BLOCKED.Gemina4772 (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Gemina4772 You need to wait until you are autoconfirmed (user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is this british supercazzola?Gemina4772 (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Gemina4772 Wait, Talk:Great power is not protected. What are you talking about? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Italy is a great power as the other guy says.It's common believed in Italy and in the world this thinking.Italy overtakes in many aspects,UK,Russia and Germany.Data talk .There are also the citations (that are really ridiculous as support for an article).Suipercazzola = non sense burocracy thing .Gemina4772 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've no time to lose. ByeGemina4772 (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Gemina4772, Sigh. For the last time, we don't care about what your synthesis. We care about what reliable sources say. If you cannot provide any, there's no point continuing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've tons them.You seem Italophobic.You enter when is morning in America.I'm not the same guy that wrote in the Talk of Italy.New people will arrive on Wikipedia english.This is just the beginning.You wanted the war against Italy,you got it.You didn't respect italian page.Italian institutions as i read were warned about Italy article situation.Gemina4772 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop posting here Mediolanum. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm Lorenzo.))))Gemina4772 (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Aaaaand blocked --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Italy

I'd like to add something on Italy Talk page.I'm not in a hurry,but i neither like to wait here 150 years. 89.97.225.73 (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggest you register an account and wait to get autoconfirmed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I wrote on the Antiochus the Great Talk ( so he says to be) but he cancelled what i posted like for fear.Strange place Wikipedia.89.97.225.73 (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is a discussion at Talk:United States presidential election in New Mexico, 1996 on whether a picture and its accompanying caption should be included in the article. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Meetup vs. WikiProject

Hi, I just commented on the comment you left on my page at User talk:OR drohowa. Thanks! OR drohowa (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of hypoventilation training

Dear Nein

A few hours ago, you reverted my edit on "physical exercise" and "James Counsilman".

You said to me that the external links did not seem to be appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I can understand that links to websites where you can buy books, in particular self-published work or books not available in any library, should not be added.

However, I don't agree with you when you decide to remove "hypoventilation training" from the two pages above mentionned. Hypoventilation training has been the subject of many scientific studies over the last decade and can really be considered as a physical exercise.

Furthermore, this training method, which consists of reducing the breathing frequency while exercising, began to be used by runners in the 1950's and was also instigated by James Counsilman in the early 1970's in swimming.

I think these data can be useful for people who want to get information about physical exercise and James Counsilman. As such, I would like to edit again the changes I made today but without any external links.

I hope you will be ok with this, so that we won't waste our time to edit and undo the same things endlessly.

Kind regards

Sinequanon59 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sinequanon59 I'm fine with that as long as you provide a reliable source like Trackinfo did here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Matt Schultz

Neil, TheKillingNoise is back at it again. At what point would this sort of thing be considered disruptive?CFredkin (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC) In the past, he appears to have edited as 173.27.52.177. CFredkin (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@CFredkin It's not exactly disruptive until you can cite a guideline or policy for your version and communicate that to the other editor. I've organized the page according to WP:MOS so hopefully that will be the end of it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I wasn't aware that a MOS exists.CFredkin (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@CFredkin There's style guidelines for everything. There's probably a style guideline for all the style guidelines. Also: [4]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In addition to TKN's repeated POV and inaccurate edits to "Matt Schultz" and his/her malicious edits to the Disambiguation page, there's this edit which resulted in the portrait image on "Matt Schultz" being removed. Would it be reasonable in your opinion at this point to seek an article ban? Or would a threat of that be appropriate?CFredkin (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@CFredkin, as far as I can determine, he also uploaded the picture which is used being currently. As the edit occurred three weeks ago, I would let it go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the input.CFredkin (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, He didn't bother to upload the image until after I restored the previous image link to return a portrait image to the article (following a duration of quite some time).CFredkin (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

file away

Absolute 4RR or more -- and no rationale for SYNTH in his edits ... Cheers. Sorry if I am too polite to such campaigners <g>. Collect (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Henchman page

thhe Jimmy Henchman page was litigated, vetted, and decided up by the Wikipedia community. Please see the RfD discussion. I reverted the page to most accurate version of it before it was vandalized as did StaticVapor. Do we need to go through another RfD? If so we should have the original commenter present including RonJOhn and Dennis Brown. Thank youScholarlyarticles (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, your repeated usage of the term "litigated, vetted, and decided up" is frankly nonsensical. Use the article's talk page to gain consensus before doing such a massive revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

please take a look at this. It went on for white a while and a mediator was involved. Most the information was voted on. The outcome was keep as it was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_Henchman. Someone removed the pointer to the discussion so I hope this helps. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, I'm aware of that. It's a deletion discussion from 2012, not a content discussion. The content discussion took place last month on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we did have a discussion of all the points in article and whether they were backed by the articles. Much of the hard work of many editors was deleted in this round. I don't know where the consensus came from as most of the authors who built the page were trying to protect it from massive and inaccurate deletions. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, you completely mischaracterize the AFD discussion and misconstrue its purpose. Read the article's talk page for content discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw no place in the discussion on the talk page in which there was consensus about changing the content of the page that people worked so hard to create and therefore it was premature to allow it to be stripped of its content. For now, I would like to take to take the Chuck Philips paragraph out under his personal life until this can be resolved in dispute resolution. Chuck Philips isn't a part of Henchman's personal life, and there's a BLP issue. I hope that's okay for now. .Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, then you really need to read closer. Talk:James_Rosemond#WP:BLP_issues on down has many, many, many posts on the content and how it had BLP and sourcing problems. And please, discuss article changes on the article talk page where other interested editors can weigh in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to be difficult. I know it's a controversial page. But we spent months on this. Henchman is a notorious person of great interest. Dennis Brown was referred by the Arbitration Committee to help with this issue. He spent a tremendous amount of time not only helping people understand the issues involved but actually reading the underlying articles. There is no consensus on the talk page that changed what was an excellent article to an inaccurate incomplete and problematic few paragraphs. To wipe out what has been there for a year and a half because a few people don't like it seems like a great waste of time and energy. I imagine Henchman has lots of people who don't like what's been written but we can't keep rehashing this. For instance, I noticed that even on the talk page reasonable arguments are being deleted. A number of times on Jimmy Henchman's talk page editors wiped out massive parts of the discussion. This is a serious, important page on a notorious person that has been well-researched and collaborated on by many people. I don't think we can allow someone to just wipe out massive portions of the talk page. Likewise, massive portions of the page including a painstaking analysis of Henchman's criminal activity recounted by someone was removed. This is serious business. Really, we spent a lot of time on this, and a lot of time of very valuable and respected members of this community were involved and I don't think it's a good idea to let such a version stand when it does not have consensus. I hope you understand.Please consider going back to the earlier version until there is a consensus. Thank you. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, again you completely mischaracterize what happened. Digging through ANI, I see that Dennis Brown was not referred by Arbcom but instead offered to be your mentor as he and others felt you were having problems understanding Wikipedia (sourcing, copyright violations, personal attacks). And no, I will not discount the detailed analysis done over the last month in favor of a more superficial discussion on sources done at AFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm still a bit new to this. Are you an administrator?Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, no, I'm not. I do have about eight years of experience editing here, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand a bit better. the copyright issue you referred to, it turns out, was made by the person before me and mistakenly attributed to me. There's been a fair amount of discussion of this off site because this involves a criminal and delicate matters. So it might be had to understand precisely what's going on. I think WP:Competence requires that people are familiar with the underlying articles they are changing. There's really no consensus at this point so it looks like it will probably need to be examined again. I believe it would be nice to include all those who worked on it. Best, Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I just knew "WP:COMPETENCE" was going to make its way into this discussion at some point!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@alf laylah wa laylah Not in the way I expected, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Pfft

Pfft

ETC — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorbidFractal (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

MorbidFractal, Wikipedia is not Facebook or your personal blog or your soapbox. Please keep your ramblings and observations out of articles. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)