User talk:NeilN

Gee I guess I didn't get rid of all the vandlizism

Just pressed revert, no clue what is going on. Wgolf (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wgolf No worries. You just caught up in some bizarre behaviour by another editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

article: Muhammad in the Bible

What is wrong with you?!--94.59.248.196 (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, you are replacing references to two books with a reference to a random website. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

the website i provided [i.e. http://tanzil.net/#7:157] presents the Arabic text in addition to several famous English translations of the meanings. Saheeh International is one of these translations [the official website: http://www.saheehinternational.com/].--94.59.248.196 (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

here is another website also: http://quran.com/7 . It also offers the translation of Saheeh International. --94.59.248.196 (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

and here is a book reference also: http://books.google.ae/books?id=bzRWiDTf4_oC&pg=PA153&dq=%22Those+who+follow+the+Messenger,+the+unlettered+prophet,+whom+they+find+written%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KrsUU-u2Nsap7Aae34HYAQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Those%20who%20follow%20the%20Messenger%2C%20the%20unlettered%20prophet%2C%20whom%20they%20find%20written%22&f=false --94.59.248.196 (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You also erased "The seventh Quranic Sura Al-A'raf contains a passage that has been interpreted to mean that Muhammad was predicted in Jewish and Christian sacred texts." which was the main reason the quote was there. Any reason why? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I will replace it with this sentence: "Several Quranic verses say that Muhammad was predicted in Jewish and Christian sacred texts. For example:"--176.205.112.146 (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree or what?!--176.205.112.146 (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Those sources you're removing provide the interpretation of the primary text. What source are you using for that? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

[Qur-an, 7:157]: Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful.
Can you tell me what interpretation is required here?!
--176.205.112.146 (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

NO PROBLEM! I will keep these sources if you wish--176.205.112.146 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on edit, that was removed by you !

Hi, NeilN,

First of all it is really great to know that I am communicating with a human

The Link I added was just an Directory that can can give an idea about escort agencies and how do they operate there Business.

I found few links in that directory that that explains how they operate and what they offer, and that is why I create that link.

I am planning to write a article on Prostitution and its effect on society and previous practice was just a part of that.

Hope you can understand my point.

Thanks and Regards,

Ritu Verma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rituvermapk1 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Rituvermapk1, please refrain from adding such links as it is obviously a commercial site containing no encyclopedic content whatsoever. And we already have an article on Prostitution. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey thanks!

[1] Danke schon !! 69.165.246.181 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

In regards to a WP:RM discussion for Matt Schultz (disambiguation) and the other titles

Just wanted to inform you that a WP:RM discussion has started on Talk:Matt Schultz (disambiguation)#Requested move regarding reverting my moves for the "Matt Schultz" titles. Seems that the reverts back to their original titles were considered controversial by the administrator who was to perform the reverts. Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

self-importance

Your claim that my writing was: "...self-congratulatory puffery" --NeilN talk to me 01:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)" is untrue.

First, I was not speaking about myself and was not involved in the Street Artists Movement. In additional this has been documented in numerous newspaper accounts that the original artists practiced passive civil disobedience.

Your actions appear devoid of the scholarly method, immature and reckless that you would delete something you know nothing about, have not researched and have apparently not read the article. --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inquiringmindswanttoknow (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Inquiringmindswanttoknow, did you read WP:NPOV? Sentences like:

• "The artists of The San Francisco Street Artist Guild showed great tenacity and bravery when they stood up to the powers-that-be for Artist's First Amendment Rights to express themselves through their art."
• "And these artists achieved their goals solely using passive non-violence. A strong testament to the commitment of the participating artists and the founders of the San Francisco Street Artist Guild."

The article is not a soapbox to proclaim how great the organization is. Nor is it a place to chronicle their blow-by-blow battle against "the powers-that-be". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Original DYK Version of the Street Artists Program Article

Thanks for your recent efforts in battling the bizarre edits of William Clark and his possible sock puppet, User:Inquiringmindswanttoknow in the Street Artists Program of San Francisco article. The article was originally written with many primary sources from San Francisco's main newspaper, The Chronicle, and later went through a major rewrite by veteran DYK editor User:Yoninah. If you open the below link you can see the article when it was in it's DYK form. Please read that version as it seems like we should revert back to that state of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco&oldid=596854766

Since the time of DYK release, the article has been infested with a multitude of questionable, self-aggrandizing, and disorganized edits by the ever-persistent William Clark and Inquiringmindswanttoknow -- neither of which has even bothered to become a registered Wikipedia User or to even familiarize themselves with Wikipedia’s procedures and rules.

Sooner or later it seems inevitable that we need to apply some page protection, and a revert the article to its earlier state DYK state.James Carroll (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted to that version as it seems more adhering to NPOV and COI-free. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning

made the following edit with the words

This myth was however, finally exposed by the Planning Inspector at the Core Strategy Inquiry in 2011, when he made it abundantly clear..."

Been informed such wording is not appropriate phrasing for an encyclopedia

What's wrong with it? Shaun Cunningham (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Apokryltaros

Are you sure "Mr Fink" is a legitimate alias? It's not mentioned on [User:Apokryltaros|his user page]. Where has he used it outside of that debate? I think something might be amiss here.

InternetMeme (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

InternetMeme, check any of his talk page posts from January on back [2]. You could have asked him as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Or in fact looked at User_talk:Apokryltaros. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's not my job to go looking up the all the aliases people elect to use. If he wants to use an alias, he should include it on his talk page. If his talk page lists different aliases, then it looks suspicious. In fact, it still looks suspicios: Why is he using four different names (Apokryltaros, Mr A, Mr Fink, and Stanton)? That is not at all appropriate for an editor involved in debates. This is one step away from WP:SOCKPUPPET. InternetMeme (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

InternetMeme, if you change another editor's posts on the basis of "identity fraud", you should probably talk to them. Why haven't you posted these concerns on Apokryltaros' talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. I was just reading the discussion, noticed the name linked was different from the name specified, cross-checked the user page, found two other names, and concluded that there was a strong potential for misidentification.

So I made the correction, and moved on to the next article: I never considered consulting Apokryltaros before editing for the same reason I've never considered consulting Isla Fisher before editing her article. In hindsight, I probably should have thought harder about it.

InternetMeme (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"Stanton Fink" happens to be my actual name. I use "Mr Fink" as I'm sick and tired of other editors misspelling my username, "Apokryltaros," the name of a monster I created, because they're too goddamned lazy to copy and paste. Furthermore, I've already had this exact same argument with another moronic, deaf, bullying editor who tried to coerce me into changing my signature as he saw fit by dragging me into wikidrama hell for a month or two. There is no rule against changing one's signature to a name different to the user name if there is no intent to deceive. And until the Wikielders decide to pass a new law that retroactively bans users for having changed their signature names as their wiki-careers evolved, or if they decide to retroactively bar editors from having signature names different than their usernames, PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And just as a courtesy, until those who rule/make the rules for Wikipedia officially decide that what I have done with my signature, or my past signature history are not acceptable, I do not plan on ever changing my signature on someone else's behalf, and I will not acknowledge any messages or threads on my own talkpage asking me to do so, either. Because I did not actually do anything wrong, and because I really disapprove of someone else dragging me into another wikidrama hell because they won't give a damn about my explanations. --Mr Fink (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Your reverting

Why are you reverting my edits? --れ下がった (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What have I done that is wrong? Is it just my photo? --れ下がった (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Obvious troll is obviously indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The WikiNazi

Looks like we’ve found the official Wikipedia brown shirt, who relishes issuing commands. Well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicmart (talk • contribs)

I think Nicmart is upset because I removed his post promoting his own site. A read of WP:NPA might be in order too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dimitri Papadimos

NeilN I have made the changes...I was "quoting" and attributing with references...What else can be done now? Thanks for your help and yes pls do what must be done now for its creation...tksYani papadimos (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, I kindly remind you to my messages regarding the Article Dimitri Papadimos...what should I do next or what am I to expect from Wikipedia...many tks Yani papadimos (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear NeilN I have understood your comments and have made the necessary, in my opinion, changes...I have also added a private letter from Austen Harrison to my mother on her wedding day [3] as proof of the connection between Austen Harrison and my Father Dimitri Papadimos as you will also note by be various photos at the bottom of the article. By the way the "Johnny" that Harrison mentions in his letter, is me...Pls be kind enough and let me know what you think. My very bestYani papadimos (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear NeilN "All is well that ends well"...thank you for your advise...I will continue to improve always keeping in mind your advise...Thank you againYani papadimos (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Article: Mansoor Ijaz

Dear Neil,

Is there room for discussion on the wholesale edits you and others have made to the article?

For example, removing Jim Woolsey from my article is perhaps the best thing you could have done for me. I have constantly throughout the time this article has existed been associated with the CIA when in fact Jim, who is an old friend, simply served on my company's board for a number of years. The fact that this was ever mentioned in the article was designed to link me with the Neocon movement, of which Jim is an acknowledged member, and to link me with the CIA, which is absolutely false.

But if you are going to remove what you refer to as a name-dropping infraction (all I did was tidy up someone else's reference, I never added it to the article), then could you at least either delete the last sentence of the first intro paragraph, or barring that, properly add in Amb. Woolsey's name and wikify it?

With regard to the edit dispute about the Formula One section, the issue there is as follows -- I agree that it is a convoluted section describing a business transaction that has not yet concluded and is quite complex and drawn out. So it is fair game to be deleted wholesale. But it is a material matter in my biography, just as Memogate was, just as Sudan and Kashmir were. To remove it wholesale after having it be part of the article for nearly a year now makes it appear as if you have some knowledge that the F1 deal with Lotus does not exist anymore, and that is both factually false and currently and significantly misleading.

Is there no room for middle ground? Can I suggest a way to do that, or is that forbidden?

Thirdly, with respect to the COI tag, I created my own USER ID in my name so there would be no ambiguity about my contributions to the page. I did so after receiving that advice from three different Wikipedia editors as a way to manage disruptive editing and vandalism of the article. That I added relevant biographical materials in the most neutral way possible, I do not see where I did anything wrong. I strongly object to any insinuation that I have somehow made the article less neutral. And I also object to the Red Pen complaint that somehow the people of public note with whom I had material interactions throughout my life are now to be deleted wholesale because it embellishes my record. I did those things stated. And with the people involved, good bad or indifferent.

Does it now show editorial bias by the three of you who have taken the article apart, and I am sure will make more edits in the coming hours and days, by making edits that do not even consider a third point of view on how it might better be done. It is clear that you are all aiming to block me from editing in Wikipedia, so I won't enter into any editing again. But I thought I should at least point out some of the issues that your editing has raised which make the article less informative.

Sincerely, Mansoor Ijaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansoor Ijaz (talk • contribs) 05:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Neil,

If you look at the article now, it has basically been butchered. It is now factually incomplete -- do I need to now show how many other articles on the Wiki system carry the name of a company and important personnel associated with that company in a particular individual's living biography? This has gone too far. This is no longer a "let's figure out how to accurately portray a person's life without embellishment". This is a wholesale hack job. And the agenda behind it was to try and write me out of the Formula One environment. That is factually inaccurate and it is really not correct to have done this to the article the way in which it has been done. How many places in Wikipedia tutorials are we told that articles are to be built up incrementally and not to be wholesale re-edited unless there is truly justifiable reason for doing so.

The original purpose of the Formula One section from whoever put it in was to point out that I was now an owner of a Formula One team. That was a material fact. That the deal did not complete yet due to banking complications then had to be explained. And it is still ongoing. So there was no justification to take out the entire section and then hack up the rest of the article at the same time. All the edits are of the same ilk -- take away anything that gives or lends importance or credibility to Mansoor Ijaz. That's all this is today -- is that fair? Is that accurate? Is that factually justified?

I ask one more time for your help on how to handle this because this is a wholesale attack on my person and it will not be tolerated.

--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you didn't seem to read what I posted on your talk page, I am reposting it here: "Hello Mr. Ijaz. You ask if there's a middle ground and if you can make suggestions. The answer is yes to both. Please read WP:COIADVICE. The accepted way for subjects of articles to influence/suggest content is to use the article's talk page - Talk:Mansoor Ijaz. Example: I think this should be changed [give proposed wording] because [give reason]. The more specific your suggestions are, the quicker they'll be addressed by another editor."

Also, I strongly advise you to tone down your rhetoric. Removing info that does not belong in a biography is not a "wholesale attack on [your] person" and your accusations of an agenda and a "hack job" are without merit. Recognize you do not and will not have everything you want in your biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Neil, can you now help by reviewing my suggestions to TRPOD edits? He has made factual errors in his version and I have suggested corrections. Thanks. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I did indeed request all images on my user page to be deleted as they are no longer going to be in use once all the editing is complete on the article. I am shortly making a request to delete User:Mansoor Ijaz. I would therefore request that you revert the deletion of the images. If necessary, I can also withdraw my permission as the uploader and author of the photographs in question, if that will help.

Thank you for helping me to understand how the Wiki project works. I wish you well. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mansoor Ijaz: Couple things: 1) It would help if you remembered to log in as I had no idea the IP editing the article was you. 2) It's not as easy as you think it is to withdraw permission for image use as you think it is as you agreed to "irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 licence." Plus there's the fact that some images are supposedly in the public domain. I have opened a thread at the Commons Admin noticeboard to get clarification on this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: apologies, sir. I just forgot. That is why I clarified it to you. I would appreciate the deletions request being honored, but as it is clear I am not welcome in this community anymore, do as you must and do whatever is the right thing to do. I'm not able to contribute anything to the discussion anymore.

--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC) One last favor, please remove reference to my wife in the lead. She is my ex-wife now for over 20 years and has nothing to do with me anymore. Neither did I have anything to do with her decisions to contribute politically. As you have all now succeeded in running me out of the Wiki community, I would ask this as a last favor.

Thank you, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Mansoor Ijaz, I have removed the reference to your wife in the lede. You are still welcome to contribute here but you must understand that not every change you want will be done and some changes you may not like. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: 20:18, 18 March 2014 (GMT) I would disagree with your opinion that the Quantum/Lotus transaction is not in the public interest (but defend your right to that opinion). The transaction has been widely reported in the sporting press and has attracted a lot of hearsay and conjecture by other commentators. Wikipedia's strict npov guidelines mean that it is an ideal place for to present just the facts that are currently known. If the revised paragraphs that I recently sought to add are too detailed perhaps a shorter summary would be acceptable? --User:Ryuichinaruhodo(talk)

@Ryuichinaruhodo: A shorter summary would be good. Please remember this is a general biography, not something like Fortune magazine. Three or four sentences focusing on Ijaz would fit in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: 11:51, 19 March 2014 (GMT) OK, have cut the commentary on the matter down to 3 sentences. --User:Ryuichinaruhodo(talk)

Date Format

Hi Neil,

Can you explain your reverting of date format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Looker30 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Looker30, please read WP:DATERET and WP:RETAIN. Particularly, "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

St Patrick

St Patrick was related to St David, they were both from Wales. Great Britain never existed as a country also back then. The Kingdom of Great Britain resulted from the union of the kingdoms of England (comprising modern-day England and Wales) and Scotland in 1707. You could say he was born in Romano/Britain, it would be more historically accurate. Template:Ryangiggs69

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok I looked about and it's uncertain where he was born in Britain, but he was definatly not born in Great Britain, The Kingdom of Great Britain resulted from the union of the kingdoms of England (comprising modern-day England and Wales) and Scotland in 1707. source: Great Britain Template:Ryangiggs69 19:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ryangiggs69 Other definition: Great_Britain#Geographical_definition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright images

Dear Neil,

I´m sorry if i posted to many copyright images, i just want to put a image for the page of Ansel Elgort an actor, but every image is copyrighted.. Do u can find a image of him that works or help me how i put a image here that is not copyright . — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaDrew1 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You are reverting my changes rather than improving them

It looks like there are gang-up reverts on my changes rather than improving them, which is exactly the comment you left on my page. Why revert the text I added rather than improving on it, then accusing me of an edit war? Puck42 (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Puck42, if you want content added in, it is up to you to suggest wording on the talk page that will address the concerns of other editors. Stop adding the same wording repeatedly to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ratan Tata page

Hi Neil,

Just wanted to point out the correction i've made to Ratan Tata article about him receiving a honorary doctorate is correct, no need to revoke it. I have included an official university source where it has been done. There is media coverage also available about it in case you'd like to double check.

Thanks, Egor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.98.33.27 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes to talk page

You are mistaken. What editing? I did no editing, replied back, but did not delte or edit anything. I know better then to delete what other people said. Apriv40dj (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You might have done it accidentally but here's the edit [4] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please point out instance of editing

Please show me what I "did" as I did not do anything to change what someone else wrote at all. Not even by mistake. If you find I "did", I want it changed back at once, since I did not it and I have no interest in fake pages. Please change back anything to the way it was. Apriv40dj (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See above. And yes, I've changed it back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I see what happened I went to reply and windows 8 must have deleted the post I was replying to, but strangely, I did not see the post reply when I was replying. But I replied. It would make no sense to have my reply and then delete the original message, I was replying to. The text must have been sucked up and deleted, but yet, I did not see the text there either at the time. I only recalled the post having read it last night, but was too tired to reply and the next morning it was gone. But, I replied even though I could not see it at the time. I think windows 8 selects text and then if you hit a backspace it deletes, but it did not happened on my watch. It must have occurred sometime in between last night and my reply. If I had known it was gone, I would have reinstated it before replying. I don't want to look like I am having an insane conversation with myself online. Thanks for fixing it. Apriv40dj (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the history I can piece together what happened. You made a post last night and stayed on the page. Today, you made a second post using that same page. But in the interim, other editors posted to Cullen's talk page which you didn't see because you hadn't refreshed the page. Wikipedia should have warned you about an edit conflict. If it didn't then that's the software's fault. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt I blame Windows 8, that's a joke, but seriously, I must have been so tired I just left the window open all night. Next time I will be sure to notice if a window is open. I did not see any notice, the text was just gone. Apriv40dj (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Apriv40dj you should be notified of this reply because I linked to your user page. Not everyone does this. In general, if you are involved in a discussion, you should check back every so often to see if there are any replies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi

Thanks, that would be my bad. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, no worries. It would have helped if the IP had left an edit summary so that every other watcher didn't have to check. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wayback Machine magic

Hi Neil. I'm curious, how did you dig up the 1966 transcript archived in 2007, here that you linked to in Talk:Koi? I'm rather Orz...^Ref Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I have special magical powers that allow me to mind-meld with Google and... Not buying it? The IP that kicked up the fuss pointed to two other articles here. List_of_longest-living_organisms#Aquatic_animals has the link in question. Rather prosaic, huh? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Heheh! Good one, would have loved to learn the trick if there was one. Thanks just the same. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Creationism

Thank you for your recent talk to me which stated creationism as a religous view. Like you, I don't want an argument, but I disagree. There are scientists (such as Stuart Burgess) who have written scientific contributions and are regarded as scientists, and are creationists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollettDavid (talk • contribs) 13:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

CollettDavid, please re-read what I wrote on your talk page. Repeating it here in bold. To make your change you need to show a majority of accredited scientists regard it as a scientific movement. Not one scientist. Not a hundred scientists. Not scientists who also hold religious beliefs. Find a reliable source that states Creationism is an accepted science within the scientific community. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

CollettDavid, this is very to the point:[5]. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrongful reference of sombody else must be removed.

1. ( .. WRONGFULL REFERENCE OF SOMEONE ELSE BY C.Fred IS REMOVED .. )

Please, do not revert it as it can be harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 20:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Rajeshwar Prasad CEO of RAK Sovereign Holding under prominent Indians in UAE

Hi

You seem to have edited/deleted this entry. Are you familiar with UAE and this person for such action?

regards,

RP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikea1829 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No idea who he is. Did you read the message on your talk page? Specifically, "In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Note that you are reaching the final stage of vandalism WP:VAN by committing two illegitimate sectional blanking of [Public's opinions] section in the article Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. Please post your opinion with objective justifiable reasons in the talk page before doing that. Any further sectional blanking will result in the report of vandalism WP:VAN. Thank you. Heritoctavus (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Reported for WP:3RR. [6] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Good job on Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles and stopping an edit war by a user. TheMesquito (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you TheMesquito. And thank you for contributing your views on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Arvind Kejriwal - New section on list of criticisms removed

Dear Neiln, in Arvind Kejriwal article - New section on list of criticisms has been removed. Criticism list is necessary to paint a fair picture, especially when it is adequately referenced inline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raamdharmaj (talk • contribs)

Raamdharmaj, not when almost the entire section is sourced to charges of political opponents. And no attempt at balance is shown. If you think the section should still go in, please use the article's talk page to see what other editors think. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Neiln, can criticisms be inserted in between already existing categories ? Many of them are not allegations but facts.Raamdharmaj (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Raamdharmaj, yes, criticisms can be integrated within the body provided they are relevant and not WP:UNDUE. Again, I suggest you use the article's talk page to discuss. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Piss off

You know it. Stop WK her and ignoring the vast evidence against rad-fem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosepea68 (talk • contribs)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

About Banglore Topic

I'm new to wiki, thankx for ur guidance. actually i've tried for change of name from banglore to bengaluru as it is changed its name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vin09 (talk • contribs)

Hi Vin09, you will need to open a requested moved discussion as I pointed out on your talk page and show the common name in English language sources is Bengaluru. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Georgian_war&oldid=601976555

You've undone my edit, I've undone his version because he overworked the whole article with only one point to show the events from his POV. I've made now only a minor edit (why I actually was on the page) with new sources and a new section on the Talk page. --Wrant (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

George Kerasotes

March 30th 2014 Dear Neil: Hello, This is Michael Kerasotes. I am sorry that it has taken me so long to figure out how to get here to talk to you, Sir. I have been working on this page since December 2009. Elena Salvatore made this page for me then and we have talked via phone and emails. I have had a terrible time with it but of late I have been trying my best to correct the errors of these past few years and am almost done, Sir. I sent Elena my notes. I do apologize for the 'Dad' but in my frame of mind, I was writing about my father and I realize that that was wrong. I tried to correct all that, Neil. I hope I have. I have one more edit suggestion and that is this: Where I have George married Marjorie in Springfield, Illinois in 1947, I think it should go on to say they had two children Michael Patrick 1950 and Robert Anthony 1951. Then perhaps it should say that in 1961 they adopted a third child Flora Beth. I haven't read the page today as I am at the Library and am working on my patent for my star, Neil. I will do that another day. Thank you for your notes. I appreciate the work you all at wiki have done for me, my father, and my family. Would you mind emailing me at MichaelKerasotes@GMail.Com?

Kindest regards, Mike March 30th 2014 Sunday Afternoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelKerasotes (talk • contribs) 21:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A Bit Of A Question

Hi, I'm the guy who made the April 13 Homestuck edit. I was wondering why you removed the edit. I believe that Homestuck is somewhat of a staple of pop culture, and something as important in canon(413) should be recognized. But I somewhat just want a bit of a reason why you denied the edit, Thanks, From, Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.238.101 (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I removed it as the strip is not even five years old and has nowhere the influence on pop culture as say Peanuts, The Far Side, or Calvin and Hobbes. In short, I do not think it is notable enough for it to be added to the list. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Homestuck is influencing the teenage generation and is the great first work of internet literature. It is painting a new medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.238.101 (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You'll need multiple reliable sources that back up these claims. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

New page for your olympics edits

Hi NeilN: Last week on Monday I asked User:Sla and Basal to look at the skating page you were editing and I hope it helped. Your comment on the Talk page there seemed to suggest that there was too much in the "debate" subsection, especially since the Gold and Silver medals are not in official dispute. Since that is the case, then the support and oppose subsections start to look like fan-sites for the skaters A.S. and Yuna Kim, respectively, and not a Wikipage for reporting the official award of the medals at the Olympics. My question is, should those subsections be moved to a separate new Page for the demi-controversy's growing support-oppose comments. Here is the example from the 2002 Olympics which did have a genuine Controvery/Scandal and its own Wikipage:"2002 Winter Olympics figure skating scandal". In either case, I would support you for shortening the subsections (or least limiting them to equal shorter sizes) as you seemed to already suggest doing on the Talk page there. FelixRosch (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Felix. My main concern was that proper sources be used for any support/criticism sections (i.e., not forums or online polls). I think the subsections should stay in the article as the article you pointed to was spun off from Figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics - one article for the entire sport instead of a specific event. Having 2002 Winter Olympics figure skating scandal in there would place too much weight on the event. I am not opposed to trimming the subsections but any specific suggestions should be made on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible Page Protections Necessary for Street Artists Program Article

The problems that you have witnessed on the Street Artists Program of San Francisco article are still continuing. Please read Clark’s verbose excerpt from the article's talk page [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco#Disruptive_Replacement_of_Sourced_Facts_with_Personal_Recollections ]. William Clark continues to repetitively delete the same sourced statements, and continues to post under a number of differing anonymous IP addresses while refusing to register with Wikipedia. His deletion of statements sourced from newspaper articles directly violates the most basic of Wikipedia's rules, and it seems that we need to resort to some sort of page protection for that article, to stop his persistent edit warring which approaches the level of virtual vandalism. Do you know any admins or individuals who we could recruit for some page protection for this article, as it exist for the Baseball article? Please share your thoughts as I am new to this level of edit warring.James Carroll (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Figure skating edit, possible by a blocked editor

Hi NeilN, I just noticed that the Kim Yuna page had a suspicious edit. All the additions were uncited and previously in the 'Public Opinions' section on the Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles page. That section was removed per talk page & consensus. Given only one user advocated for this section's inclusion and the edit summary ("just added some edits that kirin13 kept on deleting...."), it makes me suspicious that anonymous user is an editor who's currently blocked. What is the proper procedure in this type of case? Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for Two Deletions in the Street Artists Program of San Francisco article

NeilN, I registered as William J. Clark to put an end to Mr. Carroll's nonsense that I am refusing to register with Wikipedia in order to post under a number of differing anonymous IP addresses.

Also, on the talk page for the Street Artists Program of San Francisco article I cited MANY news articles supporting my assertion that the one source cited by Mr. Carroll was in error when it stated CAO Thomas Mellon was given the authority to run the original SF Street Artists Program in March, 1972. I would appreciate it if you would check the sources I cited so that the incorrect statement about CAO Mellon running the original SF Street Artists Program can be deleted from the article as soon as possible.

On the talk page, I also quoted directly from the source cited by Mr. Carroll regarding Joy McCoskey's statement showing her support for the midnight to 6 AM rule in order to show that what Mr. Carroll wrote was inaccurate and misleading and that Ms. McCoskey's statement was tangential and inconsequential to the history of the SF Street Artists Program. Therefore, it should be deleted from the article.

I would appreciate it if you would read what I wrote on the talk page and please honor my request. William J. Clark (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI

[7]— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

jinnah

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/people/Atheist-fundamentalists/pmredirectshow/6014430.cms

Do we need sufficient proof for a fact which is known as a fact for 7 decades

You act like a troll . Jinnah atheist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunjmenon1 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Arjunjmenon1, there are several sources in Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah#Aftermath which refer to the subject as Muslim. Your single "lifestyle" column does not override these. Please use the article's talk page to discuss and mind WP:NPA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you have accepted if the link was from foxnews .if yes ,your are the typical American

And by the way times now is the one the top ranked news channels here .. If I can upload a sound recording from all India radio through RTI ..will it it be a proof ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunjmenon1 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Arjunjmenon1, you need to dial down the combative tone (P.S. I'm not an American). Single opinion pieces should not trump court findings and suchlike. What does this speech say? Finally, you really should be using the article's talk page to discuss this as other editors will probably have an opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim Flaherty

Wait until Tuesday and we may have the answer. TFD (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Big Bang Theory

It's setting a bad precedent to allow forum discussion on talk pages. The guideline WP:TALK clearly states " "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.", That is why I removed the offending section.--Asher196 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Asher196: And other, experienced, editors disagreed with your removal. Common sense is required when dealing with these types of posts. If the post is wildly offtopic, offensive, or deliberately disruptive, remove it. In this case, the post was made in good faith and elicited replies which will help the new editor understand what is needed to get the content he's suggesting into the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see any reference to the article in his post. It's just a general rant about the show. I disagree with leaving the section on the talk page, but I won't continue to fight it.--Asher196 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

For the barnstar. Best 'abuse' I had all day! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you back

I got concerned when I hadn't seen you edit Wikipedia since April 3rd; I hoped nothing awful had happened in your off-Wikipedia life. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, had a bit of a RL vacation :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

'Canvasing' Post

Hi,
You recently left a message on my talk page accusing me of 'Canvasing' leaving messages on people of my religions talk pages. I don't get it... anything I do on Wikipedia someone tells me "that's not allowed" or "your violating Wikipedia neutrality policies". SO at this rate I can never change anything or make a difference. First I went and directly changed things my self, then I was told that I must stop b/c I was violating Wikipedia policies, so I was referred to the policy page where I was told I could start up a conversation to change policies if I wished. Now I have done that and have been sending messages to people whom this issue probably matters to and i'm told I am doing something wrong again. This is total nonsense.
Listen in the worlds largest encyclopedia our Islamic holy figures are mentioned in disrespectful ways and not appropriately according to our principles. Over 23% of the words population are Muslims (1.6 billion). With such a massive number it is not acceptable for Wikipedia to maintain policies that would hurt and disrespect these peoples belief.
I will fight for proper respect for our holy people in this encyclopedia no matter what barriers I overcome, it seems these supposed 'neutrality' policies are just the first of many bumps in the road.
By the way it doesn't make sense how Wikipedia can be neutral yet disrespect our holy people in their articles.
I hope this sheds light on my actions.
Hooperag (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hooperag, simply put, you are not allowed to leave biased messages only on the talk pages of users that you believe will support you. End of story. Articles are written by and for Muslims and non-Muslims alike so this issue "matters" to the Wikipedia community as a whole, not a select few. Finally, articles are not written to give respect to subjects, they are written to follow a neutral point of view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

no

Noooooooooooooooooooo FOR ALLAH

My humblest apologies, old bean. I will refrain from making such edits in the future.

Jaylenofan283 (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Eritrea

High Neil -- that was not a mistake -- i will explain on eritrea talk page Erretnan (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Neil: Please give me a few minutes to add the sources and fix the page; it will remain in a state of disrepair indefinitely if you keep reverting before i can fully fix it. Thank you for understanding Erretnan (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you seem unwilling to let me fix the page in any way, here is some source data on treaties and Eritrea: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/research/ratification-eritrea.html It would make the world a better place if you added it, but I am confident that you will not do that. You have now confirmed my suspicions about Wikipedia. Erretnan (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Erretnan, you really need to use edit summaries to explain what you're doing. All other editors see is you replacing sourced data with unsourced data. If you explained with an edit summary, your edits would be left alone. Do you want me to undo my last revert? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Picker78 and sexual activity articles

What to do about him? I recently caught him in this case, and I'm certain that it is him I was responding to in this case as well. That latter article's talk page was once WP:Semi-protected to keep him from commenting there. Like I just told Grayfell via email, "Often, his approach is to complain on the talk page [as an IP] about a matter not fitting his definition and to then show up with a brand new account and make changes based on those complaints, often while acting like the IP is not him." Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are a pain in the ass. All you can really do is watch, tag as a suspected sock, and move on, posting to a talk page of an admin who is familiar with the sock if their edits get out of hand. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. I just hate the idea of having to deal with Picker78 for as long as I edit this site, but I guess that's the hand I've been dealt. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Promotional material?

The book referred to is an extended, serious, scholarly discussion. As an academic author, editor and publisher I share the ideal of 'objective prose', and if you glance (without downloading) at the fairly extensive front matter of the Kindle title you will be able to judge for yourself if such standards are met. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JQFW1QQ

Which is easier, to flag this book myself, or get a colleague to do so? Roger1uk (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Roger1uk. The fact remains the book is a self-published work by an "unknown" author. For it to be added to lists of reading materials, you need to show it has some importance or weight within the academic community. Ideally, there would be published reviews. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I would contend that the book referred to is a serious contribution to the topic in objective prose and actually by a known author. It seems I can't attach a PDF here listing 38 publications of mine, including broadcasts and citations, of which 16 are about Christianity, e.g. Review, ‘Dating the gospels’ of Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew D’Ancona, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, [pub. By Doubleday as Eyewitness to Jesus], 1996, Times Higher Education Supplement, 13 Dec., 1996, p.22; 30. ‘In Contest with Satan: Reading the ur-Gospel’ The Glass No 15, Spring 2003, pp. 3-7. Roger1uk (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Roger1uk: Again, the work is self-published. Most authors of these types of works contend they are valuable contributions to the field. The fact remains the book has received no scholarly attention yet and I couldn't find any in-depth analysis of your contributions to the field. Did you read the conflict of interest note and links I added to your talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Minor, pedantic point.

I have to catch myself, and I suspect a review of my edits would find such errors, but it isn't quite right to suggest that an image with a copyright cannot be used. It does need to be properly licensed, but that doesn't remove the copyright. Sorry to be picky, but I caught myself making the error yesterday, then saw a couple comments from you, (e.g.User_talk:Meganknudsen#Pictures) . We probably should work on some better standard wording.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: You're right of course. The trick is to convey this to new editors unfamiliar with copyright while still emphasizing the fact that the vast majority of images on the web have an incompatible copyright license. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

You act as if im not following rules on purpose. Which is not the case, i was told that the one website you can use for pictures is flickr but yet they still get deleted. Dont ask people to band me when someone could help explain it to me. Ive tried to figure it out on my own and i dont get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganknudsen (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Meganknudsen: Fair enough. I will break down the example I gave you two months ago. If you click on this Flickr search link you'll see a Creative Commons section. You must click "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content" and "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon" to return results which have the proper licenses. Before uploading a new image however, I strongly suggest you ask someone (plenty of editors have posted on your talk page) if the image has the proper license. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@NeiIN:

could you maybe post a picture of alex pettyfer for me please? if i try again i know i wont do it right.

Reimagining Mentorship proposal

Hi Neil. As you volunteer at the help desk, I wanted to bring your attention to a grant proposal under review. A small team of us want to implement a system of mentorship that focuses on the specific skills new editors want to learn and incorporates the 1-on-1 relationships from the adopt-a-user programs. Please read over our proposal here. At this stage, your feedback would be much appreciated, particularly as you work with new editors on a regular basis, and we want to make our proposal fit the community's needs. You can leave comments on the grant talk page, and if you like the proposal, please feel free to add your endorsement at the bottom of the page.

In addition, we are gathering information and attitudes from experienced editors on the current ways new editors can get help. If you are interested, please consider taking our brief survey here. Thanks very much, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Johhny Appleseed

Hi Neil,

Greeting from Tasmania.

I was just wondering why you removed my edit for Johhny Appleseed, as a recent example of his inclusion in pop culture.

Here is the sentence and links:

In Melbourne Australia (April 2014) Johnny Appleseed was used as the basis for the song 'Plant That Seed' by Chris Wallace, an anthem dedicated to the re introduction of the Cannabis plant.

http://olentangymusic.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmXZDdOjQV4

Best Regards,

Troy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troylangman (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Troylangman. I removed it because it is unnotable trivia. If you think it should be in the article, please provide a few independent reliable sources that discuss the video's use of Johnny Appleseed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neil, I am very new to Wikipedia, and still trying to work out how to use it, so appreciate your advice : )

Certainly I would not want to add any content to Johnny Appleseed's page lightly, as he is a hugely important historical figure.

I felt that as the Cannabis issue is such a huge one now, and also that the particular uTube video was professionally produced and had a good message that it was worthy of including.

My role is as CEO of the first Cannabis Medicine company in Australia, hence my interest tascann.com.au

If in time it becomes more prominent (as the video is currently very new) can we consider including on the page?

I have sent a similar message to the other editor.

Cheers, Troy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troylangman (talk • contribs) 06:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC) --Troylangman (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Troylangman: If magazines and newspapers cover the relationship then yes, a case for inclusion can be made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Indian Journalists

Dear Sir, I added a name of Paradkar (Babu Rao Vishnu Paradkar) as a notable Journalist. However the entry was marked by you as not notable at 14:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC). You have a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aj_(newspaper) where he is mentioned but there is no link. He is also mentioned in http://books.google.co.in/books?id=0aFH2KFhFOkC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq&sa=X&ei=CR9VU8mLO4WyrAfgwoHgBw#v=onepage&q=paradkar%20vishnu%20rao%20varanasi&f=false

Kindly add his name to the list if the explanation satisfies you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varmashanu (talk • contribs) 14:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Varmashanu. On Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Notability goes beyond passing mentions in books (incidentally, the mention in Aj (newspaper) is unsourced. Have a look at WP:BIO to see what is required to establish notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Kristal_Kostiew

I'm happy to not delete Kristal_Kostiew, but what part of WP:TRACK does she meet? in this edit you asserted that she met it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristal_Kostiew&diff=prev&oldid=605189420 and can you add that info to the page? I assume you are refering to 2 or 3 but the pan american games are not a world event, and fourth is not high enough for 3. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

CombatWombat42, #2 - no need to be a World event (look at the examples). I would put the Pan Am games on the same level as those. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is vandalism on the reading pennsylvania page by 71.126.123.104. 2 vandal edits he made — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whithapp332332 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Whithapp332332: Yes, thanks for removing it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

I think it should be noted somewhere on the whole page. I don't know what is the problem with the word "recognized", because those sources uses the word "recognized".

No argument that it is a alternative medicine, but like I said that NIH and WHO recognized it to be legit. There are many sources about it.

You can suggest better idea, I think. But again, this whole thing should be mentioned somewhere. నిజానికి (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@నిజానికి: Maybe here: Ayurveda#Outside_the_Subcontinent with better sources (articles in medical journals specifically covering the recognition). And again, recognition as alternative' medicine is not the same as recognition for a drug (as an example) that has been put through peer-reviewed clinical trials. The distinction is important. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You might be right here. I will inform you here once I will be done with my note. నిజానికి (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sri Chinmoy

Can you help deal with the new editor on this article? I don't know if you want to warn her on her Talk page or whatever, with a view to possibly reporting her, or just revert her and point her to the article's Talk page, where I've begun a thread. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I gave them a WP:3RR warning a few hours ago. I've again reinforced the need to use the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Film contributions

it is from reliable source only....if you have any doubt then go and check it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkrishna148 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

why

NeilN]] ^{talk to me} Why did you delete my baseball video.Tylkrby767 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Good Morning

Good Morning NeilN (talk) Sorry for what i did .Tylkrby767 (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Cookies for you

I Really Don't Appreciate You Stalking my Edits!

Hello NeilN,
Nice to talk to you again. However I just wanted to inform you that I don't like you stalking my edits.
It is not good Wikipedia behavior and it makes editors feel as if they are being watched and disrespected. You should be reported for this type of behavior and it really disturbs me.
I am trying to make constructive edits and you keep checking up on what articles I edit and then a majority of the time undo my edits.
Please observe appropriate behavior when dealing with editors, you are not a police and have no seniority over fellow editors.
I hope this is the last sort of encounter I have with you,
Hooperag (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hooperag: Given your past edits have been problematic and the edit I undid had a edit summary which showed a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines [8] (the sentence was sourced, your change made it unsourced and misleading and your current change is still misleading - I will be fixing that), there is good reason to examine your edits. You are also wrong in saying I have undone a majority of your edits. You have made many edits and as far as I can tell, I have reverted you on one other article, again when you removed sourced material, stating incorrectly that it was unsourced. [9] I am not asserting seniority, I hope you continue to edit here, and if you have a problem with any of my changes to your edits we can discuss it or you can go to another experienced editor to get their opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems you are not very knowledgeable in this subject and if not for stalking me, the Seyed Khalil Alinejad article is one that you most probably would have never known of or cared about. So as someone who likes this artist and knows quite about this talented artist I am much more knowledgeable in this subject. The theory that the government killed him is not the predominating belief to his death, and this claim is often circulated by those who have problems and don't agree with the Iranian government, it is more of a political stance than a valid theory to his death. I am not a staunch supporter of the government either however this theory is baseless and even in the article you referred to (in the case you actually read it) you would have noticed it offers no reason behind the claim and simply mentions it once; the same goes for both claims. Therefore Wikipedia articles (especially biographies) should not have speculations that would confuse readers and have no factual basis.
This issue is not that complicated, I hope this makes things clear.
Hooperag (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hooperag: Personal knowledge and opinion have no place in Wikipedia articles. We go with what reliable sources publish. In this case, the source and article had:

• Some Iranians say he was killed by rivals inside the Ahl-e Haqq, but many more believe he was murdered by agents of the Tehran regime.

You changed it to:

• "... however it is believed he was killed by the enemies of Ahle Haq."

This is definitely not an accurate representation of the source. If you wish to challenge what the source says then provide other reliable sources which state something else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying to reason with you is like trying to talk to a rock. Don't you have better things to do than police on Wikipedia and stalk other users?
Hooperag (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hooperag, you're stalking accusations are getting old. I suggest you drop them and spend some time actually reading WP:V or else your edits are going to get even more attention from other editors, even if you switch to a different account. This is such basic general knowledge, it doesn't need to be sourced is completely and utterly wrong. Even the source you added after being reverted by another editor does not back up what you added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again NeilN you have failed to read the source, it says "It was also borne by a son of Ali, the fourth caliph" what does this mean? It means the Ali ibn Abi Talib had a son named Abbas, we all know Ali ibn Abi Talib had only one son that was named Abbas and he was Abbas ibn Ali. I have no reason to lie about this subject. In Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Bahrain and other Middle Eastern countries anyone with the name Abbas is named after Abbas ibn Ali! I have many friends and know many people in my community named Abbas, ask them what's behind their name... they will all say they are named after Abbas ibn Ali the son of Imam Ali and brother of [{{Hussain ibn Ali]]. Sometimes its hard to find sources for information like this, especially when so general. I feel as if this info is very relevant to the article and it would be to Wikipedia own benefit to contain this info.
Sources are good, however they should not be needed to prove common knowledge like this!
Hooperag (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

And once again Hooperag, personal knowledge and opinions have no place in Wikipedia articles. Until you accept verifiability ("[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.") is a core policy, many of your edits will be challenged and reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hooperag: - interesting assertion about Abbas ibn Ali (647-680 CE). Could you tell me who was Al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib (566–653 CE) named after then? Was the Abbasid Caliphate named after the older or the younger Abbas? I'm gonna make an educated guess that your assertion is wrong. As Neil puts it, personal knowledge is not what Wikipedia is built on. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you want, however what you say is not true and I swear what I have mentioned above is entirely true. I can't find sources because the name Abbas is largely unknown to the Western World and so there is little info on its history and such. Revert my edits if you like, it's not going to make me frustrated, what makes me frustrated is your inability to think outside of Wikipedia guidelines. You have your own mind and rather than constantly accusing me of lying you could think for yourself and realize what would be my benefit for lying, ad then try to cooperate with me to solve this issue mutually.
Hooperag (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hooperag: No one has accused you of lying. We have stated your personal knowledge is not enough for Wikipedia. The way to solve this issue is to follow Wikipedia policies. Your statement about thinking outside of Wikipedia guidelines is like you showing up to a soccer match, playing the ball with your hands, and then complaining to the other players who say you can't do that that they are unable to think outside of soccer rules. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hooperag, please stop taking this personally. Contrary to what you said above about Abbas not being known in the West, there will be reliable sources out there but all you have to do is be rigorous in checking them out. Look at what I did with behindthename.com - once you added the source, I looked at the page you linked to, and then looked at the website about page, followed by the references page. Looking down the list I was initially impressed but that changed when I saw his mention of Wikipedia. That immediately makes it an unreliable source, because we cannot verfiy how much information he has taken from Wikipedia. Simple as that. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

While it is hard to find a source, I will continue looking for one. Also I appreciate your recent attempt to work in a cooperative manner with me. It is much nicer than having people work against you and constantly telling you are doing things wrong. I don't have a problem with Wikipedia policies, however it can be frustrating when many of your edits (with constructive intentions) are undone by editors who continuously cite Wikipedia policies as their justification. I will work to find a source and add it soon.
Hooperag (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody said you needed to use a source from the "Western World". If the only source you can find is in Arabic or Farsi, for example, it's fine to use that, provided it meets our criteria for reliability. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

HSBC Edit

Hi Neil.

Thanks for the message, however, the data that I have provided is completely true and factual data along with proper citations without having any bias nature. I also mentioned the detail of Employee for the sake of citation (I will remove that from the talk page so that it does not have COI), and that too in the talk forum and not at the main article. The details that I have provided can be checked and yes I have cited the correct links. Please recheck prior to reverting the edits, as I have checked my data, and did not give my own opinion on the same. The data I provided was for reference and hence is completely unbiased.

I am reverting the same to my actual edited version mate.

Thank You.

If you require please do check the links I provided.

Thanks again for the update mate.

Vishal Bakhai 17:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybrowne1986 (talk • contribs)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries. But cant it be done the way I did it? What exactly was wrong in it? Since, I understand that I had forgotten to mention bottombox of user on my archived one. However, what is incorrect in the HSBC Archived one? If you can kindly explain.

Danke. Vishal Bakhai Vishal Bakhai 18:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Harrybrowne1986: 1. You archived active conversations. 2. The talk page header stuff (Wikiprojects, what spelling to use, etc.) does not belong on archive pages. 3. The link you left on the active talk page will disappear when that section is archived. 4. The archive title is non-standard. You can look at Talk:Kolkata to see how archives are supposed to be set up. Are you ok with me deleting the archived page and setting up a bot to do the archiving? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have just done the archive in a proper manner and have made corrections. Would request you to look at it and see if all is fine, else if you see that it still is incorrect in a manner, kindly get the bot to work on it, and also let me know of the same. Oh how about archiving your own talk page. I think it is also kind of on the edges.

Danke. Vishal Bakhai 18:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybrowne1986 (talk • contribs)

Links not spam

Hi,

As one of the representatives for a snowsports governing bodies I am updating some of the published content on snowsports in Australia. I added snowboard.com.au and snowboarding.com.au domains today to external links but they have been marked as Spam. These are no different than ski.com.au that these have been added below on the listings and are seen as significant changes to the snowboard industry in Australia as with strive to keep the domestic market alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distortenterprises (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Distortenterprises, the links are the very definition of spam as they go to online shops run by your company. Thanks for pointing out the ski.com.au link - it has been removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, yes they are owned by the business I work for, however the business/company doesn't run any of the online shops it represents, the Australian snowboard retailers do, these are marketplaces that represent them and the Australian snowboard community. No different than Etsy representing a global craft community! Just as Etsy is significant in the history of craft business so is snowboard.com.au in Australia's domestic snowboard market. I am more than happy to hear of a better way for this to be represented on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distortenterprises (talk • contribs) 01:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Distortenterprises, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. Etsy has an external link in Etsy - what other articles does it have an external link in? If you think snowboard.com.au is notable by our standards (WP:CORP) then you can create a standalone article (probably using the WP:AFC process) and place a link there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your note.--Aqua4444 (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I am just speculating here, but it appears to me as if you are trying to do away with all Wikipedia rules. The amount of arguments on your talk page are horrendous. I know you strongly disagree with a lot of stuff such as Creationism, religion, and God, but that doesn't stop the fact that people are annoyed. I have had personal experience of this. I hope you see we are trying to help. I may not respond to any answer to this post. 16:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollettDavid (talk • contribs)

CollettDavid, actually I'm trying to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines by removing incorrect edits like this. This sometimes makes people like yourself who are prevented from introducing "helpful" incorrect information, annoyed. If that's the result of my actions, I can accept that. And, if you look at who is doing the complaining and who is doing the defending, so are editors familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ya I agree.. I was just experimenting... I will use sandbox from now on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simkeyur (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Reason for reverting a edit in Subramanian Swamy page

Hi NeilN, i had done an edit here which was reverted by you. I had just updated the section with a reliable citation and the information added was directly related to the content in the heading. My question is that why my edit was considered unencyclopedic when it included a updated information with reliable citation.

Also please help me to understand Wikipedia:NOTNEWS briefly, as i am unable to understand after reading it so that no mistake is committed from my side anyway in the future.

thanks. Work2win (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

how to apply many worlds to articles

The Many Worlds Interpretation means anything that could ever happen happens in some parallel universe.So if i edit the creatinoism article stating 'in a parallel universe creationism is real' it may be true.

If i go to a College gameday location site and type 'college gameday will be doing a show in Brunei in a parallel universe' it may be true. If i type that 'Gerald Ford was president of the united states again from 2015-2019 in his 100s in a parallel universe' it may be true

if i type in 'Jim Brown made a comeback at 80 and played in the nfl from 2016-2022 in a parallel universe' it may be true

if i type in 'John Lennon of the beatles was born in October 1954 in a parallel universe' it may be true

if i type in 'Macklemore is against people being homosexual and lesbian in a parallel universe' it may be true

if i type in 'NeilN majorly vandalizes 40 wikipedia articles a day from 2010 utnil 2020 in a parallel universe' it may be true