User talk:NeilN

Unexplained

Can you please explain, why you removed reliable pew research center statistics (2012) in favour of another source. Please have a look at my edits on religion in Belgium again. There is no particular emphysis on Islam. Percentage if Muslims is same i.e ., 6%. Infact, the percentage of Christians is greater i.e., 64.2%. This shows that I have no bias for Christianity. Can you explain it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septate (talk • contribs)

@Septate: Can you please explain why you replaced the long-standing Eurobarometer source (2012) in favor of your source? Your undue emphasis is in this sentence: "Belgium is religiously diverse society with Christianity and Islam being the most widely professed religions." The two religions are not remotely comparable with respect to the number of adherents. By the way, still looking for your answer on this: User_talk:NeilN#Edit_explanation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If the sentence: "Belgium is religiously diverse society with Christianity and Islam being the most widely professed religions." is wrong from your perspective, then you should remove it individualy , instead if reverting my whole edits. Secondly, can you please explain what's wrong with reliable 2012 pew estimate compared to eurobaromenter.Septate (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: Please explain why you want to change a long-standing source. I'm putting the onus on you because of your constant POV-pushing (which a number of editors have warned you about) that is continuing: [1], [2], [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please look at the article first. How disorganized the article is? One source gives an estimate of 49% for Christians and other source gives an estimate of 59% Catholic and 6% other christian. But interestingly another stupid source in the lead states that 1.7% are protestant and 0.3% Orthodox. This is complete stupidity. Is not it? The reader is unable to comprehend all these statistics. I just wanted to make the article more organized and readable by providing a single reliable and recent i.e., 2012 source. If I am a Muslim POV pusher then please tell me what would I get by placing pew center source and statistics. A lot of sources on article already give 6% figure for Muslims. In fact I removed a source which gave 8.1% figure for Muslim population because it was too dubious. Is this POV? I just wanted to help wikipedia in a civilized manner. Understand it or not. I am not going to waste my time on this stupid article anymore.Septate (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please respond quickly. Please allow me to improve the article using pew estimates. I assure you that I will not give too much importance to Islam. Thanks.Septate (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You expect a quick answer but won't answer User_talk:NeilN#Edit_explanation even after being asked several times? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate, okay, the Pew estimates are from 2010. The Eurobarometer source is from 2012. Why do you want to use an older survey? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I want to use pew estimates because they look more acceptable to me.Septate (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN, please look at talk:Religion in Norway. Is this so called concensus? Is this so called cooperative behaviour?Septate (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate, your behavior there is the same as it is on here in that you expect to get your way simply on the basis of your unsubstantiated opinion. "I want to use pew estimates because they look more acceptable to me." is akin to saying that cake is better because it's chocolate. And before you talk about "stupidity" and "waste my time" you should go through the history of your talk page and see how many editors have wasted their time checking and correcting your edits. If you feel you have valid points that are being ignored, follow the processes outlined in WP:DR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

OK dear. Looks like its bit too much. My only purpose was to use only a single reliable source and remove other conflicting sources. If you don't like pew estimate (because I consider it to be more acceptable), then please allow me to use only Eurobarometer estimates. If you don't like eurobarometer ,then allow me use Ipos Maori source which is last choice. Mine suggestion would be to use Ipos Mori source (The middle one).Septate (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: If the quality is the same, I would always favor using the survey with the most recent numbers. Pew is 2010, Euro is June 2012; what is Ipos? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ipos Mori is 2011 survey. I am going to use it. Hope that you are no going to have any concern. ThanksSeptate (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: Again, why use an older survey? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. I will use eurobarometer source.Septate (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

About you undo on the diana page.

Hi NeilN,

After your edit on the Princess Diana i had a quick look on the internet and i have found that he is known as harry on the royal.gov.uk website and by his mothers brouther as harry.

links:

• http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/PrinceHarry/PrinceHarry.aspx
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/spencerfull.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioangogo (talk • contribs)

Hi Ioangogo. According to the template documentation we use formal names ("listed by name and highest shorthand title"). In this case, it's Prince Henry of Wales. You'll see the same thing on Charles, Prince of Wales. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Maria Sharapova edit on Sachin Tendulkar

Hi Neil,

I see that you have edited my inputs on Maria Sharapova causing a huge controversy in India when she said in an interview at Wimbledon that she does not know Sachin Tendulkar. What makes you think that it is irrelevant to Maria Sharapova? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinaiyer1976 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tinaiyer1976, see WP:NOTNEWS. One minor incident that no one will talk about next week does not belong in a biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neil,

@NeilN This is not minor incident. It has effected 1.5 billions of people in India and around the world and that is almost 1/3 of world population. And whenever Maria's biography will be written by a neutral person this ignorant knowledge of her will be including as major controversy in her life! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinaiyer1976 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tinaiyer1976, pure hyperbole. Some people got annoyed that she didn't recognize a person. That's it, that's all. If you wish to pursue this further, please discuss on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) First of all, please stop promoting your website as an external link into every article you encounter. Second, how is this even news and/or a "major" controversy? This is such a trivial issue and in no way 'effect's billions of people in India and around the world.  NQ  talk 14:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN I am not promoting anything here and please do not tell me that it does not effect so many people here. Just look around the web if you are not an Indian, and I guess you are not and you will find the magnitude of her comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinaiyer1976 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tinaiyer1976, how does it affect the life of a garment worker in Calcutta? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN sir, As I said we regard him as GOD and saying something so silly effect us morally and individually. People are shock at her ignorance and this cannot be taken lightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinaiyer1976 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tinaiyer1976, please start signing your posts as per the directions on your talk page. If this is still in the news in a month, then it might be worth discussing putting it in. Until then, it's just another silly social media outrage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tinaiyer1976: If the impact is as widespread as you say, then surely you can find multiple sources, including the major newspapers of India, that have given significant coverage to it.

Conversely, since you seem to be adding info about how various notable personages don't know who Tendulkar is, maybe what we need is a section in Tendulkar's article about how he has not had that lasting a legacy, since he is not that well-known outside of India after his retirement? Yeah, I thought you wouldn't be in favor of that. :) —C.Fred (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Even if it has significant current coverage... As an aside, pretty sure that 99% of professional sports players in my country wouldn't recognize Tendulkar. Maybe we should come up with a category: "People who don't know who Tendulkar is" :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred it is like saying Chinese PM is no known to billions of people of the world. I am pretty sure there are billions who even does not know his name but that does not mean there should be no article on him in English talking about his effect on people life! --Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tinaiyer1976: No, it is like saying if Michael Jordan doesn't recognize the Chinese PM, that fact is irrelevant to his biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

And I thought Wiki is for the people of the world not for specific country, race , religion etc etc --Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tinaiyer1976: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not "entertainment news of the day". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN that's exactly my point is. And if a person bio should not contain the news he made in his time I don't know what it should have. All his achievements are in some ways news of the day or else why will you have all his/her achievement in his/her biography.--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tinaiyer1976, did you actually read WP:NOTNEWS? "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." (emphasis mine). And WP:BLPSTYLE: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.: --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN I hve read the WP:NOTNEWS? and understand it better then anybody out there. And you cannot disassociate this controversy from Maria anytime today or in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinaiyer1976 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tinaiyer1976, "Understand it better then anybody out there." I think many, many editors would disagree. Anyways, we're done here. You can go get consensus for your change on the article's talk page as I suggested above. I wouldn't get your hopes up, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN and how do I get consensus on her talk page? --Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tinaiyer1976: Post about your suggested edit on Talk:Maria_Sharapova and get other editors to agree with you. Again, I wouldn't get your hopes up. I, for one, will be arguing against adding the content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN I know you in your view Sachin is not there upto Jordan or Ali yet even after scoring the most number of runs then anyother person in this world--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tinaiyer1976: It doesn't matter who the person is. What matters is if the incident has a long-lasting impact on a subject's life. Given this edit, this is something you completely fail to understand. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User exhibits pattern of adding same website – see contribs. Also exhibited by 203.201.61.146 and 27.34.253.98. Outside of these edits, I found the website only two other times, added by IPs (59.182.247.79, 122.172.35.71) in 2012. I've gone ahead and removed site since it is not WP:RS. Per Tinaiyer1976 (see Draft:EKhichdi.com) website lets anyone post 'news' and articles. Going to website, it seems to confirm Tinaiyer1976 statement. Since it's not a WP:RS, is there any way to prevent links to this website be added in the future? Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kirin13. I would post your findings and make a request at User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN How about this http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-28142116 Is this authentic as per your policy. It is from BBC --Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tinaiyer1976: Please see the discussions here and here.  NQ  talk 17:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I know who Sachin Tendulkar is, but who is Michel Jordan? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Baron Omar Rolf von Ehrenfels

Please have a look at Baron Omar Rolf von Ehrenfels. The situation of this article is awful. Please fix it to make the article compatible with wikipedia. Thanks a lot.Septate (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC) No reply yet!Septate (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination

I followed the policy on NPOV disputes, though not precisely: I first put a section on the talk page explaining why it violates NPOV, and then tagged it to indicate that I was disputing its neutrality. The removals of the tag are attempts to unilaterally resolve this dispute. I will revert any future removals as long as this dispute exists, obeying the three-revert rule at all times. My solution to the problem is modest: just insert alleged into the names of two infobox fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert O'Rourke (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Robert O'Rourke: We're not accommodating conspiracy theorists. And please note this from WP:3RR: "...and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Religion in Belarus and Religion in Croatia

Could you please take a look at Religion in Belarus (addition of stat. data from a tourism website) and Religion in Croatia. The selective mentioning of 1,47% muslims in the lead and the addition of a mosque in Religion in Croatia might be WP:UNDUE . What is your opinion? JimRenge (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@JimRenge: That ref in Belarus was pretty poor and I support your removal (reminds me of the time someone tried to use a restaurant menu as a source for the origin of the Red Fort). I tweaked the Croatia lead but left the mosque in. It's not like another article where a picture of a mosque was in the body and in the gallery. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for your comment and your contribution JimRenge (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You've been featured!

Guess what? You've been accorded the title of "some Western moderator on Wikipedia". See Wikipedia Deleting Maria interview on Sachin Tendulkar and this  NQ  talk 00:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@NQ: Yay! Goes and bangs head against a wall. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@NQ: More Wikipedian eyes can't hurt. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Maria_Sharapova. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the material is a little disproportionate in Sharapova's bio, but how about I create a stand-alone article such as Sharapova-Tendulkar outrage? Considering it's trending on the social networking sites. darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 05:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

You know, I was just thinking about what an article like that would contain. Subject A doesn't know who Subject B is. Subject B's fans get pissy and are told to grow up. [4], [5] Something like that? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@bish I for one, will definitely vote 'Speedy Keep' in the highly unlikely case it goes to Afd. (in part to avoid the wrath of Zilla!)  NQ  talk 18:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that Bishonen has indeffed Tinaiyer1976. Let's just hope this outlandish, unprovoked and completely unjustified admin action has not "effected" billions of people in India and around the world. "Dicremtiation"! [6]  NQ  talk 18:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@NQ: I'm just happy no one has responded to the offwiki canvassing and the talk page is relatively sane again. I had to think for a good five minutes before I could come up with a Wikipedia-appropriate response to "dropping of single atomic bomb did not get coverage for 1 month". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Not surprising. As far as I can tell, the website doesn't have much of a readership and probably relies on organic results from Google for its ad revenue, hence the persistent link spamming. Yes! I knew I couldn't reason with such logic, that's why I chose to skip that. Besides I wasn't sure if it was sheer trolling or lack of understanding. From the article - "Her action has hurt the sportsman and people around the world and extensively disapproved by many great past and present sportsman around the world."  NQ  talk 22:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(The annoyance of bitey little Darwinbish may actually be more painful than wrath of great 'zilla!) Too bad if it effects the entire galaxy. You clever internet watchers, feel free to let me know if I'm honoured on the site in question. See Darwinbish's edit summary — she has obviously got her hopes up. Fame! Bishonen | talk 19:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

Are you a Wikihounder?

Bladesmulti is claiming that you, DeCausa and 1 other have wikihounded me during some point of your life. Such a bad practice! If its true, which seems likely because Bladesmulti looks trustable to everyone including you, then this clearly shows that you and other users have a particular bias for me.Septate (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Lets agree with you, shall we reduce then? It will be reduced once you are topic banned or you refrain from fabricating religion-content. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: I believe Bladesmulti used the wrong term and DeCausa has advised him of that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti, why you always keep talking about topic ban. What makes you afraid? I have done nothing wrong to hinduism since I was warned. Before making any changes to Hinduism related articles I propose them on talk page.Septate (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: NeilN left a message on your talk page in "Local search (Internet)".

You asked:

"What are you using for a source for "PremierGuide was the first company to offer a private label local search solution to newspaper and Yellow Page.."

My Answer:

1) http://www.biakelsey.com/Research-and-Analysis/Coverage-Areas/Online-Search-and-Marketing/summary.asp?DocID=13&SFlag=No (summary report) 2) http://malcolmlewis.org/images/Kelsey_PremierGuide_0402.pdf (my copy of full report)

As you can see from this date-bounded Google search, no references to "private label local search" in 2003-2004. Not sure why PremierGudie's website wasn't picked up but you can see here that's exactly what we were doing:

https://web.archive.org/web/20040406074757/http://premierguide.com/yp3/section/home/pg/ch/style/corp.html

Btw, is this the correct way to respond a question posed by a Wikipedia moderator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdl123 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mdl123. I'm not a moderator - Wikipedia doesn't have those - just a regular editor like yourself (but one with a lot of experience). And yes, you can post here or on your own talk page where I added my question. Now, what you're adding seems to be synthesis or original research. In order to add the text, we need an independent source explicitly stating that "PremierGuide was the first company to offer a private label local search solution..." Also, I note you wrote, "what we were doing." If you were involved in the company you should read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes PremierGuide was my company. That's how I know we were the first ;) I'm not sure how I can prove that since I can't find a statement from, for example, an industry analyst stating that. What would you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdl123 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mdl123: Unfortunately you can't add a claim like that without a proper source. One of our core policies is 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." We frequently have people insisting (in good faith) that they set up the first Internet TV station or invented a class of software. In order to evaluate these claims we rely on previously published sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

University of Sindh

Mr NeilN, You have many mistakes in the article , that are not updated information about the University of Sindh, you are typing contradictory dateseg. established in 1947 and on other side you are typing 1948 , as well as about Karachi which happens to be Sindhs Cpital and you are writing it as Pakistans Capital,Please do make conformations from Sindh Govt before typing any thing wrong or remove the article from your site as it is no more authenticated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashi201313 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kashi201313. If you look at my subsequent edit you'll see I kept the 1947. Also, at the time of the university's founding, Karachi was Pakistan's capital. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Sexual orientation and Attraction to transgender people

Neil, I just encountered this, this and this at the above linked pages with Krozan7. If Krozan7 continues his or her POV on this matter, I might need your help in explaining and enforcing Wikipedia policies and guidelines in this regard. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Both added to my watchlist. The move was completely unsupportable as Google throws up 603 results for the term, none of them academic sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Much thanks for watchlisting Template:Sexual orientation, Neil; that template, as well as the Sexual orientation article, always needs eyes to make sure that people are not using it to promote a sexual identity in a WP:Fringe way. Pansexuality and polysexuality, for example, are sexual identities, but they have yet to be widely recognized as sexual orientations (especially among academics); often, they are treated as aspects of bisexuality. I explained that matter here at the Bisexuality article, which you may have already seen since I noted it at my talk page before. People have also tried to add pedophilia to the template and/or to the Sexual orientation article as a sexual orientation; the most recent example is noted here.

As for the term skoliosexuality, you are of course correct; I stated similarly here.

On a side note: I thought that maybe I'd annoyed you in some way recently, such as at the Sex position article (the discussion of indirect stimulation as part of the definition) or that perhaps I'd been bugging you a bit much, such as not too long ago pinging you via WP:Echo at the Age of majority article to weigh in on a dispute (a dispute I've likely been a tad unreasonable in). If you ever find that I am annoying and/or bugging you a bit too much, feel free to let me know and I'll back off with no hard feelings. I respect and appreciate you too much to risk losing communication with you. And I'll always consider your opinion, criticism or otherwise. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No, no annoyance on my part. Sometimes I want to think things over before replying and sometimes I really have nothing to say :-) For Sex position, I thought my point was a good one as if the body held sourced details about indirect stimulation, your point would have been made already. Also, I'm always wary of weight issues when something is mentioned in the lede but not the body. As for Age of majority, I've never heard of "age of maturity" being used as a term and certainly not as a synonym for age of majority, If I had to guess, age of maturity would refer to sexual maturity or age of consent. But these are only my guesses, not backed by any proper sourcing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. And I certainly don't expect you to weigh in on every matter (or even most matters) that you are pinged to; for example, regarding the Age of majority article, I figured that you likely didn't have anything to add to the discussion. I was simply wondering if perhaps you felt annoyed, or someone emailed you essentially stating..."Be wary of Flyer22 asking for help because she can go overboard with it.", LOL. Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Saif Ali Khan article

I have requested the other person to join the talk page but instead he has started abusing me as you can see here

now he has violated the rule by doing three reverts in one day .. What would you advise me to do or if you can help in this matter. He is just trying to make every khan and Afghan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Saif Ali Khan is known throughout India as being of Afghan heritage, there are reliable sources to back this claim. Nobody ever disputed this and this is important information for an article about a famous Bollywood actor, you see this in every other article. Saladin1987 is an anti-Afghan editor, he's removing "Afghan" from every article. Saladin1987 is used by another editor as a single purpose account with special agenda so his main account doesn't gets involved.--39.47.29.108 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Both of you are perilously close to violating WP:3RR and there is no discussion on the talk page. 39 no more personal attacks please as per the warning on your talk page. And don't make veiled accusations of sockpuppetry. Either make a clear assertion (with proof) or desist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I accept the fact that I was wrong for using bad words in edit summary and I won't do it again. Saladin1987 is saying that the term "Afghan" means a refugee, that's how he sees Afghan people. Read his own state of mind here: "Bro i understand the term Afghan ... pakistani pakhtuns dont like being called Afghans as they think this term was used in history and now for Afghan refugees. ... My mother is a Pashtun turi and i know alot of Afghan Pashtuns(PAshtuns of Afghanistan) dont accept them as Pashtun as they are shia leave alone the Afghan word. ... This Saladin1987 was known before as User:Strider11 (who is now banned), he is basically editing Wikipedia based on what Pakistani people think of the name "Afghan". This is not allowed in Wikipedia and any editor doing such shouldn't be allowed to edit pages. The fact is I know Saladin1987 based on information he exposes on his own terms, such as his location, his background and his personal views. He used to be a regular chatter in Yahoo chat rooms and there he abused Afghans and Indians on daily bases. There is no doubt that he is not that same person, and I know for a fact that he's abusing multiple accounts. No editor in his/her's right mind would be doing the stuff Saladin1987 is doing unless of course that person doesn't care about being blocked or banned.--39.47.29.108 (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

i dont have any other account but as you have referred to me as terrorist here , i have reported it . Also you have broken a three revert rule . Calling me names will do further bad to youSaladin1987 19:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Afghan word in pakistan means Afghan refugees as a whole article is on them Afghans in Pakistan. Also i have got only one account. i dont hate Afghans or indians, its just you want to portray me as one but you surely hate pakistanis as depicted in the words that you used against me. Btw paki is a racist word List of ethnic slurs Saladin1987 20:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Nobody gives a rats ass what the word "Afghan" means in Pakistan, this is Wikipedia (not Pakistan). Pakistan (which is known in the world a 3rd World Country) is itself a land of refugees from India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and other countries. When Pakistan was created in 1947 millions of people from India and Bangladesh moved to this newly created country, and all of those are referred to as refugees (see Muhajir people). The province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is where all the Afghan refugees live and to them this is their native territory. This area was part of Afghanistan for ages and it's still a disputed territory. Your actions in Wikipedia proves that you hate Afghans and Indians... that's like a Pakistani terrorist (i.e. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mir Qazi, Ramzi Yousef, Aafia Siddiqui, Faisal Shahzad) arguing in court that he/she isn't a terrorist.--39.47.29.108 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Guys, use the article's talk page to make your arguments and focus on content, not sniping at each other. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

References

"Vandalism?"

I saw your post that you feel I am vandilizing and being disruptive...? I am most sorry- I DID NOT mean to offend or disrupt, only to try and make wikipedia a more enjoyable place for the fandoms I know are viewing those pages. Also, I think it is fairly accurate, though amusing, information. Please let me know what is considered appropriate so that I may know to refrain from bad activity in the future.

(P.S- I am new to wikipedia and figuring out how this works so please don't get mad at me if I am doing this wrong. Most likely if this continues I might delete my account soon.)

@EtceteraBlue: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite, so a more formal, impartial tone is required for content. Content also needs to be sourced properly. There's a bunch of help links on your talk page that will give you more information about various aspects of the encyclopedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

NOTVAND IP

Hi NeilN, I noticed your warning on User talk:65.129.156.23 after I had blocked them. Just so that you know, I blocked the IP because they were disruptively reverting edits made by Binksternet, and were doing so while use deceptive edit summaries, like what you reverted. Best. Acalamari 09:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Some questions

First of all I thank you because you have done a great job by checking my edits regularly. I am not irritated by this at all but infact it is helpful for me when you point out my errors and mistakes. But my humble request is to please don't revert my edits instantly. For example you asked me to provide sources for my edits on Islam in France, which I provided and dispute was resolved easily.

Now let's come to the main point. Although there is some friction between me and User:Peaceworld111, I always trusted him when I comes to sources. There are a lot of religion related articles on wikipedia where I asked him to provide sources regarding ahmadis and he did so. I admit that he is always humble and affectionate with me. He has a very nice character. But most times I was fairly irritated when he used book sources. I don't know how to verify book sources. Nevertheless I trusted him. Recently he added info regarding ahmadis on religion in Russia page and provided a book source. I was unable to remove ahmadis despite a great deal of controversy because I was sourced. But yesterday user toddy1 pointed out that there was not a single mention of ahmadis in the source. Infact it was related to azerbiajan. I can't really explain how much I was shocked and disturbed. He had been misleading me and wikipedia readers using fake sources. In the heat of emotions I left a message on his talk page where I called him a liar. I still can't explain why it is against wikipedia guidelines to call a user liar when he is spreading misinformation at the expanse of the trust of other users. Nevertheless I am sorry.

Now please tell me why you reverted my edit on Religion in Egypt. He is claiming that there are 50,000 ahmadis in Egypt using a book source. Please tell me how did you verified the source because I am unable to do this. If you are really able to verify source then please tell me because there are a lot of other book sources which need verification. Thanks.Septate (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: You cannot reject a source because you cannot access it. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Wikipedia articles have hundreds of thousands (probably over a million) of cites to books or sites behind paywalls. Assuming good faith means we accept these sources if there's no compelling reason not to. A compelling reason would be if an editor has a proven history of falsifying sources (and I don't mean one iffy case). With regards to Peaceworld111 and yourself, if you have questions about a source, I would start by asking him to provide an exact quote from the source that backs up the article text. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I want quotes from his all book sources.Septate (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take action

Please NeilN take action. See Talk:Religion in Russia# "Islam Outside the Arab World" p418 as a source. Peaceworld is openly misleading other users. It is well proved fact that he added book source in order to prove that ahmadis exist in Russia. But interestingly he is now claiming that he added book source in order to prove that Muslims represent 6.5% of the total population. That's complete maddness. How can this be possible. Arena atlas source already states that Muslims represent 6.5% of the population, we don't need another one. Futhurmore following link shows that Ahmadis and the book source were added at the same time meaning that source was added only to prove that ahmadis exist.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/614652615 Thanks to your quick descions he is praising you for taking his side. He is clearly lying and misleading others and no one seems to care. He is filling wikipedia withlots of misinformation. I am really worried. He is no longer trustable neither his book sources. Please instead of teaching me civility guidelines, do some thing about this. I am depressed. Take some action! You have to.Septate (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• @User:Septate, "It is well proved fact that he added book source in order to prove that ahmadis exist in Russia". I did not exactly hide this?
• "But interestingly he is now claiming that he added book source in order to prove that Muslims represent 6.5% of the total population." I did not.
• Septate, I don't have the energy to keep defending myself. You have called me a "liar" on many occasions, "untrustable" and the one who misleads, but I shall not be your mirror and start calling you the same. I suspected this long time ago, but as with much of the Muslim world, you struggle to tolerate "Ahmadis".--Peaceworld 10:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh God, Oh God, Oh God. I am really sorry User:Peaceworld111. I was unable to understand your opinion. I though that you meant that the source was intended for 6.5% figure but after reading it again I am totally shocked. You were infact saying that the source was not intended for 6.5% figure. I am seriously sorry. I am foolish and stupid. For God's sake forgive me. You have full right to open ANI case against me. But please remember I seriously misunderstood it. For God's sake peaceworld forgive me. Alas!Septate (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I promise you that I will never hurt you again User:Peaceworld111. I will never challenge your edits even if they are unsourced. I am gravely sorry. You are always right and I am always wrong. You have full right to open ANI case and block me.Septate (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: This is why WP:AGF is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. Challenge edits if you think there's a problem but try doing so in good faith and do it politely. Even if you are right, calling another editor names will make other editors focus on your behavior rather on the point you're trying to make. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh! Just open an ANI case against me and block me (You have already given me last warning). That's what I deserve. I am happy that I made 1500 edits to this incredible encyclopedia. Again, I am really sorry because I have wasted a lot of your precious time and you have been tolerating me for such a long time.Septate (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: No one is going to open an ANI case against you for this and no one is going to block you for this. Your constructive contributions outweigh the issues you sometimes cause. Just follow the path I suggested above and everything will go much smoother. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN for your kindness.Septate (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

UIDAI

Please see this diff [7] and reconsider the message you left on my talk page. I also presume you are aware that the Supreme Court of India has admitted a challenge to the legality of the aforesaid executive order as filed by Justice Puttaswamy.Mansjelly (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mansjelly: "Dubious" is a POV judgement, not a statement of fact. Being challenged in a court of law doesn't change that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"Dubious" simply means 'in doubt'. The doubt to the order does not flow from the challenge itself, but from the fact that the Supreme Court admitted the challenge as raised and thereafter trashed the said order.Mansjelly (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mansjelly: Suggest you consult a better dictionary - "not to be relied upon; suspect.", "morally suspect." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"dubious = of doubtful quality or propriety; questionable" ..Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Mansjelly (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mansjelly: Right, it's not up to us to say something is of doubtful propriety. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, both the Supreme Court and the Parliamentary sub-Committee have said that UIDAI's constitution by exec order is of doubtful propriety and a breach of Parliamentary privilege. I would have cited from the SC order except that its a primary source.Mansjelly (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mansjelly: Then you'll have to write something like this, "by what the Supreme Court has called an executive order of "doubtful propriety", issued in January 2009." with an appropriate secondary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Joshuaj102003

Hey there, Joshuaj102003 is back to adding poorly sourced/original research into articles. AD (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@The 80s chick: Final bit of rope. Makes for a more clearcut ANI report if he continues. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@The 80s chick: And ANI report. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

NeilN: I see you reversed the recent edits I made to the Soka Gakkai page using Twinkle. Thank you for helping to protect against vandalism across wikipedia! I also feel this is an important issue.

However just to clarify, I don't believe these edits should be considered vandalism as they have been thoroughly discussed on the talk page and agreed upon by a number of key contributors including the admin. Was their another reason you thought it was necessary to reverse the edits? Just let me know and I'd be happy to consider them in a future edit. If not, I'd like to continue with the edits that were agreed upon on the talk page. Thank you again, --Daveler16 (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Daveler16. Not all reversions made by Twinkle are for vandalism. In fact, most of my reversions are not for vandalism. It's important that you look at the edit summaries to see what they say. In this case, mine included "some are not improvements". Three other editors chimed in with some concerns on the talk page after my revert. I've now also expanded on my reasons there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Megaforce talkpage

Why did you readd the section break? It only makes it that much harder to quote Ryulong in the discussion. He can't say it's two different lines of conversation when the phrases "And really..." "You guys..." and bring up points directly from before the break in the discussion. --Harmony944 (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Harmony944: They're obviously two different comments. Please read WP:TALKNEW: "Create subsections if helpful. Talk page discussions should be concise, so if a single discussion becomes particularly long, it may then become helpful to start a subsection (to facilitate the involvement of editors with a slower computer or Internet connection)." That section is already very, very long. A break is useful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahmadiyah

AN OTHER VIEW :- I had made a few changes on the page of "mirza bashir ud din Ahmad" and Dr. Abdus Salam in good faith. Both of these men belong to a group, rather I should say a cult called "Ahmadiyah". these people are not considered to be Muslims by all the factions of main stream Islam (hanfis,maliki,hanbli or Shafii and Shiites). it is highly objectionable to portray these people as "Muslims" because they don`t share any of the fundamental islamic beliefs.

It is quite pertinent to mention here that Pakistan National Assembly has declared this cult as non-Muslim vide 2nd amendment in the 1973 constitution of Islamic Republic Of Pakistan<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Pakistan>.

Foregoing in view, it will be highly appreciated that necessary amendments to these pages may be accepted. these amendments are more realistic and from reliable sources.

thanks

§§§§§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamicpointofview (talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 July 2014‎ (UTC)

@Islamicpointofview: It does not matter what you think the Ahmadiyah are. Some Christian sects don't consider other Christian sects Christian. Some Jewish groups don't consider other Jewish groups "true Jews". Scholarly sources consider Ahmadiyah an Islamic movement so that's what we follow. Now, as to your specific edits, malicious edits and POV pushing like this [8], [9], [10], [11] is completely unacceptable. As I stated on your talk page, continue in this fashion and you will get reported. If you wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you read our WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability policies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How to put on a talk page?

Riddle me this: if anyone who dares suggest a certain favorite official might be a little integrity-challenged gets immediately declared a sockpuppet of some user they never heard of before, is there any way whatsoever to bring up on the talk page the multiple verifiable and reliable sources that so definitively show that official is indeed integrity-challenged?

YOU wrote "take it to the talk page." Well, he can't take it to the talk page, I can't take it to the talk page, no one can. Because instead of the dozens of people fed up with the official's lack of integrity, there is supposedly only one person saying "Hey, here's 5 newspaper articles, with more on the way."

Hell, I might get declared a sock just for asking you this. Because, if you all do look at IP evidence, you will find that I am within 50 miles of the person you might declare me a sock of (not that you have to look at such evidence because such evidence is never subject to cross-examination and can therefore there is no need to even bother to fabricate it).

Bet you haven't read this far down. You see the word "sock" and that immediately makes your blood boil and ignore everything I'm saying. But if you have read this far down, ask yourself: are sock-hunting trophies more important than getting verifiable citations from reliable sources into Wikipedia?

Just in case you're wondering, the music department had a lot of cooperation with engineering prior to 2011. That came to an abrupt halt on February 2011. A lot of nice things came to abrupt halts that month. Flutedude (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Flutedude: If you're talking about Farshad Fotouhi, given the sockfarm surrounding that article, your seeming wish to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, and this statement you just added to your talk page, I am completely uninterested in discussing this with you. You can use WP:DR if you wish to discuss content matters further. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

why i edited fatimah

hi neiln, you left me this message: "Please do not add or change content, as you did to Fatimah, without verifying it by citing a reliable source." well, neiln , what i edited was a part of the Fatimah article which is based on pure sectarian hate . the book the original publisher of the part i edited used as "a source" is well known for being a sectarian book and a source for information designed to fuel sectarian hate and can not be a reliable source to start with . not to mention, it can not be considered a neutral source of information. just because whoever published that part of the article based their information on a published book does not make their source automatically a reliable source !! the article in it's current form is sectarian and contains hate and this is not what wikipedia is all about and the parts i edited are in fact against wikipedia policies and they should be removed from that article. i hope you will understand. i will keep working on this issue whenever i have some free time until the article in question is clean, neutral, non sectarian, hate free and complies with wikipedias guidelines and policies. i will talk to others ( wiki guys) about it if i have to. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont101 (talk • contribs)

@Dont101: What you did was add your own personal commentary to the article. [12] Please see our no original research policy. If you have issues with the content, use the article's talk page to discuss them but don't put your comments in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

neiln, you did it again and you reverted an edit i did. i edited that part of the age of consent article because that part has nothing to do with the subject of the article. that part was just a cultural attack and there are sources that contradict the information in it. anyways, i started to form an idea about the type of edits you dislike ,and therefore, revert. again, if you keep doing it i will complain about you else where.

sorry, but if you continue to be selective in reverting edits and targeting certain issues and users and refusing to see their reasons, i will complain about you to wikipedia. it is obvious that many users are already not pleased with how you target them or how you select to "protect" some articles and keep them in their current un neutral form.

@Dont101: You deleted sources from the article including this one without any reason why. That source looks perfectly fine. I strongly suggest you read WP:BRD and start explaining what you're doing in edit summaries and using the article's talk page when someone objects to your change. Many users don't understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and some don't like being told that. You can complain but based on your edits, I doubt you'll get very far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

nelin, ok ..lets say that it was wrong to edit the fatimah article the way i did , but what about the current form of the article? it is sectarian. it is not a neutral source of info, period. why do you refuse to see this? just because the publisher of that part of the article is using a published book as a source does not make that part of the article worthy of being on wikipedia. the book they are using as a source is a well known sectarian book and it contains hate as well.

@Dont101: So what you need to do on the article's talk page is point out problems with the current sources by saying something like, "This source has been criticized by [other expert sources (not your opinion)] because..." Or, improve the article by adding text using better sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

i edited that part of th age of consent article because that part has nothing to do with the subject of the article. it contains info published to tarnish the image of the culture of a certain country, and again that part i deleted has nothing to do with the subject of the article. when it comes to marriage, many countries have no age limit and many child marriages take place too, yet, no mention of such things next to their "age of consent " info !!! however, only one single country was selected and one case of a child marriage was mentioned !! does this sound right to you? it is obvious that particular country is being targeted allover the net and it is hard to find credible neutral sources about it's culture.

i really don't have anymore time to sit here and argue anymore today but the issue will not end here.

@Dont101: There are many countries in that article which have similar content (see Qatar for example). Now that you've brought up specific concerns, I've made an edit. Look at this compared to yours. Proper edit summary and keeps the sources needed for the text that remains in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate discussion?

Please explain what was inappropriate about my question? Why did you delete it? You are very biased. Are you Jewish?KevinFrom (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@KevinFrom: Suggest you re-read what others have already told you. [13], [14] You can take your "musings" elsewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Text from my article moved to another.

Thank you Neil for your information. I will contact the other party and tell him I'm not happy because he deleted my text, not just copied it. TimothyWF (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neil, thanks for the tip off. Appreciated. Victuallers (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

For your help with the spammer. I thought they'd be back. 06:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

An apology

I apologise for my recent behaviour. I was mad and therefore not very accurate because I noticed that info about the current status of relations between Ukraine and Russia was missing in Vladimir_Putin#Relations_with_post-Soviet_states; therefore I thought it was not present in the whole article and I was suspecting this was done in a whitewash (of Putin) attempt. Then I noticed I was wrong since I noticed Vladimir_Putin#Intervention_in_Ukraine_and_annexation_of_Crimea.... in which the current status of relations between Ukraine and Russia is described.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yulia Romero, thank you for reaching out. I really appreciate that. I did look over your recent edits and they completely addressed my concern. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Post-Soviet conflicts template

What exactly do you mean by "Evidence of Russian soldiers?", how does this relate to your edit? --KronosLine (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@KronosLine: For a conflict to be listed on that template, I think a Russian armed presence should be significantly involved in the conflict. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The template isn't aimed at only Russian involved conflicts, it must include all armed conflicts of all post-soviet states. --KronosLine (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@KronosLine: I've reverted myself and asked a question here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding editing of jaora artical on Wikipedia

Sir I am the resident of Jaora(India). The objects I have edited was surely true I don't want them to be Reverted. So sir please set them as I edited them.

Thank You

Sincerely Gaurav Yadav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadav gaurav (talk • contribs) 06:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yadav gaurav. While I don't doubt your changes were true, Wikipedia is not a directory in that articles don't simply list places with no indication of their notability. Your edit also had a few other problems such as incorrect formatting and the addition of empty sections. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

pirelli calendar

Thank you for warning me but you can check out Graziadaily for the Pirelli 2015 models http://www.graziadaily.co.uk/fashion/news/the-2015-pirelli-calendar-is-revealed--featuring-first-ever-plus-size-model — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrswhoknoweverything (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mrswhoknoweverything: Thank you for providing a source. Please add sources to articles whenever you add new information. If you need help doing this please read Help:Referencing for beginners or drop me another note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

edit request

Hello there, a user named McGeddon makes disruptive editing at Fazlur Khan article. Please tell him to stop reverting constructive edits. You are a much more experienced editor, so please fix the article. He directly removed good info from 11:32, 24 July 2014‎ edit. please put it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.141.120 (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

McGeddon's edit summary seems pretty clear to me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

he removed important info and pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.141.120 (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop socking. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

still, the info i added was not bad. directly sources were provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.141.120 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me!

But do not just get onto me like you did on my talk page as you need to get on Ryulong as I been removing and he has been readding and you want to get on me and not him? I do not play that. Please say something to him too. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bumblebee9999: I apologize for missing that he was doing the same thing to your page. I've left a similar note for him. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you. Sorry for getting upset, I just didn't find it fair but it's all good now. :) Bumblebee9999 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

He lied to you about this though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: What I saw was him undoing your changes to your talk page and you undoing his changes to his talk page. Really, if someone deletes or re-adds a post on their talk page, just grit your teeth and ignore it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: I did not lie. You were readding stuff to my talk page that I was deleting, just as much as I was and neither of us wanted it on our talk page but we kept readding it to the others talk page. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Could you also talk to Ryulong about going through and nominating pages for deletion because of his personal opinions because if I am right Wikipedia does not work like that. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bumblebee9999: When you get down to it, all deletions and calls for deletion are based on personal opinions about how well they meet Wikipedia guidelines. Testing the waters on a class of articles is usually okay (BTW, I've weighed in on all three discussions). Once these AFD's are concluded the results should be taken into account before more nominations are made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Okay, I get what you are saying and I guess I should probably not say anything about personal opinions in the future. Thank you for the information. Also thank you for your revert on my talk page. I really do appreciate the look out and I am strongly considering just abandoning the account and not logging on anymore because I personally do not want the drama. But I will take what you said into consideration for the future and again thank you for everything. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Indic articles

Hi, you seem recently to have got drawn into issues relating to Indic articles. You've been around a long time and the experience shows. It is appreciated. I hope that, if you continue the involvement, you manage also to retain your sanity - they can be a nightmare & I've exploded on several occasions. Expect trips to ANI and, alas, both legal threats and death threats. And stick with it because the protests are usually baseless and innocuous in fact despite being perhaps alarming in nature. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. Yes, it seems that if one caste-related article makes it onto your watchlist others will inevitably follow. Thanks for the advice. These things always have the potential to make it to some noticeboard and if they do, and if you don't have clean hands, the discussion can veer offtrack wildly. So WP:CIVILITY is the order of the day. Plus, I'm just a really nice guy generally. Okay, some of you talk page watchers can stop snorting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Rolling Coal - Disambiguation of Expression

Hello. You have reverted an edit of the word 'cole' . Have you inserted the similar expression into 'coal' then or left it alone without the disambiguation.Richard416282 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Richard416282. Disambiguation pages are not meant to list every (and obscure) phrase containing a homonym. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN. OK, So, while the reference may be obscure, is that not the reason to have a disambiguation page? So that the obscure variation of a phrase is defined, and added to the whole encyclopaedia experience? You deleted my edit. Fine. Did you improve the disambiguation page? Did you move the phrase over to the correct spelling? No, Ok, so you complain about one part (addition of obscure reference to term), yet don't fix what broke it. Hmmm. OK. Now fixed. Not part of 'Cole' disambiguation page.Richard416282 (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't belong on Coal either. No one is going to say just "coal" when they mean rolling coal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

For example look at Peanut (disambiguation). No mention of peanut butter as people don't say "peanut" when they refer to peanut butter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Our "newcomer", Raam2 appears to be topic banned user Khabboos. This would not be the first time[15] nor the second time.[16] He is using it to violate his topic ban. There are various edits that clearly relieve that it's him. Such as:

1. Editing the same exact articles (one example per article).[17][18][19][20]

Khabbos[21][22][23][24]

2. Same active edit time.[25]

Khabboos[26]

3. Trying to use the same "sources".[27]

Khabbos[28]

4.Adding/restoring the same exact content that was previously removed[29][30][31][32][33] then claims that they were wrongfully removed on the talk page[34] removed even when it was clearly discussed on it.

Khabboos[35][36], talk page[37]

5. Randomly claims some friend on wiki has helped him.[38] it even turns out that their "friend" is also wrong like that of the banned user.

Khabbos[39]

6. Spams us with "useful sources" that he has not read or explain it's purpose.[40][41]

Khabbos[42][43] [44] (see the last reply, there's 7 links)

7. Oddly asks for others to look for sources because his claims are "true". Which is weird since they started the discussion and provided useless "sources".[45]

Khabbos[46]

8. Using edits summaries, such as "grammar fix" to completely change sentence or violate polices.[47]

Khabbos[48]

9. Doesn't seem to get what wrong with his edits[49]

I doubt such sheer amount of ignorance and all the things mentioned above are just coincidences. What do you think? AcidSnow (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have reported him for socking. Drop in to give you thoughts on it. AcidSnow (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow! These are EXACTLY the same types of behaviors Khabboos has exhibited in the homeopathy area. The naive sockpuppetry makes him look more and more like the multiple indef banned User:Dr.Jhingaadey. They have got to be twins (except their socks have myriad names). -- Brangifer (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ashish Nanda

The Business Standard article does not say that Nanda is still an Indian national. It is in public domain that he is a US national, so please provide a reliable source which explicitly says Nanda is an Indian. 13:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansjelly (talk • contribs)

@Mansjelly: He was born and raised in India. That doesn't change. We do not go on citizenship alone, see for example Gérard Depardieu, M. Night Shyamalan, Kalpana Chawla. If you have a source for American national then the text could be changed to Indian American. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The IIM Ahmedabad itself has officially confirmed that Nanda is a US national, the copy of which is accessible to me, and to any Indian citizen (but not to foreigners). Given this situation, it is false and misleading to publish that Nanda is an "Indian" which has a specific meaning in India. The other labels like Indo-American, American-Indian, Indian-American etc. are unknown to me and are hence incomprehensible. This article should address both US-American readers as well Indian readers so as not to cause confusion through linguistic differences over our "English". FYI in India we do not regard any of the 3 examples you cited as "Indians", we describe the latter 2 as "PIOs" (Persons of Indian origin). I would also disagree with the term "Indian-American" as in India we view Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Chileans etc. as "Americans" too. Mansjelly (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mansjelly: So, no publicly accessible source and you want to change the article based on your particular linguistic preferences and not what we have in other articles. No thanks. Please start a community-wide RFC if you wish to discontinue the use of Indian American across articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a publicly accessible source, for an official document, which being an official document is only accessible to Indian citizens, as it is otherwise covered under the Official Secrets Act. I have a copy. If you confirm that you are an Indian citizen I can snail-mail a copy to you. Otherwise I can fully cite the source -- its author, its reference number, its date, and where it can be accessed from. OTH, if you are an US citizen, I'm sure you can confirm under your laws that Nanda is a US-American. FWIW I have much better things to do with my time than raise RFCs or whatever.BTW, see this [50]. Mansjelly (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This Official Secrets Act? The one that "involves helping an enemy state against India" is okay with releasing a document to over a billion people who will keep the contents a secret? Anyways, if you want that term changed then you know what to do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Nanda has revoked his Indian citizenship and passport by acquiring US nationality is a State secret which can only be disclosed to Indians. The Indian Government is not obliged to disclose this fact to every alien. Its perfectly logical and consistent with international law. FYI, the article on "Indian-American" is very thin on reliable sources which show that this is term is not a Hoax. Please take it up with your site administrators.Mansjelly (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on these two less than credible assertions, I think we're done here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You want 'State secrets' included in an encyclopedia? Isn't such disclosure, grounds for treason under the very same Official Secrets Act ?  NQ  talk 15:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@NQ: Oooh, good point! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The question is on Google (search "if the present IIM-A Director Prof. Ashish Nanda is a US national, or not, and if so the approvals of PMO, ACC etc.") as is its answer. So Google Inc. is liable for disclosing how they accessed the secrets held by Mr.Sujit Kumar, Under Secretary/Ministry of HRD/Dept of Higher Education/Management Division room 430-"C" Wing Shastri Bhawan vide F.No.16/73/2013-TS.V/12.11.2013.Mansjelly (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

1) We don't care what random bloggers post. 2) Your posts are getting more nonsensical. No one is talking about Google. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please don't talk nonsense. The person who asked for that information is no "random blogger" but Ambrish Pandey - the well known RTI activist of India who is with "Association for Democratic Reforms" a notable Human Rights organisation which was founded within IIM Ahmedabad and numbers many IIM faculty as its trustees. See [51] [52]. He asked for this information because of this [53]. The official reply of the Govt. of India (which I have fully cited) establishes that Nanda is not an Indian. No one is talking about Google. Mansjelly (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, it does not matter if Nanda is presently not an Indian citizen. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

IF you have a reliable source which explicitly says that Nanda is presently an Indian, lets have it, or else self-revert your false reinsertion that he is. You should appreciate that Wikipedia content is mirrored on many sites and read there by people who don't know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Mansjelly (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says Nanda magically went back in time and changed where he was born, grew up, and went to university? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He is Indian born. Take Gérard Depardieu for example, you don't see him being referred to as a Russian actor, even though, he recently acquired Russian citizenship. Likewise, as Neil mentioned earlier, citizenship isn't the only deciding factor here. If you have sufficient verifiable, publicly accessible sources to support your theory that he is in fact a US citizen, you are welcome to start a discussion on the talk page of the article to gain consensus to include your changes  NQ  talk 17:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The statement in the article that Ashish Nanda is an Indian is demonstrably false, and its falsity is verifiable from the source I have cited which is easily accessible to the Indian public. The further statement that Nanda is an Indian educationalist is equally false and even more mischievous. Nanda's educationalist tag comes from his American association and not from his Indianness. He never taught previously in India, and virtually the whole of IIMA's senior faculty is up in arms against this "foreigner" who has been imposed on them by the previous deposed Government in its final days by foisting false criminal cases and case of plagiarism on them to get them out of the running.Mansjelly (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, unless you can provide verifiable reliable sources to support your claim, there is nothing more to discuss here. I'm sorry for reviving the discussion. NQ  talk 18:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The on-page claim that Nanda is Indian is made by NeilN. So the burden of proof devolves upon him for his claim and not upon me. All he has shown was that Nanda was born and educated partially in India some 30 years ago. The source I have fully cited meets every definition of a reliable source to dispute a claim in a BLP article, and considering it is made from the Institute of which Nanda is the Director.Mansjelly (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is incumbent on you to provide a source that states Nanda was not born and raised in India. You don't seem to understand that citizenship or what a government calls you is not the be all and end all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually - (i) this is BLP article, so be ultra-careful (ii) WP:PROVEIT says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.". You restored the claim that Nanda ia an "Indian Educationalist" when the fact is that he is an American educator. you have failed to provide any RS which directly supports he is an Indian educator. His birth and early education are irrelevant, because in India Nanda is not looked upon as "Indian" but as "American". So you PROVEIT that Nanda is Indian - when his passport and his own Institute says he is not. Nanda is a Person of Indian origin so please correct yourself. Furthermore the BS article you cited is not a reliable source, but a paid PR article to counter the allegations raised against Nanda within IIMA - such as that he gets an unheard of astronomical salary package and gets to keep 100% of all his private consultancy income - and shares nothing with IIM. The entire senior IIMA faculty is now demanding the same thing and there is open warfare in IIMA over this. He is also being paid 80% more than what he made at Harvard, so this puff piece has no credibility as an RS.Mansjelly (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How does one "Move" this section to Ashish Nanda's talk page for wider discussions ?Mansjelly (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't, as your accusations and insinuations violate the BLP policy you're citing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@NQ: FYI. [54] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Compare this and this user. Mansjelly was created just a day after Unfitlouie got blocked. I just read through the talk pages of these users, and I must say I rather prefer the musings of Alex Jones. At least he makes more sense.  NQ  talk 08:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014 ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned an edit of yours at ANI

JUST FYT Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FelixRosch reported by User:Moxy (Result: ) -- Moxy (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Moxy: Not ANI but WP:3RRNB. I commented there before I saw this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I see 3rr is just one of the Admin noticed boards....dont go to them often oops. Perhaps it would have been best at some other place. O well whats done is done. I find it odd one person could cause problems at so many places. -- Moxy (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A definition is a Definition

Sorry for the inconvenience

As you can see the change in edit I was proposing was a definition of "Inquilab Zindabad" which was misinterpreted as "Down with the imperialism". But according to wiki, and in reality, its meaning comes to be "Long live the Revoluton". The other editor wanted the previous definition as it was the norm of Indian Propaganda to project the martyrs of Indian freedom struggle to be fighting a larger Imperialistic force. But according to me definitions should be definitions. As most of the people referring Bhagat Singh would go by the definition given in the brackets rather than checking its link and going through the linked text page, I was trying to change the meaning to what it should be (Please look it up). I have written to the editor. Thank you and SORRY... Regards, ARMarkande — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarkande (talk • contribs) 15:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amarkande: According to Wikipedia policies, disputes such as these are resolved by referring to reliable sources. The current source has "Down with Imperialism". If you want the article changed, you'll need to find a source discussing the incident with a different translation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: I am refering from a wikipedia page with about 7 references for the same phrase...(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquilab_Zindabad). Here you can also get a reference about how the phrase defined as "Long live the Revolution" was used by revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh and Azad who used it to urge future generations to endorse and support the political party's rebellious actions(and not for denouncing the imperialism). It means the same (Long live the Revolution) in Hindustani (a language). You can verify with a linguist.

@Amarkande: Actually the sources in that article don't provide a translation for the phrase and I've made note of that. Please provide a source that does. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: The translation of "Inqulab" from Urdu to English according to Oxford dictionary is "A revolution or uprising"

.. Zindabad also an Urdu word meaning 'may (a person/process) live' .. Zinda, as described in Wiki, is a persian word used in Hindustani (which includes hindi and Urdu) means "to live/living".. , .. "Abad" meaning in Urdu: To propagate....Amarkande (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amarkande: Please see Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Bhagat_Singh --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Please read this authors take in his point 10........Amarkande (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amarkande: Did you go to Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Bhagat_Singh? You'll see the confusion was cleared up and you were correct. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Its not about me being right... ppl reading need to know the exact definition... many ppl write their essays and articles frm Wikipedia now. They will be misled... Fortunately the problem was solved..because you would have got a deluge of references about the phrase...from ME!!!  :-P Anyways....Thanx.Amarkande (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amarkande: Thanks for pursuing this until it was corrected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

References

WP:SOAPBOX vio?

Would you take a look at Proxima Centauri's user page? He's hosting that Candy Crush treatise there and something about the current pope.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: Dropped them a note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Update

ORIGINAL MESSAGE: Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Health insurance. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN talk to me 01:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash nutty (talk • contribs)

Hello Neil,

I understand that you have reverted my edit. All I wanted to explain is I am NOT promoting my business. Just because the video is created by my company, does not mean that you can consider it spam. I would like to bring to your attention that such information is not available anywhere in the internet it will be useful to wiki User. I would also take this opportunity to point out that the information I have shared on wiki is unique and is not available anywhere in the net.

As far as your message about the links go, I do not want a backlink or SEO value from these information. Let me also explain you that the links were pointing to a YouTube video. This is not leveraging my website in any SEO value. I would request that you read/see/hear the content first and then make a decision whether it is a spam or it is really valuable to the user of wiki. Just because we created it, does not mean we are promoting it. We have never used any promotional language or advertising speech in the video.

Thanks Ash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash nutty (talk • contribs) 02:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ash nutty, this is pretty much the definition of WP:LINKSPAM. Please read the conflict of interest info I put on your talk page and refrain from adding links to your business. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

online ordering system

No links were added to the content, so I do not understand why it is perceived as advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9kondop (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@K9kondop: Please find non-commercial sources for the content you want to add and be mindful of copyright infringements like File:Concepts-3.jpg. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then why not simply leave the images out. That should solve the problem. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9kondop (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@K9kondop: No, please see verifiability. You still need to provide sources for the material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but if I add the reference URLs you will then say that it's a commercial URL and therefore non admissible. So, it's ok, I'll leave it as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9kondop (talk • contribs) 16:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@K9kondop: A source must be independent and have a reputation for fact checking and neutrality (e.g., newspaper, trade magazine). Not a vendor page designed to sell you something. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9kondop (talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

Hello I will add reliable sources thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish2470 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this revert... I must have been drunk when I made that one! Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

3RR in Indian Foreign Service Article

Dear NeilN,

I had reverted back 3 time on aricle 'Indian foreign service' malafied and unresobnable reverts by unregistered user IP 116.74.12.42 . I was not aware of 3RR Rule and more so I was not aware of diluting the quality of article and malafide editing by aforementioned user was already being observed by you and had already been issued warning by administrator. I regret my not keeping with rules. I only wanted to restore quality and integrity of article as all addition were duly referenced from reliable sources and all pictures added were relevant and in public domain.

As far as my 3RR is concerned, I have read carefully rules regarding 3RR and reverted my own latest revert as advised in article. Hope you will consider my mistake and also restore quality of article. Regret and Regards. Writereditor009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writereditor009 (talk • contribs)

Hi Writereditor009. You are in no danger of breaking WP:3RR. Consecutive edits count as one revert so feel free to undo the last undo of yourself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

So Sad with Wikipedia

I am an atheist, but found that Cherub article to be so slanted for Judaism up front, with little info on what a cherub is, exactly. I quoted the Bible with passages as sources; and you deleted my edits as unsourced--despite the Judaic texts in the article taken as word.

If I was a fourth grader trying to find the definition of "Cherub," your page would chap my brain. Wikipedia used to be the brand we all trusted--because we thought it was *us*. But now it is impossible to contribute. Your editors are mostly control freaks, the right-wing religious slant is stifling, the pages are filled with self-promoters & vanity press of dime store artists who put their own pages up, and blocks on anyone editing who isn't an insider--you have turned into the information control horror that you started to fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OhStop (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a better way to cite the bible. Maybe that'd help. - Denimadept (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, there's a way. See {{Bibleverse}}. Would that work for you, NeilN?- Denimadept (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Denimadept. Although OhStop is blocked for socking, let me answer you. The issue is not citing passages, the issue is providing secondary sources for the interpretations he's adding. This is a prime example: "Gabriel, because he has been involved in major Biblical events, is likely one of the Archangels (though the Bible does not directly say so - see Daniel 8:15 - 16)." There's no cite to biblical scholarship provided to back up that statement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't exactly specialize in this area. - Denimadept (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method

Maybe I should just stop reporting him already? Flyer22 (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for not only cleaning up breakage on my talk page, but for reaching out to help the fellow who was lost. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

AHMADIYYA MUSLIM JAMAATHU

IT IS NOT A MUSLIM JAMAATHU , BUT IT IS A NON MUSLIM JAMAATHU. KADIYANI IS NOT A MUSLIM , BUT HE WAS A FROAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by SALAMMK (talk • contribs)

@SALAMMK: I can make little sense of this. Please stop typing in ALL CAPS. Your edit removed sourced information and a link to the proper sub-article. If you're saying Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was not a Muslim, Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not editors' personal opinions, to determine that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

plz c the Wikipedia page of the heading Muslim,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim.SALAMMK (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@SALAMMK: What about it? If you expand the Denominations section in the Islam infobox you'll see that Ahmadiyya is listed. Note: please don't surround text with {{ }}. Wikipedia thinks you're trying to insert a template which is adding to the confusion. I've fixed your posts up above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for doing that I was trying to fix other changes that was made to the Roman Empire article. The previous person replaced Roman for Irish and I thought that I would change them. As for the Obama Sr. My son put something wrong on there so I quickly changed it so it would not offend anyone. Thanks for helping me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh12357 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya Caliphate

Hello

Consider this opening statement of belief: "The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community ... believes that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate ... is the re-establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate ...." This is an opinion altho it may have a reference from one of their own community theology books.

Now consider my edit in terms of the above belief statement of the Ahmadiyya community and the below explanation:

If you believe that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate established (after the passing away of the community's founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) is the re-establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate and which belief as you well know is a belief that no Muslim accepts, therefore the researcher/reader on Islamic topics has the right to know why that Ahmadiyya belief (about the re-establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate) is unacceptable to the Muslim majority (assuming that the Ahmadiyya can still be considered a minority Muslim sect in spite of all Muslim sects denying them any Muslim recognition) vis-a-vis the Muslim beliefs as follows:

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and their Caliphate are considered heretical by all Muslim groups due to one deep theological difference. The Quran asserts that:

Mohammad is not the father of any of your men but he is the Messenger of God and the Seal (the last and final) of the Prophets. (Quran 33:40)

Prophet Mohammad also had said:

Indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah, each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. But I am the last of the Prophets. There is no Prophet after me.

It's simply a matter of putting forward both referenced belief i.e. one against another referenced belief. I have no axes to grind against the Ahmadiyya. In fact I think it would have been better for the Ahmadiyya not to have mentioned anything about their Caliphate which makes no sense in Islam because it is against the belief system of a billion plus Muslims as opposed to their estimated 10 million(?) Ahmadiyyas worldwide. How are 10 million excommunicated Muslims going to push thru their candidate for a Muslim Caliph against that of one billion Muslims? Really it is altogether an absurd situation.

Please let me know if you need more explanations. In the meantime I have cancelled your revert.

Please also inform whether you are a Wiki Administrator since you are threatening to block me as if you are one. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Salim e-a ebrahim: This is classic synthesis which is not allowed here. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." As to your admin question, looking over your past edits I see that you seem to be fixated if editors are administrators or not. No one has seemed to have told you this explicitly so I will: It does not matter. Admins do not have any special powers to judge content or to hand out warnings. Anyone can do so. If an admin does that, they are acting as a regular editor. Their admin powers are used for performing the actual block, after the editor to be blocked has disregarded enough warnings which, again, can be issued by anyone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please visit the link below which describes the Dispute posted by me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Caliph

References

Rolling Coal

Hello NeilN - I recedntly posted material to the Rolling Coal entry that was deleted by you and tagged as "not relevant". My post had to do with the emissions control performance of equipment disengaged on pickups for the purpose of generating higher emissions. The material comes from a credible and often cited source, the U.S. Envoronmental Protection Agency. I believe my post is both relevant to the subject and credible.

Thenk you,

EpaulF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epaulf (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Epaulf: And none of that is relevant to the topic. It's like adding a section of the properties of modern steel to the Eiffel Tower article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Internet TV Inventor

Hi Neil, the article by Bob Metcalfe (the inventor of the Ethernet) was in an InfoWorld article dated 12/18/95 based on an interview with me (John Bentley) while demonstrating the Viewcall STB entitled "Couch Potatoes armed with Viewcall can surf the Web through the tube. It went on to say in a 2 page review that "we are watching our first intervision" as he explained the first internet on TV.There are numerous references to Viewcall on the Net and the later sale of its business to NetChannel an Oracle subsidiary. I invented TV internet well before anyone else and Viewcall was my company. In the light of other claims I simply want to put the record straight for reasons of Internet and TV history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekyman (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Beekyman. "we are watching our first intervision" does not mean you invented TV Internet. It simply means it was Metcalfe's first experience with it. Where is the two page review? All I found was Metcalfe's column. Also, please read our conflict of interest guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

TV Internet Inventor

There is a Catch 22 in what you are asking. Before my giving the interview for the Metcalfe article no person had claimed they had invented Internet TV, and indeed nor have they now although some writers now attribute it to Microsoft or Oracle. In fact the product had no name other than Viewcall or OnTV as Viewcall later called it, since it had not been invented by anyone else or even thought about. I have other inventions to my name and do not generally boast about them but I am just trying to put the record straight for historic purposes.

Metcalfe is a very well known TV industry figure and himself the industry acknowledged inventor of the Ethernet. His InfoWorld publication was an authoritative industry publication and he was the first knowledgeable journalist in the US to whom I demonstrated the Viewcall STB which was also exhibited at the CES exhibition of that date, and had been demonstrated some months earlier in London.

This seems to me to fit your conditions that an invention must be witnessed by some other recognized person or publication other than the inventor who lays claim to it. The University of Montreal also published a review entitled L'Etat d'Internet in 1999 which described me as follows:" Indeed , although one allots the invention of Internet on Television to a certain John Bentley, a British (sic) who was the first to put on the market of the consoles giving access to the Web by the means of television this one and his company disappeared early from the race because they did not have the funds to compete with WebTV Networks and Microsoft."

Metcalfe gave it the name of "Intervision" and his article makes it clear that what he was watching was in effect the forerunner of what Microsoft later called Web TV and what Oracle called the Network Computer since it was Oracle who purchased the business of Viewcall through their subsidiary NetCannel Inc. There are numerous references to this purchase on the net but they do not say I was the inventor since Oracle liked to lay claim to it as their product, but not that they had invented it. Viewcall America purchased the rights for Viewcall's product from Viewcall Ltd of the UK and acknowledged me as the Founder of both Viewcall Ltd and Viewcall America Inc, both of which companies I was a director. There is no article that says I was the inventor of Internet TV since I did not go looking for kudos, but neither has any other individual laid claim to it, unsurprisingly since they did not invent it. If this means you refuse to recognize any inventor simply because he is modest enough not to have gathered up sufficient evidence to suit you purposes then so be it, but then the truth of the record, which I assume is your purpose on Wikipedia, cannot therefore ever be recorded, and so the public are left either in the dark or with a false impression given by those with power and money to suppress the original inventor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekyman (talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Beekyman: Wikipedia's purpose is not to be the record of truth, but rather to report on what reliable sources say is the truth. This is straight from one of the core policies: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Do you have more information about the University of Montreal review? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)