User talk:NeilN

List of Dutch Nazi during the second world war missing on English wikipedia page next to German Nazi's

List of the Dutch Nazi's during the second world war is missing next to German Nazi's, I mean when seeing the list of the German Nazi's party I see people of Slowakia, Hungary, Osteria decent, but where are the Dutch Nazi's on the wikipedia page, men or women are a completely gone at the list, the right Christian party was even with some people with Jewish background.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Movement_in_the_Netherlands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Work number1987: You really need to make specific suggestions for modifications, listing the specific sources you want to use. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources and neither is a site with this disclaimer, "This content of this page is taken from Wikipedia, and may not be up-to-date. The objective of this website is NOT to provide information, but to demonstrate an automatic document organizer and browser." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year !!!
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Thanks for the notice

Speedy Deletion was prematurely removed, but the page has been vandalized many times since 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemoguls (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Moviemoguls: The article has spent most of its history in a deleted state [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

From 2007 - 2012 the article was on-line, it was only deleted from 2012 - 2015, so it has spent most of it's life undeleted, and significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemoguls (talk • contribs) 11:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Moviemoguls: And now it has been deleted two more times, the last time for copyright infringement. Suggest you use the Article wizard to draft the article and get it reviewed by experienced volunteers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Manhattan

So your plan is to force me to deal with that person that makes me sick? talk→ WPPilot  09:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@WPPilot: Take a break or simply stop posting there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Take me out of the conversation. talk→ WPPilot  09:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@WPPilot: Suggest you strike-through your comments. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Me not Drmies

I think you meant me, not Drmies, when you posted to Bishonen. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Sorry! It seems my mind is still lying on the beach, drinking fruity concoctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Nominating an Article for Deletion is not Disruptive Editing.

Nominating an Article for Deletion is not Disruptive Editing, these pages are vanity pages and are unnotable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemoguls (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Moviemoguls: It is disruptive when you don't follow the WP:AFD process three times. These are articles, not miscellaneous pages. And are you ever going to sign your posts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moviemoguls. (@Cullen328: ping.) - Location (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Location. I looked at both editors' contribution histories when Cybornetics popped up - not sure if it's socking but there's definitely some meatpuppetting and COI editing going on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cybornetics. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

RE: Talk: Death of Leelah Alcorn

NeilN, I believe you issued a warning in error toward me. Please retract it, because my section contribution was truthful and beneficial. If you continue to send me such messages with warning contents, then I will have to report you as a spam bot, because frankly your behaviour exhibits such characteristics. As a final comment, restore my section contribution on the page mentioned in the subject, or you will be reported as stated previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.253.75 (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, put it this way. Add that comment again and I will ask that you be blocked. Consider this your final warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"Rv sock"

Hey NeilN. I was wondering who the sock puppeteer of the sock you reverted in this edit was. Thanks! Lor^Chat 04:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lor: It's a dynamic IP who's been harassing Bish recently. See User_talk:Bishonen#ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you filed a SPI ? Even if it's a Duck, it's still a good idea so things can be worked out what to do with it. Lor^Chat 04:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lor: Actually it's a proxy [2] so a SPI is of little use. WP:RBI seems adequate right now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This is something that I would also be keen to know. I was also concerned at the reference to Technophant which, at the least, would have taken a little research if not background knowledge. In a previous reference to an IP involvement I saw reference to Drmies but have failed to track it down. GregKaye 09:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Dont Treat Me Like A Child

My Father, Mike Hawker wrote the lyrics for the song, Dont Treat Me Like a Child, as he did for all other songs for Helen Shapiro written by him and John Schroeder!! Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyH2jj (talk • contribs) 06:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi AndyH2jj. As I said on the Help Desk, we need a published source to state this information. Wikipedia articles are based on verified information that has been published in reliable sources. An editor's personal knowledge and experiences cannot substitute for this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Really??? So what published source did you use to post the incorrect information that you are displaying about this song?

Here is an obit for my father from The Independent newspaper which confirms he wrote Don't Treat Me Like A Child.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/mike-hawker-songwriter-who-won-an-ivor-novello-for-walkin-back-to-happiness-and-also-wrote-for-dusty-springfield-9598917.html

or perhaps this from BASCA.... http://basca.org.uk/news/tributes/

If you need further confirmation, then The Times also did an obit, or you can write to PRS, The Performing Rights Society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyH2jj (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AndyH2jj. The Independent source makes it clear that your father co-wrote the song. I'll make the change. Do you have any other sources that cover your father? They could be used to write a Wikipedia article about him. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If u want more info, search for the obit from The Times...also you can write to my mother jeanryderspain@yahoo.com she could give u lots of information.

You can also fin more information about my father here.... http://www.dustyday.co.uk/dusty-news/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyH2jj (talk • contribs) 17:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@AndyH2jj: Actually, I've found more sources. Give me about a week and I should have an article up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, great, if u need anything clarifying, just let me know.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/obituaries/article4156997.ece

please note, the original Times obituary had the cause of death wrong, they said he died of pancreatic cancer, which is not true, he had Pancreatic Cancer, and had a major operation about 4 years ago when they cut out half of his insides, and he became one of only a very few people in the world to ever survive PC, of which he was very proud, his doctor called him his hero, and only told him after the operation that at my Dad's age, he didn't think he could survive such major surgery. But he did, he even managed a holiday in Romania where i live with my wife, Otilia and his only granddaughter, Jessica Jean, who he adored, she is 5.5 years old now. He has 2 grandsons through my sister, Sarah..Jack and Sam.

He was totally clear of all cancer, and was looking forward to travelling and working more, he had also started writing film scripts and was keen to try and get his first movie deal.

Then he developed heart problems at the beginning of 2014 and went for tests and he had to have a double by-pass operation and a new aortic valve inserted, he had the operation in April 2014, and again he came through strongly, but unfortunately a week after being sent home he started having terrible pains, so he was taken back in and he had a huge internal infection, they did what they could, but the hospital was short staffed for bank holidays, and he died on May 4th 2014.

Michael Edwin Hawker 29.11.1936 - 04.05.2014

Born in Bath, Somerset, died in London.

parents: Ronald Edwin Victor (REV) Hawker, RAF Squadron Leader Rhoda Elizabeth (Peggy) Hawker (nee Newman)

If u want some pictures of him, send me and email address so that i can send to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyH2jj (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note

Please undo this edit per WP:BLPREMOVE, I gave 48 hours for rebuttals and no one felt the need to reply to it until I removed the final extreme BLP issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: No, as you are making up your own BLP policy (and resorting to incorrect allegations and facts) to remove information you personally don't agree with (as shown by your repeated attempts to treat a Supreme Court clerk as someone whose views you can remove because you think they are wrong). That's not how Wikipedia works. If you think an expert's views are wrong, find another reliable source that says so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor)#Requested move 20 December 2014

I invite you to a move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me

Please stop pinging me. Despite my personal inclinations to condemn McCulloch - I have more restraint and respect for McCulloch and have been trying to maintain professionalism and accuracy and you have snark and disdain for high quality material. I will not waste my time when better material and more accurate sources are not wanted over poor grade pieces which asserts false material. To be false does not take Arming America-type research, but errors of omission or misleading implications are equally valid concerns which make a source false or unreliable. I have better things to do than argue with editors who has a lack of respect for our article subjects. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the above section, you'll see that George Ho invited me to a separate move discussion. I had a question about a post you made 17 days ago so I thought it would be polite to ping you. Given your last sentence (assumptions of bad faith) I see I was wrong. I will permanently stop pinging you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That last sentence wasn't directed at you, but we are not on the same wavelength it seems. I know with the additional eyes (like yourself) the article will be improved. I'm dipping out of the articles since the biggest issues were resolved. While we disagree on standards - its much better than what it once was. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Internet forums

I just reorganized the List of Internet forums talk page (spent 45 minutes) so that the discussions were in chronological order by topic so that readers could follow the development of the criteria. I also reformatted the table last week. No content changes. Problem? Should this not have been done (I'll come back here for the answer.) 192.136.235.164 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi 192. Changing what other people wrote (even if it's something minor, like adding .com) is frowned upon. And editors expect sections to appear in chronological order. You moved a section you started today in between two sections that were started more than five years ago. This is confusing as editors expect and look for new content at the bottom of a talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the conventions.
192.136.235.164 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

See bottom of page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Internet_forums#Vandalism_www.thebiggestforums.com.2F

192.136.235.164 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Revdel

Done. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Also your OS request. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Editor, admin, arbitrator, oversighter... Anything else? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrators have CU and OS as part of their toolkit. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Infrormation of Kammas after fall of Kakatiya Dynasty.

Hello NeilN,

I understand you are deleting contributions on Kakatiya Dynasty and inserting false information into there. There wasn't any valid evidence of Kamma Rulers in Kakatiya Dynasty. After fall of Kakatiya Dynasty, their cheifs declared themselves as kings and one of them were Reddy Dynasty of Addanki. There is an evident information on the same at wikepedia too and here it goes for your quick information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddy#Kakatiya_period.

Please do not misguide people across the globe that Kammas were rulers after fall of Kakatiya, which never been so.

Shashi Arjula, PhD(Ancient Indian History - Osmania University) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashi.Arjula (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shashi.Arjula: I assume this and this is you? Please:

1. Log in when you edit.
2. Use edit summaries to explain your changes and deletions.
3. Add sources to back up your changes

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the recent change[3] by another IP was also incorrect. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

do not further contaminate my talk page.

Do you understand? Frysay (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frysay: I will have to notify you if I'm the one bringing you to WP:ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Title Paragraph Should Describe Main Ideas

Title paragraph should give main ideas concerned with the topic, not ancillary statistical information that does not support the topic.Vernekar8 (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vernekar8. no need to copy your post from the article talk page. Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Link deleted from "External links"

Hello NeilN,

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

Recently added link "Naukri FastForward" is a sub domain of Naukri.com so how adding a sub domain of any official website could be a Spam?

Thanks, I'd like to know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankush4577 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ankush4577 The External links section is not a place for companies to advertise their services. They get one link, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Page notice

I have reminded the editor about the sanctions of Ayurveda,[4] you think it would be good to make a page notice like there is for Homeopathy.[5]-[6] Bladesmulti (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bladesmulti. That unilateral imposition of 0RR was a poor decision on John's part. I vaguely remember reading something about it on ANI. Wasn't it subsequently revoked? There's no talk page or edit notice referring to it. If it's still in force then I suppose I'm guilty of breaking it with my single revert. As for your suggestion, I see there is consensus against (disputed?) referring to Ayurveda as pseudoscience (unlike Homeothapy) so what discretionary sanctions would apply? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There was no such arbcom template on the talk(page) when John had imposed restrictions, it was later added by one of the user and others deemed it as a violation of arbcom template, but they couldn't view like this anymore when it was clarified that John had imposed sanctions before the so called change that included the template to talk. That ANI section was moved to AN and the sanction was further extended, it turned into a Arbcom restriction.[7] It is said that this recent case[8] may put many of the contradictory arguments about alternative medicines out. There are 4 points on this template[9] some viewed that it may fall under the point 4. I didn't argued about it but you are right that there is a possibility to dispute, seeing that the association of pseudoscience sanctions of Acupuncture has been disputed. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: Okay, I'm taking this to mean 0RR is not in force on that article. Whatever sanctions are in force should be put in an edit notice as you suggested, to inform unsuspecting editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Better thing would be, if I ask John to do that. See you soon. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It isn't clear, but John has refused to give up his pov enabling grip on that page, and I doubt his mate Blades will be able or even willing to help, because he is an admitted advocate of Ayurvedic nonsense. It is also worth noting that despite the badly closed RfC, Ayurveda is Pseudoscience all the way through, just like a stick of rock has writin' all the way through. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting me and him once again. RFC was closed properly and no one seems to have opposed it even on AN, just discount the pseudohistorical revisionism and stick to something that actually exists. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Looks like a mess. "All editors of Ayurveda are restricted from edit-warring, broadly construed; from name-calling, however mild; and from making major changes without agreement in talk." is incompatible with 0RR. If an editor makes a major change without consensus, everyone is still barred from reverting? Editing restrictions should be written with the emphasis on making sure the article complies with WP:FRINGE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Only for 4 hours, and that was proposed by Future at perfect sunrise.[10] They wouldn't be considered, if they are not explained well or accepted. Some of the things like, datings, names, trivial facts, statistics, etc. are quickly accepted. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Four hours before you can revert a change that doesn't have consensus? That's still poorly thought out. "Ayurveda cures cancer." "Ayurveda causes cancer." both should be reverted immediately. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

For that reason, page is semi protected. Until now no one has made such changes. Probably because a auto confirmed user is a bit aware. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection is pretty irrelevant. Create a new account, make ten inconsequential edits, wait four days, and poof!, you can stick your declaration in the article for four hours. The edit that triggered this discussion was made by an autoconfirmed editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

e/c I got 24 hours for the phrase "fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority." interpreted by John as an NPA on the Talk page. Many admins could not find a personal attack in what I wrote, and I had been very careful not to make a personal attack, but nevertheless. I put a connected contributor tag on the talk page recently, but otherwise I've left it alone as poisonous. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't take it too seriously because no one actually unblocked you for that. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Blades, are you not paying attention or something. There is still debate going on today about that improper close. I suggest if you cannot be accurate about something, it is probably better to not make things up. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

AN section has been archived already by a bot and the so called admin help(on talk) was marked as 'yes', have you missed all of it? No one is going to introduce factual errors on a main page, just because you want. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

speedy deletion of photo

Hi there- I added a note to the page where the deleted photo is, hoping that will resolve the copyright issue. I am clearly new to wikipedia, so pls let me know if I need to describe the copyright situation differently. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elephants3 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Elephants3. The image was deleted yesterday (we're pretty quick to remove copyright violations) so your note currently won't help. As it is, you released it under a problematic fair use license. Wikipedia can use fair use images only if certain strict conditions are met. One of these is listed in the template you used: "where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it;" For example, if the image is of a famous performance or a historic meeting between two people. Your image was a fairly generic one, showing members of the ensemble. This could be easily replaced by a free image. If you cannot release the image under a free-use license my suggestion is to take another photo yourself and upload that using an appropriate license. Sorry if this is bit of a pain but Wikipedia strives to be as "free" as possible. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hey, nice trimming of the Pubic hair ...article.

I know, it's juvenile, but I couldn't help it. If you're offended, you can remove this ...and if you remove it, I won't be offended. ;)

Musdan77 (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Musdan77: Ha! Thanks. It's not great but the lead needed a... shave. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

O man where is the report button. *SILLINESS SPOTTED* Halv timme is over it seems. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 06:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 10:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please Reply

Hi NeilN,

I want to apologize for not getting back to you. I understand my actions and I will not add any more excess detail to top-level city pages, such as fire department subsections. Thanks--FDNY18

@FDNY18: Thanks, appreciate that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Um, the fire departments may be worth mentioning if they are historically significant. Neil ain't an admin BTW, just plays one in Talk: space. :) Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 03:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Obotlig: 1) Did you check the material being added before you commented? 2) Despite the smiley face, I'm at a loss why you made the admin comment when neither FDNY18 or I brought it up. Discussing appropriate content is not "playing admin". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It just seemed like a strange tone for FDNY18 to be using. He doesn't have to answer to a peer in that manner. Also I would indeed like to check out what material is being excluded if it relates to this topic. Is it worth the while? Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 05:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Obotlig: It's easy enough to check his talk page and contribs, some of which I've been trimming for a year plus. [11], [12] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Trimming" Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 06:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

??? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Read this

This organisation is a non-profit one .it is Not a copyright violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolution provider 1999 (talk • contribs)

@Absolution provider 1999: The non-profit status has nothing to do with copyrights. Anyone or any organization can copyright works. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Is copying and pasting sections from an online article a breach of wikipedia policies. Legacypac deleted addition to the religious and minority group persecution saying it is copyrighted which is not, this person is a disruptive editor and directed personal attacks towards me claiming that I am a banned user.This person seems to be doing this to several editors.Absolution provider 1999 (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Absolution provider 1999: The only issue here is you being unable or unwilling to understand copyright and repeatedly inserting copyrighted material into articles instead of stopping and listening. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood

Thank you for helping me out. I was simply trying to upload a more recent, better looking picture of Eastwood, but I did not know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyBalboa55 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi RockyBalboa55. Do you have a link to the photo? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It's a picture of him at the 2012 AFI Awards. http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Clint+Eastwood+12th+Annual+AFI+Awards+Reception+WZp82mEyIBXl.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyBalboa55 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@RockyBalboa55: Did you take that picture or was it someone else? If it was someone else then it's very likely copyrighted and we can't use it. For living people, Wikipedia can only use pictures which are in the public domain or under a "free-to-use" for any purpose license. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What if the picture was a desktop screenshot I took? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyBalboa55 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@RockyBalboa55: Nice try, but no :-) That's a reproduction of a copyrighted image and does not create a new work that you can license. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Template

The user removed a WP:RS and shrinked the article's reliably sourced content. How come is my use of the template "idiotic". MaRAno ^FAN 05:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: You are welcoming an admin and telling them, "Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines". Use some common sense and explain in your own words what issue you have. Removing sourced info can be constructive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Excuse me, did you just say removing reliably sourced content can be constructive? MaRAno ^FAN 05:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: You bet. If it's WP:UNDUE, a WP:COATRACK, misleading, unencyclopedic, etc., etc., etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dgdcw, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you very much for welcoming me to Wikipedia.

The note on the definitions of Buddhism (religion, philosophy) I submitted without knowing where it should go. However, that note was something I did in desperation. The problem I started with was translation of Pali Saddhā as faith. At the time I started the problem I was novice in the field of Buddhist studies. I had no knowledge of Pali. However, my education was in science, mathematics and engineering. For 11 long years I kept on because I was retired and had nothing else to do. In this process I had to learn everything from the beginning. I registered for a PhD is 2006. However, I could not finish it within the period of registration. The problem of the definition cropped up when I tried to write up the results of my investigations. I couldn't find a unique definition.

If I reject the definitions of Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy, in effect I am rejecting the those two articles. And many more articles on Buddhism.

I am Sinhala speaking Sri Lankan. Our lives are shaped by Buddha Dhamma and not by Buddhism. Dhamma is here simply the 5 precepts--right and wrong. Things like don't kill are taught at home by parents. We don't kill mosquitoes because we go to hell; we are (were) afraid of the mother. Things are like that.Today there are '350' million Buddhists in the world. They have no problem in following their Dhamma.

I shall be most grateful for any advice as to how I should proceed. Dgdcw (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dgdcw. Article content on Wikipedia is not based on editors' experiences but rather what is published in reliable sources. Your talk page post did spark a change in the lead sentence with the addition of 'or dharma, "right way of living"'. Were you looking for something else? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply.

I have been misunderstood by some poeple. Let me please explain again. I wanted a defintion of Buddhism. I found the three variants I mentioned. How to make a selection? I tried the Boolean analysis in the hope that it would solve the problem. I put the result in the talk page hoping someone would comment on it. I hope the people who critisized me hardly would understand.

Adding Dharma will not help. Dharma and Dhamma are two different things. Both are some sort of Laws. Religion is about rites and rituals. Actually the problem is with the definition of religion.

Actually Lord Buddha defined a path to achieve a mental state (Nibbana); a state in which one is perfectly happy. It is definitely not a religion any sense of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgdcw (talk • contribs) 18:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dgdcw: The current definition of Buddhism comes from reliable sources such as Pew or Britannica. What Buddhists call it does not take precedence over this (we wouldn't call Christianity the "one true religion"). If you're looking for a philosophical discussion about the nature of Buddhism or religion then Wikipedia isn't the place for that. We're focused on summarizing information published elsewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Help

Would you please assist in the discussion at BLPN in re Polaroid Kiss / Steve Hewitt. I know it has become a huge wall-of-text but your opinion would be greatly appreciated. JBH (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: You've certainly tried to steer the discussion the right way. Let's see if this will help. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. JBH (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I see you are well into the discussion. Thank you for taking the time. JBH (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

On a different subject. Is there any way to easily figure out who inserted a particular piece of text? Or compare editors histories? A couple of years there was a gadget that would highlight an articles text as you scrolled through it and say who wrote it. I thought it was WikiBlame but that seems to be something different, that I can not seem to get to work either. This experience has, if nothing else, shown me that digging through contributions and edit histories manually is a huge pain in the ass. JBH (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Wikiblame (warts and slowness and all) is it. For example, it tells me the "Hewitt" was in the first version of Polaroid Kiss. [13] For editor interactions you want this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. JBH (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The current definition of Buddhism comes from reliable sources such as Pew or Britannica

I am not aware of Pew. Britannica definition differs from the Wikipedia definition.

Britannica says that Buddhism is Religion and Philosophy. Wikipedia has two definitions: one for Buddhism and another for Buddhist philosophy. Thus Wikipedia has changed Britannica's definition. It appears that one has to live with the fact that different people have different definitions of Buddhism.

Thanks for the helpDgdcw (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

wrong

I'm not editwarring.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Slooppouts34: You've added similar material three times in the last 24 hours. I strongly suggest you do not do so for a fourth time if someone reverts you and use the talk page to gain consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've got another funny comment on my talkpage, Westernman--Slooppouts34 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Litvinenko

NeilN, thanks for your feedback. The text I deleted reported on BBC content. The citation was to a dnaindia.com article that talks about the BBC content, but includes no citation to the original source. How do we know that this dnaindia.com article accurately reflects the source BBC content? Dnaindia.com provides no source citation. I see that you say that the "source is fine." That would seem to be an extremely low standard of evidence. Tikva2009 (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)tikva

@Tikva2009: DNA India seems to be a reliable source. We would accept something in the New York Times like, "The BBC reported that..." Newspapers don't provide citations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, A sentence in the article says, "British media reported that the poisoning and consequent death of Litvinenko was not widely covered in the Russian news media." I tried to correct the false impression that gives, but you deleted my comment, remarking: "A self published book? I don 't think so." and "You complain about a newspaper but want to use a self-published book? Come on." It sounds like you are being impertinent as you don't seem to have an information-based objection. The information in my edit originated in a report that was Commissioned by the International Federation of Journalists. The report was reviewed by a panel of experts before an audience of professional journalists at the World Congress of the IFJ in 2007. No one challenged the analysis in question; it withstood professional scrutiny. That report subsequently served as the basis for the book The Phony Litvinenko Murder and is so noted in the book. NeilN, the Litvinenko article is full of questionable information. Much of the text fails to conform to the three basic article policies: (1) no original research, (2) neutral point of view, and (3) verifiability. I decided to start chipping away at this problem, but you are thwarting that effort at every turn. I'll give you a presumption of good faith that you are not working to preserve the misleading information, and hope that we are in accord that the article should be consistent with the basic article policies. But unless you stop playing an obstructive role, improving the article will be very difficult.Tikva2009 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

Tikva2009, improving the article can be done using reliable sources. A self-published book by a "publishing consultant" does not qualify. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, is it a Wikipedia policy that any "self-published" book shall not be considered as a reliable source? If so, I'd appreciate it if you could point me to a reference to the policy. Also, would you please offer a specific and representative example of a periodical that you consider to be a "reliable source." Thanks. Tikva2009 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: WP:SPS is pretty clear. What constitutes a reliable source depends on what is being sourced. For example, the New York Times is considered a reliable source for most things but is not a WP:MEDRS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: So what is the remedy if a so-called reliable source such as the New York Times can be shown to be the source of unreliable information specifically about Litvinenko, or even Russia in general? Tikva2009 (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: For a specific article, you'd open a talk page discussion and provide other reliable sources showing that the first source is factually incorrect. If you're asserting something like, "the NY Times is not a reliable source for Russia-related topics" then that would go on WP:RSN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: And what if two so-called reliable sources state facts that are diametrically opposed. Does that mean that they both can be presented in an article? Or must someone referee? For instance if the New York Times says one thing and al Jazeera has a different version. Tikva2009 (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: In many cases, yes, both views would be presented if the reliability was not in question and if there was not a significant majority of reliable sources favoring one view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: But what if a majority of sources are truly wrong, such as on the matter of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as reported at the inception of that war? Some news outlets told the truth, but the majority didn't. Isn't it true that a majority does not necessarily equal the truth? Who decides? A contemporary example is the recent political transition in Ukraine. Many so-called reliable news media have reported that president Yanukovych was impeached. (Such as the Washington Post: "...Yanukovych, who was impeached by parliamentary majority after fleeing the capital..."). Yet a careful examination of the then extant constitution shows that he was not legally impeached. Even the new government in Kyiv admits that he was not impeached. But still a great many media outlets continue to report that he was impeached. Isn't this "majority rule" concept very flawed? Don't just give me another reference; tell me what you think. I've seen a Wikipedia list of reputed self publishing sites that are named as falling short of being a reliable source. And I understand your point that the New York Times might be a reliable source on one subject, but not on another. You stated that the New York Times is considered a reliable source for most things but is not for WP:MEDRS as an example of such. However, that reference is silent about the New York Times. Is there a list that delineates what publications are either reliable or unreliable on particular topics? Or is this a purely subjective thing that can be invoked without warning? If there isn't an objective reference, doesn't that leave everything open to bias abuse by those who are influential in Wikipedia circles? Thanks. Tikva2009 (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: Wikipedia editors don't get to decide that the "majority of sources are truly wrong." We're not here to do investigative journalism. We only summarize what the majority of reliable sources say. If the story changes after a while, our articles will reflect that. The reliability of sources depends on the context and is decided by editors with very few exceptions. There's no "list" but stuff like the National Enquirer and blogs by some random person will automatically be thrown out. And yes, experienced Wikipedia editors will have more influence because they know policies/guidelines and have a sense of what the community has decided in the past. This is not a bad thing as it allows us to discount fringe sources (e.g., anti-vaccine proponents, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Obama is really born in Kenya) quicker. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: And by the way, the edit you deleted that refuted the misleading statement, "British media reported that the poisoning and consequent death of Litvinenko was not widely covered in the Russian news media," was originally published in Russia Profile magazine, 05/25/2007 titled "The Essence of the Alexander Litvinenko Story." Do you have any objection to that source? If so, what is it? Tikva2009 (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: Not sure what you mean. I deleted nothing sourced to Russia Profile. [14], [15] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: Earlier I posted a comment that said, "However, this allegation was analyzed and disproved in The Phony Litvinenko Murder." It was posted to correct the misleading assertion in the article that said, "British media reported that the poisoning and consequent death of Litvinenko was not widely covered in the Russian news media." You objected to my use of a reference that you allege to be from a "self-published" book. However, that same corrective information can be sourced to an article in Russia Profile magazine, 05/25/2007 titled "The Essence of the Alexander Litvinenko Story." Here is the link: http://russiaprofile.org/international/a1180613251.html. My question to you was whether you would have any objection to my re-posting the text, "However, this allegation was analyzed and disproved in..." while citing the Russia Profile source. I think it is a disservice to Wikipedia readers for users to go back and forth posting and undoing text. Thus I am seeking your concurrence in advance. I would also appreciate your response to the other issues that I raised in my earlier post to you. Thanks. Tikva2009 (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: "Briefing by William Dunkerley" Yes, I would strongly object. It's Dunkerly shilling his self-published book. Response to other post forthcoming. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

References

NeilN: But my suggested re-posting would make no mention of the book in question. The reference would simply be to the Russian Profile article. I'm having trouble understanding how your comment is reasonable. Are you just trying to assure that the subject misleading text about the British media remain in the article? Tikva2009 (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: It is your assertion the text is misleading. Find better sources that say so (not a self-published "publishing consultant" expounding on his pet theories). Or, if you think the source is good enough, bring it up at WP:RSN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: It's in the Russia Profile article. Didn't you even bother to look at it? It says:

---

"Tony Halpin, Moscow correspondent for the (London) Times wrote: "The fate of Alexander Litvinenko may be hot news in Britain, but Russia's press is almost completely ignoring him." He cites a page-one story in the English-language Moscow Times as an exception. Otherwise, "none of the major dailies covers the story today (November, 21)," he asserts.

I looked further into Halpin’s premise that the Litvinenko story was being ignored in Russia. Before Halpin’s story appeared, his paper, the Times, had covered the Litvinenko case on two previous days, the 19th and 20th. In the U.S., the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times didn’t begin coverage until the 20th. But, in Russia, several online news outlets kicked off coverage on November 11, as did a Chechen website apparently located outside of Russia. That same day, the Russian Service of BBC broadcast an interview with Litvinenko himself. By the 13th, three Moscow papers had picked up the story (Kommersant, Moscow Times & The Moscow News). But, the earliest story I found in the London Times wasn’t until the one on November 19.

The London Times may have been late, but it made up for it with the number of stories. I counted six Litvinenko stories on the 20th and 6 six on the 21st. With the one story on the 19th, that’s a total of 13 stories in three days. During that time, the New York Times ran just one story. The Washington Post ran three, but one was an editorial.

So, the level of Russian coverage around the time of Halpin’s story was actually consistent with that in the American press. Moreover, coverage in Russia began a full eight days earlier than it did in the Times."

A search engine investigation also refuted Halpin’s claim that the story found no interest in Russia.

---

This clearly refutes the incorrect allegation that is currently in the article. Why are you defending information that will mislead the Wikipedia reader? Tikva2009 (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: And again, I'm not accepting Dunkerly as a reliable source so that goes for anything he writes. I think we're an impasse here so the next step should be getting outside opinions. Do you want to post at WP:RSN? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: Before we resort to that, I have one last question for you: You posted: "@Tikva2009: And again, I'm not accepting Dunkerly as a reliable source so that goes for anything he writes. I think we're an impasse here so the next step should be getting outside opinions. Do you want to post at WP:RSN? --NeilN talk to me 05:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)" Earlier when I questioned the advisability of using a citation to dnaindia.com about alleged BBC content, you said in effect that it mattered not whether the BBC content is verified, and that it suffices that the allegations attributed to BBC appear in a reliable source such as dnaindia.com. It seems to me that there is a parallel here. If Russia Profile has not been discredited as a reliable source, the appearance of the Dunkerley content in that magazine should suffice. Do you have evidence that Russia Profile is not a reliable source? If so, what is it? Furthermore, it certainly sounds like you are waging a personal vendetta against Dunkerley. Is there a reason for that? Tikva2009 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: The dnaindia source is a news report. The Russia Profile source is an opinion piece. I have nothing against Dunkerly personally. I just don't think he's a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: Please cite the basis on which you allege that the Russia Profile item is an "opinion piece." It looks to me like a research report. Tikva2009 (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: Opinion piece, research report, whatever. He's still not a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Cynthia Page Image

Hello @NeilN , Sounds Like a weird . During upload this picture as i tick this is my own picture . Let me know how i'll changed it again . — Preceding unsigned comment added by CynthiaB2014 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi CynthiaB2014. The image is of you but the copyright is owned by the photographer. You need to ask him to release it under a free-use license. Let me know if you have further questions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay NeilN Then i'll delete mine and upload it again and set Option " This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use " . Thanks

@CynthiaB2014: No, hold on, sorry. Wikipedia does not accept fair use images of living people. Plus, we already have a free-use image. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Let me know if you already have this image as i added once . Tell me how i'll find it inside wiki images and how i'll use it on my profile cover . Thank you for Help

@CynthiaB2014: I'm not sure what you mean. Did you read my fair use comment above? The easiest thing for you to do is have a friend take a picture of you, release the copyright to you, and you can upload that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: What do you mean with " We already have a free use image ?? Like you told me my picture is owned by photographer copyright . Tell me how you know ?? Sounds like some one has use my picture on some other profile ? Would you able to give me link of that Page first . Secondly I donot think some one else have taken a copyright of my picture ... Why you always showing your presences on Correct edits !

@CynthiaB2014: The image currently in the article was uploaded by a user who said he was the photographer and who released it under a free-use license. [16] If he was not the photographer, we will have to delete that photo. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ohh Neil :@NeilN: Now i understand why you are confused :) I am not talking about this current profile picture [17] Am talking about that picture that was Uploaded with myself and i am taken that shot with my own Camera but you delete it mine and told me its copyright . Lol .Sounds funny :) I Hope now things are cleared to you . Can i Add now my own picture or else telling you another Brief note about it !

@CynthiaB2014: You have uploaded one picture which was a copy of this. David Edwards claims the copyright on this photo. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP Alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

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

Thanks, Chris. You'll note the text reads, "...our standards of behavior, or relevant policies" not, "what ChrisGualtieri wants policies to be." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting close to being WP:HAR. See this one too Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cwobeel. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

you are not right

i didn't engage in a war, but these other guys did.

i helped them learn and show them and explain them

their problems.

bcoz they are many on this article, therefore they

are not in trouble, but bcoz i'm the only one to correct

it, therefore you are writting to me for no reason.

turkey was established in 1923. prior to that there were no turks but ottoman empire in which there were jews,greeks,bulgarians,armenians,kurds and syrians.

therefore each time i correct the page, others are coming to mess with it.

GOGTURK IS A WRONG TERM FROM KOTRAG.

KOTRAG-KOKTRAG-KOKTURK-GOGTURK

THIS IS THE ARTICLE CORRECT THE TERMINOLOGY IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HELP. OTHERWISE DO NOT BOTHER OTHERS. YOU ARE SIMPLY WASTING TIME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"It's not me, it's everyone else!" Stop your disruptive search and replacing of text, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I EXPLAINED MYSELF AND THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY AND YOU DIDN'T EXPLAIN YOURSELF.

ALL YOU DID IS GIVING THREATS OF BLOCKING, NOTHING ELSE.

HOW ETHICAL IS THAT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

THE FACT THAT YOU COMPREHEND IT AS "ITS NOT ME BUT ITS EVERYONE ELSE"

THAT DOESN'T MEAN I SAID IT THAT WAY.

ITS ONLY SHOWS THE WAY YOU THINK THAT ITS NEVER YOUR PROBLEM BUT ITS OTHERS.

DUDE,

IF YOU HAVE ANY DECENCY, READ WHAT I WROTE. I GAVE YOU THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY.

STOP WASTING YOUR LIFE BY GOOFING AROUND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

TURKEY WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1923.

PRIOR TO THAT THERE WERE NO TURKS BUT OTTOMAN.

DO YOU LIVE IN USA OR UK OR WHERE?

ITS SAYING THAT PEOPLE IN USA BEFORE 1776

WERE USA CITIZENS. ITS WRONG TERMINOLOGY.

YOU CAN SAY PEOPLE IN USA BEFORE 1776 WERE BRITHISH, FRENCH, SPANISH AND DUTCH CITIZENS PLUS NATIVES

BUT YOU CAN'T SAY THE USA CITIZENS BEFORE 1776.

IF YOU HAVE CRITICAL THINKING, GOOD BUT UF YOU DON'T

TRY WORKING ON IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

First, please stop SHOUTING. Second, your assertions do not excuse your sloppy search and replacing. The article is about Turks in Bulgaria, past and present. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

its common decency to reveal your location.

if not state and city at least narrow it down to a continent, so people would know how to approach you.

second, dude i have respect for you for being 9+years in wikipedia,

but dude, not all people know things.

i'm helping the world to be a better place by providing a proper information and you are giving me hard time that i suck at editting.

where is your critical thinking?

then edit it yourself properly after you got the correct info.

i told you there are no turks.

turk is a wrong terminology from KOTRAG.

get your historical facts right first if you want to put a meaning ito your work. why edit something that its shit?

edit the proper way.

turkey is established in 1923, prior that that there were ottoman empire in the ottoman empire citizens were greek,bulgarians, armenians, kurds, jewish and syrians.

go study a little its not complicated.

Read what I wrote above: " The article is about Turks in Bulgaria, past and present." If you want an article that specifically focuses on Kurds in Bulgaria only, you are welcome to write that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference source and Nontrolling

All of my contribution sources are from Webster's dictionary, and none are from trolling sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Research888 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong [18], [19] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Turks

i don't think you get it man.

there are no turks.

not in the past and not in the present.

dude, if your name is nick, but not neil then how the heck

people would call you neil then? do you get my point???

there are no turks. do you know what a patent means?

how could be turks prior to 1923 when there were no turkey

prior to that???????????????????????

the corret terminology is kurds.

how could you call me a turk when i'm a kurd?????????????

how could i call you prick/nick when your name is neil??????????????

get it? smart enough to get it? so you either stay out of it or you either help with the correct edition, otherwise you are wasting your life dude. you have no meaning in your life to be patroling something that got the wrong PATENT.

HAVE YOU LEARN ABOUT A PATENT LAW? ARE YOU EDUCATED? DO YOU POSSESS CRITICAL THIKING, ATTENTION TO DETAIL? ITS A RETHORICAL QUESTION OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T. RESPECTFULLY, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"there are no turks. not in the past and not in the present." Take your ethnic/nationalistic nonsense elsewhere, please. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop what you are doing on the ISIL talkpage!!

This is a talk page and I am allowed to place my opinions.Pink love 1998 (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pink love 1998: Not when you're a self-admitted sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Praise

I sincerely thank NeilN ^{talk to me} for being a valuable mentor to a rank beginner on Wikipedia.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Schools of Hindu philosophy

Ok, What is the problem? You undid my edit.Can you explain it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejaz92 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ejaz92. Did you read what I wrote on your website? A random website written by an anonymous person who uses Wikipedia as one of their sources is not even close to a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad

Dear Brother of the book ,

i understand whatever your view is to present this with all respect, but this is against teachings of the prophet if we know or let anybody know about him to show his paintings..........alphabetical quotation is enough to understand his biography . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.233.104 (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia and so does not follow any religious proscriptions or directions when determining article content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

K. Kavitha

When a youtube video with the proof is provided, wiki ignores it. When true news is written with without copy-pasting from a website it is called as no reference. when something is copy-pasted, it is called as copyright issue. Then there is nothing reliable about this world. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MohiniSinghDr (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@MohiniSinghDr: Well, the first part of your paragraph is correct. Find a reliable published source, don't copy-paste the content - rewrite it, making sure whatever you write is based on the source and does not present facts or conclusions not in the source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil, what about a video Telangana People are not Indians Says TRS - Must watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSUlGkTbKuM Watch it at 1min, the guy says it. Unfortunately some news does not make it to English media newspapers because of language gap. In that case what should be done. Can the youtube video be referenced. If it is referenced and in case wiki allows it, will people be able to make sense of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MohiniSinghDr (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@MohiniSinghDr: Youtube is a reliable source only when the organization uploading the video is a reliable source. For example, the BBC Channel on Youtube is run by the BBC so videos on there are reliable sources. In this case, someone anonymous has uploaded a copy of a news broadcast. This is not a reliable source and a copyright violation to boot (Wikipedia does not link to copyright violations). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

hmm, if the TV5 News channel does not upload it, then that means truth cannot reach the world. Another question, the guy Vijayrao21 who originally reverted my changes also edited Jayaprakash_Narayan_(Lok_Satta) article and wrote rubbish in that article. Do you think such persons are talking the truth. This is what is happening in this world, unfortunately the truth does not get out because of people who do not understand the world in entirety and that there are so many cultures and languages and mentalities that cannot be understood just by thinking that there is only one language and one kind of media which reports only one side of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MohiniSinghDr (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@MohiniSinghDr: Vijayrao21's edit was reverted soon after he made it. [20] Wikipedia's job is not to spread "the truth". We simply summarize what has been previously published by reliable sources. If few or no sources are covering a topic, then Wikipedia won't take up the mantle of exposing the truth. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Ryulong

Please fully protect it for 1 year.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ryulong: Not an admin :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well ask someone who is cause I am done with this shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems a bit silly for me to ask someone to protect your user page when you can do it yourself? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

List of phobias-Chronomentrophobia

If you look on Google and also my cited source, you will find that Chronomentrophobia is a legitimate phobia; in this case, an irrational fear of clocks. Please look for a definition; this one comes from a medical journal, before you revert my additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyork1501 (talk • contribs)

@Newyork1501: Srleffler said it best so I'm just going to copy their note to you here: "Please don't add made-up phobia names to List of phobias. If you can't provide a reliable medical reference that discusses the phobia, it should not be included in the list. There are lots of word lists and quack medical sites on the net that list dozens and dozens of made-up phobia names. Such content is not appropriate for Wikipedia." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Continued vandalism and lack of neutral tone by NeilN

Showing contempt for Wikipedia rules, NeilN vandalized the Santacon article, violated the 3R rule, engaged in edit warring, dismissed neutrality and sided with admins at the expense of Wikipedians. The entire SantaCon article is biased, slanted and not neutral. It violated numerous Wikipedia rules. It demonstrates why admins and moderators on Wikipedia censor and edit articles to reflect their biased points of view. Wikpedia articles are the product of a very few people that edit war, revert with impunity, censor content and quash dissent. 1% of the people control 99% of the content on Wikipedia. Detractors and critics are immediately banned and blocked from expressing their independent points of view. Wikipedia moderators and administrators have adopted the censorship, idea control and repression techniques of anti free speech nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.140.52 (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

IP, read WP:Vandalism and WP:Neutral. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping increase the attention the SantaCon article will get, IP! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh. That article has existed since December 2003. I have one revert. Must have been quite a revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You are welcomed!

You are welcomed NeilN. Could you please tell me what manuscript you are talking about? I will see if I can translate it or not. Have a nice day.--Spring What's up? 06:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes NeilN, the page you referred to discusses the comparison between the lunar year & the solar year, and it mentions the prohibition of al-Nasi' by Prophet Muhammad during the The Farewell Sermon. First, it says [in the page before the page you referred to (i.e. p 17)] that the Arabs used to practice al-Nasi' in the Jahiliyyah. It says that the difference between the Arabic lunar year and the solar year was 10 days, 21 hours & 1/5 of an hour, so they used to add one month, and this addition was monitored by the tribe of Kinanah. The man of Kinanah who was responsible of this was called Qilmus. Then, in page 18 (the page you referred to), it says that the Arabs learned al-Nasi' from the Jews & introduced it into their lunar calendar 200 years before the rise of Islam. It says that they used to add every 24 lunar year 9 months so that their months remain fixed with their seasons. Then it mentions the prohibition of al-Nasi' (the Intercalation) by Prophet Muhammad. Then, it speaks about the lunar calendar and the practice of al-Nasi' in India.--Spring What's up? 08:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You can cite my translation wherever you want. Have a nice day!--Spring What's up? 20:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey

You must note that the section I posted was not the sock puppets content it was someone elses.The sock puppet just did a copy paste style editing and added a new section.Hand snoojy (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you making fun of me?Hand snoojy (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to deal with suspected sockpuppets as little as possible. You can make your case at WP:3RRNB. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What does it matter if some content was added by a sock pupet or not.It's news and basically you are trying to be politically correct and try to face facts.Hand snoojy (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

HEY

The information you have been putting is outdated. I am not putting any information on the basis of future estimates, all info that i have been putting is of year 2015 which is present and not the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.67.107 (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

2015 numbers are future estimates. 2015 has only begun - at least in most people's calendars. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

N. T. Rama Rao Jr.

Hello, Neil. I have seen your contributions to Jr. NTR, and they are pretty impressive. But, I am asking a small favour here. Can you help Jr. NTR's page go into the good articles category, or adding a few information about his career, personal life etc.

Thank you, Mohanlalkafan (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mohanlalkafan. I've tried to keep the worst excesses out but the article suffers from enthusiastic editing from the subject's fans. For example, count how many instances of the word "huge" are present in the article. The first step is getting rid of all the puffery (and making sure it stays out!). If that can happen then we can start fixing the other issues afterwards. Have a look at Ranbir Kapoor to see how a GA should read. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Corrupticut

Hi Neil,

I live in Connecticut and I can tell you that the term "Corrupticut" is not obscure. Its firmly entered the lexicon and certainly more well known than "The Provisions State". You'll very easily find news citations going back to 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.170.246 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi 24. The source given isn't that great. If you can provide better sourcing, I won't revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This good enough? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/28/nyregion/the-nutmeg-state-battles-the-stigma-of-corrupticut.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.170.246 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Robertnarracci (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, The same New York Times giving propos to the New Haven Independent. Its a respected source. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/nyregion/18towns.html?scp=13&sq=New+Haven+Independent&st=nyt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.170.246 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Robertnarracci (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robertnarracci, that looks like better sourcing, yes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Autobiography

Hello sir .., i am shubham agarwal from palwal .. I want to write my biography on your site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.210.84 (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate username possibly?

Hello NeilN, I am not sure if you are an admin but you seem familiar with the workings of Wikipedia. I am here in regards to the user Ahmadikafirkabaccha who has been conducting personal attacks. However I would appreciate your help with user's name itself. "Ahmadikafirkabaccha" means in Urdu (or possibly Hindi); "Ahmadi is the son of an apostate". How do you recommend, this be dealt with? Regards Mbcap (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mbcap. I expect that account to be blocked today. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Company article

Thanks neil about your comments from Kornukopia. I guess the issue is what comes first the chicken or the egg. I am still scratching my head as to how most of my other competitors have made it and I have not. If I reference news articles about us, would that satisfy the notoriety? Thanks, John Shine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornukopia123 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kornukopia123. If you look at their articles they should contain independent sources that cover them. You'll need the same (and not brief mentions about your products - company profiles would be good). And, as Cullen mentioned, you need to be very aware of your conflict of interest as that makes it harder for you to write about your company neutrally. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

General sanctions on articles about the Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

If you add a warning/information such as this to a new user's page, please include the template {{subst:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification|sig=yes}} from the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page and also add the name of the editor you have informed to the list on the sanctions page (one does not have to be an administrator to inform editors of these sanctions using this template). Once that is done, it makes it easier for administrators to check that an editor has been informed of the sanctions if that editor breaches them in future either for a 1RR or some other infraction. -- PBS (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: General sanctions, discretionary sanctions... there has to be an easier way of keeping track of all this stuff. Sigh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

My suggested solution was/is to create a new wikipeida newspaper (or new page) called the "Gazette" (such as the London Gazette that the British Government publishes), which listed all this type of stuff and once informed on the user's talk page of such a gazette existed then it is the user's responsibility to keep an eye on the Gazette for official announcements such as new sanctions removal of old sanctions etc. As it stands at the moment with the current system editors take the notifications to be warnings and (with justification) do not like such notices if they have not broken any rules. The whole thing is currently too bureaucratic. -- PBS (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: Yes, I wasn't too thrilled at getting a BLP notice a couple weeks ago when I've been working at WP:BLPN for years. There should be a way for editors to self-notify - here are the sanctions I'm aware of, no need to notify me of them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not just notify yourself, which is what I did before editing on an Eastern Europe article (the other editor was miffed they had been notified earlier and since a) I know about the sanctions and b) all it is is a bit of text and it might cool down an annoyed editor, why not self notify.

Is there any reason not to make a sub-page of your user page and post self notifications or list notifications received? JBH (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The subpage thing is a good idea if the "check if editor has been warned before" functionality supports it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have set up a sub-page for DS/GS notices. I am not sure how the check functionality works but since I have been editing BLPs go ahead and post that notice there and see if it works. You can try the EE notice as well since I likely did not self notify properly, I just took the notice you put on Tikva2009's talk page and posted it to mine. Please let me know how it works out. JBH (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Oh I'm sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phamlinh341564 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 21:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Harris

Having a degree or writing books for a popular audience doesn't make someone a philosopher or a scientist for the same reason that having an MBA and writing about business administration to a general audience doesn't make someone a business administrator. Being employed in the respective profession makes you a member of that profession. Second Quantization (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Second Quantization: Not really. How are you employed as a "philosopher"? Muhammad Ali is no longer employed as a boxer. Does that mean he's no longer a boxer? We go with what reliable sources call him. See these discussions: Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#Philosopher.3F_Neuroscientist.3F_Neurophilosopher.3F and Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#RfC:Should_Sam_Harris_be_called_a_philosopher.3F. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Being described as a philosopher by more than a dozen high-quality reliable sources makes you a philosopher on Wikipedia. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What's sad is that you probably really think that is what makes someone a philosopher. Second Quantization (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"How are you employed as a "philosopher"?" If you don't know how someone can be employed as a philosopher then you don't know even the rudimentary basics to have a meaningful conversation about this topic. In the same way as all other philosophers have been employed since the professionalisation of philosophy and science. Specifically having an academic position and being active within the specific philosophical or scientific community which specialises in your area of interest. Harris satisfies neither. Writing about philosophy or science for a general audience doesn't make you a philosopher or a scientist. If you don't even know how someone can be employed as a philosopher why are you making edits such as this?

"We go with what reliable sources call him." Context matters for determining reliability WP:RSCONTEXT. Considering you didn't know how a philosopher could be employed, I severely doubt you can determine the correct context for that determination. Please explain your method for ascertaining that sources are reliable for characterising the profession of someone? By the same reasoning these monks: [21] really are experts and employed as academics. You must show that the specific sources do represent professions well (and consider that this is also a designation Sam Harris himself doesn't use).

I see there was an RfC on the issue though, with clueless arguments apparently being given weight by the administrator, as I would expect to occur in an encyclopaedia of this quality. So I will leave it at that. Second Quantization (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you can be employed as a professional philosopher. However professional employment or even a degree is not required for a person to be regarded as a philosopher, snobbery notwithstanding. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well duh, nothing is required for anyone to view anyone as anything. Sure, someone could be regarded as a surgeon without working as one but it's pretty meaningless when they aren't and that's not just snobbery; it's pretty apparent that you need to actually do the thing your job says you do. If you claim someone is a philosopher or a scientist but it turns out they don't actually work in either area, then it's pretty damn misleading. Second Quantization (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether they "actually work in either area" is not for editors to determine with their arbitrary criteria. For example, I knew a surgeon who never practised (he was paralyzed from the waist down shortly after qualifying). However he taught, consulted, and wrote papers and was still referred to as a surgeon. In Harris' case independent sources have looked at his work and determined he can be labelled as a philosopher. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What's sad is that you probably really think that is what makes someone a philosopher.

No, I really think that's what makes someone a philosopher on Wikipedia, as I said above. As to what makes someone a philosopher outside of a Wikipedia article, well, that's a philosophical question, and I'm not a philosopher on Sundays or Tuesdays. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Evolution article

NeilN could you clarify why you closed my discussion and labeled it ´nothing to see here´? As I said, I am open to discussion. 4444ED (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@4444ED: The fact that you think that the Answering Genesis website is a credible scientific source or contains valid criticism of scientific theories shows your understanding of scientific theory needs to be greatly improved before you can bring up credible points for discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN In other words, you are saying I need to be an evolutionist. Please back up your statements reasonably.4444ED (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN I was not attacking the evolutionary theory, if that is the problem. I was trying to improve the article by suggesting presenting it in a neutral point of view. 4444ED (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN Also, explain why you think AiG is not a credible scientific source. I believe you closed the discussion because you do not like the fact that I am presenting solid evidence and because you do not like my viewpoint. If you had any scientific backup you would not have closed the discussion, but presented your evidence in a civil way. Furthermore, I think you would benefit from actually reading the AiG page. 4444ED (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Rather a moot point now. Not interested in debating someone who thinks the Bible is a scientific work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that the Christian group that preaches that dinosaurs and humans coexisted? "Scientific"? Yeah, right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's one of several Christian groups that preaches that non-avian dinosaurs and humans coexisted together without any evidence, yes.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: And they came off Noah's Ark 4,300 years ago (I kid you not). Quite entertaining for about five minutes. I'm debating adding this to my talk page edit notice in big red letters: "Because... SCIENCE!" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

One of my friends visited their "museum" a while back, and posted a lengthy and amusing review on Facebook just a couple of days ago. Quite informative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware that Answers In Genesis has a notorious reputation for having a blatant anti-science agenda, and that simply pointing out that anchoring your arguments to what AiG says is not a wise decision is not incivility. Furthermore, insisting that we rewrite the article of Evolution to be more sensitive to the feelings of Creationists and other science-deniers will neither create neutrality, as that would unfairly skew the article towards Creationism and sciene-denial, nor would it improve the article, as it would entail deliberate introduction of misinformation into the article. And having said that, NeilN closed that thread as per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN I think you are being quite unreasonable; you have not presented an unbiased reason why the evolution FAQ page shouldn't be modified to avoid attacking Creationists, or why the article shouldn't be modified with things such as 'according to the theory of evolution'. And apparently you have no notion what neutral POV means. Furthermore, just so you know, answers in genesis does NOT have an anti-science agenda. AND, you are not using civil discussion, as you proclaim. If you don't want to open your mind to see outside the box and actually check out the website and INVESTIGATE for yourself, and you don't want to talk with me about this, then DON'T close the discussions. The article talk pages are for posting opinions and improving the article. Since your opinion differs from mine, you abused your admin privileges and closed the discussion. You are being very biased.4444ED (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@4444ED: If you look at my comments above you'll find that I did peruse the website and found it full of anti-scientific claptrap. And Creationists are not being attacked. We simply point out their arguments are basically regarded as garbage by scientists. The wording is more polite of course. The talk page is not for posting personal opinions or theories rooted in quackery. It's for discussing content coming from legitimate scientific sources. BTW, I am not an admin but you obviously missed the note at the top of the page: WARNING: This is not the place to discuss any alleged controversy or opinion about evolution and its related subjects. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, which is about evolution (not creation science, not creationism, and not intelligent design to name a few), and what has been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN I am not talking about opinions. I am talking about improving the article by implementing neutral point of view. Neutral point of view, as I mentioned in the discussion which you closed for biased reasons, is giving each worldview a fair and equal standing. That happens to include Creationism. Neutral POV is NOT labeling Creationism 'anti-science quackery'. Apparently, you either do not know what neutral point of view means or you prefer to promote evolution. Either way, the evolution article is biased. If you do not want it to be neutral POV then keep doing what you are doing. I can't figure it out. Have a nice day. 4444ED (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@4444ED: Neutral point of view has a unique definition on Wikipedia. Giving each worldview equal balance would create a false balance as the vast majority of accredited scientists working in the field consider creation science as pseudoscience. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here - After reading this and related topics here you inspired me to dash this off Because science.... It is a first draft and I sure it could be improved but I think it gives a reasonable, short way to address the crap the Discovery Institues, AIG and others are spouting. JBH (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: You may be amused by the Project Steve article if you haven't read it. One thing your essay alludes to but doesn't explicitly cover is that the Creationist arguments are attractive because they're simple to understand. Everyone likes to think they're capable of understanding logical arguments so when presented with a simple paragraph of seemingly reasonable assertions it's easy to nod and say, "yes, that makes sense." Evolution, however, combines concepts from a variety of specialized scientific fields so if you come at it from a skeptic's point of view, and require proof for everything, you're looking at a huge body of primary and secondary sources that you have to read and understand. Much easier to say, "god-did-it". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I like Project Steve. It shows that the NCSE can keep up a sense of humor while they bang their heads against walls of ignorance. Your point about why creationist arguments can be intellectually comforting to some people is spot on. Do you mind if I make use of it? JBH (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Not at all. Go ahead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. JBH (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I read the 'because science' and it sounded pretty good...until I realized I had read nothing but assumptions, speculation, mockery and false claims. Not a single scientific statement in there. It's even worse than the FAQ in the evolution article.

Guys, why are you acting like I am your enemy?? I am simply trying to get you to consider neutral POV in the evolution article. 4444ED (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@4444ED: I am sorry that you did not take the opportunity to at least explore the links in the document and learn why those creationist claims are false. I absolutely refuse to engage in debate with creationists, someone is either capable of, and willing to accept scientific reality or not. Objective reality is objective reality no matter what you believe and anyone who resorts to super-natural claims to explain the natural world has willingly given up on all of the intellectual progress we have made since the Enlightenment.

You are welcome to your beliefs but the point of view you espouse will never be included in modern scientific discourse or represented as legitimate alternative to evolution here on Wikipedia. The article is neutral. Creationism is absolutly and completely wrong in every particular with respect to evolution. No argument you can possibly make can ever outweigh or even bring into question the scientific theory of evolution. The only way that will ever happen is if God comes down from on high and simultaniously tells every biologist, geologist, palentologist and a dozen more types of -ologists "Hey guys I was just screwing with you". That is the weight of evidence there is for evolution. I recognize this is a blunt statement but you seem not to be understanding the subtle ones.

Since this is NeilN's talk page and I expect he wants a long and fruitless conversation on it even less than I wish to engage in one I will take this chance to wish you happiness in whatever your next endeavor might be and bow out. Cheers. JBH (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me add to what Jbhunley said. I happen to be a Jew and an active member of a synagogue, and we spend over two months each and every year studying and pondering and debating every single word of the Book of Genesis in both Biblical Hebrew and English. I happen to be a past president of our synagogue. We study Genesis as part of our heritage, as a religious and literary work that challenges and engages us, as a book of moral teaching, as a great work of myth, and as a symbol of our identity. But we most certainly do not see it as a work of either history or science.

As a Wikipedia editor, I say no, no, a thousand times no to allowing any fundamentalist religious group to have any influence whatsoever on the content of our articles on science. As for you, 4444ED, I do not consider you my enemy. I am entirely happy to leave you alone with your fundamentalist religious beliefs that you are entitled to hold under the First Amendment. Enjoy yourself. But when it comes to this encyclopedia, I will do everything in my power as long as I breathe to keep your religious beliefs out of our science articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition, you might have missed what I wrote above. Any short scientific explanation of evolution is going to contain assumptions. If you want to dig deeper into these assumptions, into the actual science behind these assumptions (not stuff like " the Bible Is—and Must Be—Its Own Ultimate Proof" - that's a direct quote from your "scientific" source), then you need to read and understand mounds of primary and secondary sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What?

What was this whole thang regarding? MaRAno ^FAN 16:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: This was not vandalism and when Chasewc91 properly tried to correct your error you templated them for harassment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you notice, the template was not for vandalism. It was for unconstructive edits. Which it was, it really wasn't constructive. Have another look at it. My only problem is that Chase is continually templating me in different situations despite my {{DTM}} template. Please help me get rid of this Wiki::':: stalker. MaRAno ^FAN 16:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Okay, unconstructive editing. Only changing header levels is not unconstructive, it's a matter of style. And "constantly templating"? I see one other warning template (for a similar issue). The rest are file deletion notices which are perfectly fine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not fine. It is bothering me. They browse through my contribs and delete files, simply because they are uploaded by me, as "unsourced". While hundreds of such files stay on Wikipedia for decades and decades. If it bothers me, it is harassment. It doesn't specifically have to be abusive words (which they have by the way used "bullshit"). MaRAno ^FAN 16:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: They have notified your four times about files. One was deleted, one was removed from your user page, and the other two are up for discussion with valid deletion reasons. If you make problematic uploads, monitoring your contributions is not harassment - you feeling "bothered" is irrelevant. Hosting problematic images "bothers" Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

They would also simply oppose anything I support. I wake up everyday literally to 5 or 6 warning templates. Also, I really don't understand why you are arguing their side. Are you both friends? In that case, I am talking to the completely wrong person. Anways, Have a great day! Regards, MaRAno ^FAN 17:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're getting so many warnings then you might want to actually look at your editing behavior. Example A I gave you a non-templated note because it seemed you would better listen to it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@MaranoFan:

1. You put up the "don't template me" banner at 15:08, 9 February 2015. If you actually looked at your page history you would notice I haven't even gone near your talk page since then. The only templates you get are in regards to files being orphaned / DI'd / FFD'd – it is considered polite (and, in some cases, required) to notify the uploaders of these files and I do it through Twinkle without even looking at your talk page. When a user asks not to be templated, it is generally accepted that they are referring to user warning templates, such as this one you left on my talk page despite my request that users not warn me via template. (Practice what you preach, no?)
2. I'm not going to apologize for calling this warning you left bullshit. It was. You've been warned several times previously about abusing warning templates, assuming bad faith, and labelling constructive/non-vandalizing edits vandalism or unconstructive. At this point, you're just ignoring the sound advice of other users. Quit biting other editors, and quit leaving harassment templates over every little thing you find even somewhat offensive.
3. Neil and I are not friends; in fact, I barely interact with him at all on here. I'm not sure why you're tattling on me to him, but if you have a problem with me you should probably take it to the dramaboard instead of inconveniencing others with your whining. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Swift Invite

You have been invited to join the Taylor Swift WikiProject, a WikiProject on the English Wikipedia dedicated to improving articles and lists related to Taylor Swift. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants. Thank You.

On a similar note

On a similar note to the discussion above, surely this [22] and this [23] is a violation of some sort in regard to [24] and "excessive unrelated content"? At the very least it is disruptive and could be considered a form of WP:UP#OWN. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Yes it is but I expect they'll remove it once they've settled down. It's funny they're complaining about templates when they toss out inappropriate ones [25] and complain about the word "bullshit" when they use "fucking". I think there a little bit of article ownership at play here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've considered whether or not to bring Marano to ANI, but at this point it's only a matter of time before they start a boomerang thread. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield

How can we chat about this article?

I would just like to add information regarding corrections to the BMJ articles that are cited on the page. The BMJ has disclosed a conflict of interest, and since it is relevant to the claims on this page it should be included.

Thanks

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1678 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.87.205 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi 24. You can use Talk:Andrew Wakefield to discuss the exact wording but we don't use phrases like "The BMJ should have..." (unattributed opinion) and "For further information see..." in articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I see.. I was actually quoting the BMJ correction itself! -->

"The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues (BMJ 2011;342:c7452, doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452). The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines. For further information see the rapid response from Godlee (www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1335.full/reply#bmj_el_251470). The same omission also affected two related Editor’s Choice articles (BMJ 2011;342:d22 and BMJ 2011;342:d378)."

BMJ 2011;342:c7452: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c7452 (Published 06 January 2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.87.205 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to make it clear it was a quote. Something like, The BMJ stated that "<quote>". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I added the details to the talk page for the specific article, and I'll think about how to reword it for the article itself! Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.87.205 (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Amnesty International

It is difficult to get citations on information that has been scrubbed. I am a personal resource, as someone who came out in 1975 and was aware that Amnesty International would not help us. I am glad this policy has changed, but do not like that this evolution is washed out of the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockrooky (talk • contribs) 06:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rockrooky Wouldn't the change in policy be documented somewhere? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

hi neiln..can you please explain unsourced and see note? thanks..

hi neiln..can you please explain unsourced and see note? thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelr (talk • contribs) 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Conversation

Sumedh Tayade (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Dear NeilN Bro,I am a citizen of Kalyan City from the last 20 years and i have just indicated the name of Kalyan in its official language i.e. Marathi, how can you say it as disruptive editing from my side? All Kalyan Citizens have great respect for Marathi Language so please stop deleting Marathi name

@Sumedh Tayade: Can you please stop edit-warring across articles and read WP:INDICSCRIPT as you have been asked to do multiple times? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ganges

That link is NOT a blog. But a site full of photos. Those photos are reliable and are the true ones, they are not CGI images or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's all user-generated content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for addressing the issues. I mentioned to Arjayjay that the blanking was not intentional, that was a slip of the application that is being used. There are facts that deserve to be on the page and some that are fabricated. Eatprayswimm (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Eatprayswimm: I strongly encourage you to use the article's talk page to outline your specific concerns and evidence of inaccuracies. Wikipedia editors are intensely interested in getting biographies right but we need something to go on, not just someone saying, "this is wrong". Does this make sense? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN yes, it does. Every edit that was made with this persona was done so with a reason in parenthesis. Cantonhonhun and TayChaTLC came behind every edit and removed the information. Reputable sources were requested, reputable sources were provided by eatprayswimm, and those sources were removed by the other two personas mentioned above. Eatprayswimm (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Eatprayswimm: I think you are misunderstanding. Edit summaries are not discussion. Use Talk:Taylor Lianne Chandler to talk about and discuss article content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN, you are correct, my misunderstanding. As information, all of your posts on the page have been undone as well by TayChaTLC. Good luck with wiki, today's events have proven once again why wiki is not popular among institutions. Allowing falsified information to be posted to the page is an insult to Wikipedia. Appreciate your time with this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatprayswimm (talk • contribs) 20:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN, I found the talk page, thank you! Eatprayswimm (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Clash

I appreciate the feedback. However I have already been through mediation after being accused of plaigairizing my own work by Moxy. This was absolutely false. I have requested that someone check my original post along with the post cited by Moxy through appropriate software. This has not been done. Essentially Moxy has engaged in libel and this was backed up by the mediator. My reputation will not be sullied in this way.

I went through mediation last night and today. All efforts to resole this matter have been exhausted. The latest issue is another user now contends that a self-published book is "soapbox".

I am left with no option but to resolve this matter elsewhere and will no longer seek resource here. Unfortunately, it has proven to be completely fruitless.

Regards,

Kathy DiTondo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathydi1977 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to thank you for addressing my posts in a civil manner. The aggressiveness of other editors/admins on the wiki site is rather disheartening. The posting of false information and the use of less-than-reputable sources may be something that becomes second nature to wiki-admins, but it is beyond an acceptable and disturbing level for those who are not accustomed to reading or participating in those media outlets.

Wiki is very cumbersome and difficult to navigate. I look forward to participating in other articles, it is a shame that the one I have been addressed with, and learned a few do's and do not's, is Taylor Lianne Chandler's story.

Again, thank you for taking the time to address my posts with a mild tone and with civility.

EPS Eatprayswimm (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eatprayswimm. There are a variety of topics on Wikipedia that generate a lot of heat, transgender issues being one of them. If you want to dip your toe into editing, there are about four million other articles which will be easier to edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN you are probably correct. It is a topic that is near and dear to my heart, and my words are a compilation of many emails received, not just my own. There is a bigger story here, but possibly one best left off of Wikipedia and left to the proper authorities. Eatprayswimm (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Accidental overlap

I think our edits got caught in the crossfire at Nicholas Alahverdian. Apologies. EricJ1074 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If we are keeping the article, we should probably get it reprotected as that's how it was to be until Feb. 22. Per Callanecc, "Protected Nicholas Edward Alahverdian: Violations of the biographies of living persons policy ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 04:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 04:53, 26 February 2015)" EricJ1074 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@EricJ1074: I've made a request at WP:RFPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. EricJ1074 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

I don't think I broken the 3RR and I've given my reasons in the edit in the summaries. Did you warn the other party as well?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nadirali: You haven't broken 3RR but you are edit warring with the addition and then two reverts. There are two editors contesting your addition. Please follow WP:BRD and use the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

More than patient

I feel that editors have been more than patient with User:Ritsaiph, seeing he/she just cursed you out and seems to be WP:NOTHERE I would bring the issue to WP:ANI. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Knowledgekid87. I gave them a warning. Let's see what they do per WP:ROPE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so far since I left this message the editor blanked the article's page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, I'll start preparing the report. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I tried to explain our policies but when I saw the editor accusing editors of having a pro Russian bias and cursing others out I could see no evidence of an attempt to work things out or discuss. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

AE seems to be overkill

This fellow is toast, one way or the other. He has been concurrently reported at AE, AN/I and AN/EW. AE seems a bit overkill. A clear case of WP:NOTHERE, and I imagine he'll be summarily indeffed in short order. RGloucester — ☎ 04:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, while it was a good faith attempt I could tell it was a WP:NOTHERE case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, oops. I clicked submit on the AE report before I saw you reported him to ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Corona del Mar High School

Excuse me, but if Dalton Hird can say "I agree" I cannot say "I disagree"? And I cannot give my reasons for it? The encyclopedia would be better served if the focus was on improving the article rather than the editors. 72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The other editors are discussing sources. You added a conspiracy rant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No, a rant is long and irrational. I added a comment that referenced earlier discussion pages that have been relegated to the archives. I also expressed disagreement in general. Wikipedia offers templates for general comments and they are even more appropriate in the talk pages.72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Rant: "To others reading this page: CdM high school has been targeted by political progressives because CdM students are largely white, conservative and financially secure. Their families owe their success to traditional American values of hard work and competition, not class envy. They oppose confiscatory taxation and governmental intervention in social matters. Due to demographic changes in California, however, the school is surrounded by millions of third world immigrants, gay rights advocates, feminists, wackos, unemployed college graduates with unmarketable degrees, and progressive socialists." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not wild or impassioned at all. Factual. And you removed more than the above: I told the other editors I disagreed with their recent edits which make the article biased, and referenced the archived talk pages. Those comments were entirely proper, even by your standards.72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If they're "factual" then you can find reliable sources that state the school "is surrounded by millions of third world immigrants, gay rights advocates, feminists, wackos, unemployed college graduates with unmarketable degrees, and progressive socialists" and they are targeting it because "because CdM students are largely white, conservative and financially secure [and] their families owe their success to traditional American values of hard work and competition, not class envy". I've restored your comment but redacted your rant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Request

Dear NeilN, Can you please describe about whose opinions are considered relevant in the Consensus? Sumedh Tayade (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sumedh Tayade: The opinions of any editor in good standing (i.e., any editor not socking or violating their topic bans) will be taken into account. The weight assigned to the opinion will depend on how well the opinion reflects Wikipedia's policies and guideline. For example, "I know best because I have personal experience with the subject" will be ignored as that contradicts verifiability. Similarly, "Only people from x should edit x" contradicts WP:OWN. One of your posts contained, "what is wrong in having pride for the official name and its indication in Wikipedia's article." This will not be considered relevant because of not who you are, but because Wikipedia articles are not for showing off the "pride" of a city's natives. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't edit anything???

I haven't edited Wikipedia pages other than stuff for television shows (generally grammatical errors or they use the incorrect names for characters) in... I'm pretty sure it's been years. I don't share this computer. I haven't even BEEN on the Misandry page simply because I'm well aware of Lewis's Law - although I took a glancing look once you mentioned it. I know a lot of feminists are getting banned from editing on Wikipedia, but I'm not one of them. Now, if you got angry that I edited Yu-Gi-Oh! Arc-V names back to the original Japanese instead of the 4kids revisions, then you'd have yourself a fair point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.186.66 (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP address your computer is currently assigned changes. The person using a computer which was assigned your current IP address made some unproductive edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy endings

It is not often that there is a happy ending to a report at ANI but the Indic scripts seems to have worked out that way. One for the record books, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, perhaps. I'm still not convinced that WP:INDICSCRIPT will be accepted if we start removing the editor's additions. I've refrained from doing so at this point. Another issue are infoboxes. There's no way script should be entered for "other name" or "nickname". Native name should be the only possible place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: Sigh....... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy Beginning

Sitush Bro, myself Sumedh Tayade (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC) would call it as a happy beginning. i would take Consensus as the first priority before making any important edits and not engage in edit warring, I have understood my mistake and the 3 Revert Rule of WP and WP: Indic Scripts.

Thanks...

...for reverting the nonsense on my talk page. Cheers, and have a nice weekend! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 06:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome and you too! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear NeilN, Thank you for your reply and clarification, I liked and appreciate your content specific approach, Your opinions and suggestive guidance about the edits and consensus would be welcomed and considered by me in the future. Sumedh Tayade (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Britain First vandalism campaigns

The other day, through googling my user name, I found this https://www.facebook.com/Exposing0Britain0First/photos/a.1426634540936171.1073741828.1423096294623329/1432250710374554/ encouraging vandalism, and one user even goes as far to admits that he posts libel. They also seem to jump at the idea of returning en masse once the protection is lifted

It came from 11 June 2014, a day where the views - and the vandalism - on the article were at a spike. It got so mad the page was fully protected for a day.

The page has barely been off semi-protection and I think for BLP reasons it's got to be indefinite if there is a next time. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

'''tAD''', thanks. I'll keep a close eye out when the semi expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

M. S. Golwalkar

Why are you editing changes in M.S. Golwalkar when it is written in my statement and reference is appropriately given ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VibrantBabhan (talk • contribs) 07:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@VibrantBabhan: Because it seems like a self-published source. Also, see the discussion I started: Talk:M._S._Golwalkar#New_content --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: It is a content from book The Saffron Swastika, published 2001, isbn:978-8185990699. Creditibility can be checked on page of Koenraad Elst on wikipedia.

@VibrantBabhan: Please make your case on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thank you Buddy or Buddy Sir or Dear Sir, im really confused, Your guidance on the teahouse would be of great use to me and those who want to really upgrade wikipedia without vandalizing it. Sumedh Tayade (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sumedh Tayade, what are you confused about? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ayman Mohyeldin

I guess no one cares that Ayman's statement-which he contributed to sources as journalists do - have resulted in several weeks of verbal abuse and harassment on social media including death threats against him? If this were anyone BUT Chris Kyle this would not be an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.201.61.235 (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You had your chance to discuss this on the talk page rather than violating 3RR. Please stop evading your block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

My source for the quote on zmohyeldin and Tadros being the only 2 western reported inside Gaza in 2008/2009 is Mohyeldin himself, plus it's in the documentary of their coverage. So how do I "source" this when its verbal wording? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokiechicklet (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Just an FYI I am NOT the anonymous user that edited this page a couple of days ago. Have gotten a couple of not so nice msgs about it. It wasn't me. Hokiechicklet (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)hokiechicklet

Sure Buddy.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Reliable sources: Self-published blogs and other user generated content are not accepted as sources on Wikipedia." What about the Dictionary? Try first to look up opposite, then, evolve, then try to find, the opposite of, evolve. It should be sayed, cf. Truth. Practice Science not Silence. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kaptinavenger: You know no one will take your exhortations seriously when you state you believe in creation not evolution. Practice Science, indeed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I do believe in the some definitions of the word Evolve, I do not believe in fish to frog. A guy once said, "the primary revelation is the universe itself - the creation of the cosmos of which we are all a part." I am trying to be nice, and I get deleted. You argue with recitation, ad hominem, and ultimately ignoring the issue. Dogma, you have trained well, it shows. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kaptinavenger: Those threads were deleted because you could not be bothered to clarify your incoherent ramblings while hypocritically accusing people of ad hominems and hypocritically ignoring what other editors were trying to tell you.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The water is falling over Multnomah falls, as my mother used to say, any excuse will work. Clear, sure, Silence thru Delete. As if the Dictionary, doesn't work. cf. Dogma the only article I think I've linked to in days I already know for sure what It says. I have spent to many years surrounded by Dogmatic, Liars. Silence and Truth are not Synonymous --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Not an excuse, you really are incoherent. "My science on this matter rather is pointing towards, the author of Job knowing not only trying to teach the roundness of the earth but also the creators affinity towards the tools of carpentry. I am filled with joy from the research you have inspired." [26] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

To paraphrase what was said earlier, no one will take you seriously if you babble incoherently while hypocritically simultaneously ignoring people while accusing them of being liars for not eagerly praising you as some sort of sin-free truth-teller.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros:"Sin" free is Your words, not mine. You sure can silence a discussion fast dude. Not to mention since when has a Dictionary not been a good ref? @NeilN: Good job studying but to what avail? Your looking for trouble. But that would be expected from a dirt throwing professor of Ex nihilo. A dogs gotta eat. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We're not "Junior's First Encyclopedia". For scientific concepts, we're going to look at how scientists define the concept. Practice Science, dude. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That, and there was, no, is no discussion to begin with, Kaptinavenger: only you babbling while ignoring whatever we say. I mean, if there is a discussion, then how come you can not be bothered to clarify your position beyond making incoherently pointless tangents while scolding us for not kissing your ass?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

cf. Discussion English, which point have I not made clear? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

All of your alleged points. You babble on and on about pointless tangents. You demand that we give undue weight to fringe points of view, while you deliberately ignore people's explanations about how technical articles require technical terminology. And you hypocritically accuse people of using ad hominems against you and trying to censor you, while you simultaneously accuse us of being dogmatic liars and "dirt-throwers." What is your point? That we're all evil morons because we aren't busy kissing your ass?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sir's if I may, you are implying insult where there is none. I am not mad at you. Though you seem mad. I am the new guy and answering and asking lots of questions, I am not meaning to lie or WP:GAME, just talk about a topic, with text code, on said topics "talk page".

You two, have tag teamed me, with the fastest delete I have seen yet. Forgive me if it seems, Hmmm... I dunno cf. Dogmatic --Kaptinavenger (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If you would go back and see.

I started by asking for some Basic English and You are demanding that I explain what I mean. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

When did I ask for undue weight? I rather Asserted it, sir. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

On a Talk Page. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are not insulting us, then why do you continue to accuse people of using ad hominems against you, or call us things like "dogmatic liars" and "dirt-throwers" or accuse us of trying to silence you? If you are here to discuss, then why do you refuse to listen to anyone when they explain to you how technical articles require appropriate terminology, or explain to you how one can not make profound changes to articles, such as giving undue weight to unscientific nonsense in science articles, without appropriate, reliably truthful sources? And yes, you are asking for undue weight whenever you demand that we post your nonsense about the "opposite of evolution"--Mr Fink (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

And yes, we're demanding that you explain what you mean because you are incoherent, and you insist on refusing to get to the point, while hypocritically insisting we use "Basic English," while also calling us "dogmatic liars" and "dirt-throwers"--Mr Fink (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If you require Basic English then again, Simple English Wikipedia is for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The Two of you type faster than me.

Ok one more time, just for you, In good faith, I really don't give a shit guys. But here..

I Suggest changing the introduction to Line Two of the Evolution Article, from; "All", if it is a direct quote, then, To, saying who says. If Not a Quote, Then, adding, A half a line of "softener".

I don't mean to deny, nor imply, nor infer but rather to be clear.

Also I suggest Continuing to examine or perform continued science in the structure of the article itself, to more fairly reflect other well research topics.

If you don't understand a well researched topic try Flat Earth. ok. There is lots of tools there. Please be creative. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:ASSERT. "When a statement is a fact (e.g. information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution." Comparing an article on an archaic belief to Evolution is of little use. Practice Science, dude. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Flat earth e.g. information that was accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute. Also the opposite of a thing can be important to understanding the truth of a thing. It doesn't matter, you guys deleted it already, you win, go team! Because a team of Dogmatic Professors know how to WP:GAME, a classic WP:BITE simple deniers. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Always amusing when people don't read the article they're pointing to. Flat_Earth#Declining_support_for_the_flat_earth. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

With all do respect you sound like Uncle Paul sir. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If you claim that you don't give a shit, and that you're not intending to insult anyone, then why do you insist on continuing to call us dogmatic liars and cheaters because we aren't bending over to kiss your ass? Isn't that hypocritical of you?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

cf.Babbling,

filed neatly under debate

--Kaptinavenger (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A gift.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I crafted this for you:

"When you come to battle on the field of words, be sure to study the Word."

Thank you for contributions to Wikipedia, well recorded in the cloud of the world. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"When you come to battle on the field of words, be sure to bring reliable sources." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Priceless, High beam it. I Bow. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

NeilN's Gift --Kaptinavenger (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

More and more, I'm thinking WP:NOTHERE applies. Four edits to articles out of 240 edits total. Why are you creating a subpage in the userspace of an editor who hasn't edited since 2010? [27] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Uh.. mybee 240 Edits might also mean I am new... cf. NeilN's proud +72,000 Edits!! et Dogma --Kaptinavenger (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"et" = "see that's how you get" cf. EnglishJerk --Kaptinavenger (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You missed the point about four edits. Do something constructive instead of wasting everyone else's time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Millennials page

Please stop edit warring as you did today on the Millennials page. It's in policy to add a word that means the exact same thing (as a quoted word) -- to a quote -- using parenthesis. Please take it up on the talk page. Thank you. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Millennials:

Adding a word to a direct quote

The question is: Can Wikipedia editors add a word using parenthesis (into a direct quote) if the new word means the exact same thing (or helps clarify the quoted word). Under the Millennials terminology section see the quote "In 2012, Ad Age "threw in the towel by conceding that Millennials is a better name than Gen Y".

The proposed word to add is "name" after "placeholder" because it clarifies that we are not talking about a placeholder that means any of the following things:

1) One who holds an office or place, especially as a deputy, proxy, or appointed government official.

2) In a mathematical or logical expression, a symbol that may be replaced by the name of any element of a set.

3) In the decimal form of a number, a digit that is not significant.

Given that three different editors disagree with you I suggest your application of policy is off. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That may be the case (for you) but you can't preclude an editor from doing so according to Wikipedia guidelines.104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR is policy. You're at three reverts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you broke the 3 revert rule first -- see the history. The other question for you is: why do you care about this? As you know, many articles (if not all) have text that is written by the editors of Wikipedia. In fact, if we look at your edit history we'll find examples of your original wording you've added to many, many pages. So back off and let others do the same (if it's within Wikipedia policy). 104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You think incorrectly - I'm at two reverts. And there's no need to mangle a direct quote. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line is it's within policy. So get over it.104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, WP:CONSENSUS is policy too. And since three other editors disagree with you, it seems you don't have it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying WP:CONSENSUS supersedes a legitimate edit? Where is the policy you're relying on here -- that says consensus -- supersedes a legit edit? Don't just make stuff up. Thank you. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You think your edit improves the article. Four Five other editors now disagree with your opinion. Any edit can be discussed and is subject to the consensus building process. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You still have not pointed to the policy about Consensus trumping a legitimate edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the Consensus process as you say. It is NOT a voting process:

Consensus on Wikipedia "must involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns.

Here is a direct quote from WP:CONSENSUS

"Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines".

Using parenthesis in journalism "indicates that the material inside the parenthesis has been added by the writer". See https://books.google.com/books?id=BN1S9PwMZQAC&pg=PT305&dq=parentheses+in+journalism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=haLiVJeZIo6pogTgpYDIAg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=parentheses%20in%20journalism&f=false

and, this source says to "use parenthesis in a DIRECT QUOTE to impart words which are NOT the speakers". See https://books.google.com/books?id=41yv2iSBDpMC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=parentheses+in+journalism&source=bl&ots=ye8A_R0F_p&sig=dM2X1faxh7qB29bF4ZsCf0BLong&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KKLiVNLvLcPZoATI3YIY&ved=0CB0Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=parentheses%20in%20journalism&f=false

104.173.225.10 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You recall wikilawyering did not go so well for you the last time you tried it? To summarize from policy:

• After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.
• Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense;
• A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached.

I see agreement between five editors and only you disagreeing. Your assertion that the edit is within policy so that trumps everything is also odd given your editing history. Why did you remove this content which was "within policy"? [28], [29] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Diana Gurtkaya

why Gurtskaya is common name and Gutskaia not? These is only different romanization of language without Latin alphabet. დიანა ღურწკაია is her native name. please see article: Romanization of Georgian--Gaga.vaa (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gaga.vaa. We use the name most commonly used in English language sources. Gurtskaya vs Gutskaia --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent page revert

Hi, i understand what you were saying about making changes to articles based on views, however, have you seen the Britain first facebook page, website or general articles all over the news about them? they are very known to be a racist group, also, the part i added at the end about native inhabitants of the UK was true.

Scott28280 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Scott28280: You can add criticisms of the party provided they are well-sourced (try to use high quality sources like academics) and conform to our WP:NPOV policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

RELATED TO GENUINETY OF THE WRITTEN MATTER

SIR I DO ACCEPT YOUR THOUGHTS ABOU THE AAM AADMI PARTY. BUT KINDELY LET ME KNOW ABOUT THE GENUINITY OF THE WRITTEN MATTER. BECAUSE I'M USING IT FORM MY STUDY AND THEREFORE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO KNOW ABOUT ITS GENUINITY. I HAVE DONE MANY EDITS BEFORE THIS BUT I HAVE RECEIVED NO MESSAGE ?

PLEASE TELL ME THE STEPS WHICH YOU TAKE TO ACCEPT THE EDITS DONE BY ANYONE.

THANK YOU SIR.

FROM- Ankitsaranp20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsaranp20 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ankitsaranp20, simply put, stop copying and pasting text from other websites into Wikipedia articles. You must rewrite the text in your own words. And please don't post in ALL CAPS. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Name

The user named Sunanda Tayade is my mother Sumedh Tayade Maharashtrian (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sumedh Tayade Maharashtrian: Please read Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Urgent help needed on the article Kumhar

Respected User, A huge traffic of i.p. users is continuously tempering with the sourced contents of the page. Their intention is merely caste promotion to which they actually belong, and it can be well verified by their conversation on the talk page of this article. They are continuously adding the self opinion based, unsourced contents removing the sourced contents. The article is continuously being de-shaped. Immediate attention and needful action is needed to protect the page. Who can understand better than you that it takes a lot of efforts to build a fully sourced article and it is not good when it becomes victim of disruptive editing just for the sake of advertising or promoting caste based ideas. Please interfere, i humbly request.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 14:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mahensingha: I agree with you and have endorsed your request for semi-protection. If that's done, we can then repair the article and the socks will be forced to use the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice. I request you to please visit the talk page of article Kumhar the discussion made by the people in the interest of their caste. Few days before few pictures to promote an existing shop and shop keeper were embedded in the article. Once again, thanks a lot for the help.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 14:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

You're an awesome editor! Kitano-san (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kitano-san. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Because my question was answered and there's nothing else to say, so I figured I wouldn't clutter up the talk page with it. Maybe I should've archived it instead, or left it be. Either way doesn't matter to me. — Hunter Kahn 19:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hunter Kahn: It'll be automatically archived by a bot when the time comes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did to List of Rajputs, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

the citations are already exist in Isa Khan page of Early life section itself. alas, if it should be added then i will add along with its citation

Peavey Electronics

No conflict of interest, just hate to see all the vandalism by user Trojan654 and was trying to clean it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.248.64 (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a complete coincidence your IP geolocates to the same town as the headquarters of Peavey Electronics and you're removing negative but sourced info about the company. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I am interested because a local business is being attacked online after appearing on TV this week, and I correctly guessed that people would be attacking their Wikipedia page too - that is not a conflict of interest. My changes were reverting the page to the way it appeared before the episode aired. I am sure it is a coincidence that Trojan654 has made all of the unsourced changes he has made this week - they appear completely neutral. Your page has been vandalized, but you do what you want. (Edited to remove rant) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.248.64 (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What is unsourced? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi! I am a new Wikipedia user and I saw that you were the last person to edit the Taylor Swift page. Just thought I'd say hi!!! She is honestly my favorite person ever and people who share a common love for her are automatically people I get along with! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trish 100 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Trish 100! I hope you like it here on Wikipedia and if you have any questions, just ask! If you're going to be editing the Taylor Swift article two important things to remember is to provide reliable sources for any additions and to edit from a neutral point of view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Email

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

~ P-123 (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Shocked and suprised

I have registered with wikipedia with a properly validated email address and an confirmed account just 1 day ago, Sockpuppet and Meatpuppetry are none of my businesses Prakash Tayade (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Similar name, same article, same types of edits. The SPI will sort it out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please help me.....Kindly remove untouchable word from pasi(caste),they are not untouchable.

I am asking, why do you not asking proof of this caste by Uattar pradesh govt and india govt. State govt has so many proof of this caste which has not been putted over the internet.Please sitush, kindly remove UNTOUCHABLE word.

I do agree pasi are in schedule caste but they are not untouchable.

for better information of pasi kindly visit on www.pasi.in,if you know hindi language.in this website everything its clear.

In validation in world famous book Gazetteer of the province of Oudh.VOL. 2, till H to N, year 1877, Imperial Gazetteer of india vol. ii 1908, District Gazetteer Khiri-1979, Unnao District Gazetteer, UP District Gazetteer Volume 10101053.

It wrote on page 4 in Gazetteer Rampur 1974 k, pasi are posterity of Ahar, Ahir, Barmar, Beria, Bhuihar, Chauhan(except rajput who is not rajput) Dalera, Khaujar, Nut, They cleaned forest and maked useful for human.

R.V. Russell Belived, "Pasi are brave kaum" all details of R.V. Russell in book "Tribes and cast of the north western provinces and awadh/oudh". wriiten by William Crooke.

famous English connoisseur sir C Iliyat and R.V. Russell agreed with evidence ancient ruin, fortress, fort, primitive coin and primitive uninstalls, vestige after study to another thing Its clear that distric lakhimpur and arround it on all state till 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th pasies they had established so many state, In 12th & 13th century, pasi king they had faced some critical situation with their contemporary king. contemporary king had burnt to pasi culture and historical legacy.--Sachin8p (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sachin8p: Please stop canvassing and use the article's talk page: Talk:Pasi_(caste)#More_sources_needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Citation

My friend had told me that on wikipedia only properly cited and referenced data is published so i thought why not the definition of Operating System itself be cited? Ok, i am studying this course of Operating System in my engg degree, can i add content from the book 'Operating Systems Concepts' by author Galvin by Wiley Publications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSMAX20 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@OSMAX20: That's not the tag I was asking you about and please read WP:Verifiability: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." We don't need cites for saying Paris is in France or a computer runs software. And yes, you can certainly add content sourced to that book. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Punjab, India

govt of india never conduct any survey on drug addiction problem in punjab so how can u say 70% of youth are drug addict — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenthink (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Citizenthink: A reliable source has, "Although the SAD-BJP combine is tearing its own government report on drugs, which was quoted by Rahul Gandhi while saying 7 out of 10 youngsters are drug addicts in Punjab, another document of the state government, included as part of 'state disaster management plan', has emerged wherein the government acknowledged that "some 73.5% of the state's youth between 16 and 35 years are confirmed drug addicts". If you wish to dispute this, find other reliable sources that say otherwise, not your personal opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

what a political vendetta against punjab.. I am not saying drug is not an issue in punjab but kindly not defame the people of punjab as drug addict by saying 70% of youth are drug addict only on the bases of some individuals opinion. kindly give a reference of any government report or survey done by any government agency and not give statement of some political leader as a reference. why you never say 70% people of delhi as rapist ?... delhi is rape capital of india.. why you never say 70% people of j&K as terrorist ?......J&k have very good record of insurgency why you never say --% of people of jharkhand , chhattisgarh are naxalite ?...these states have also very good record of naxal activities and youth also participate in these activities why he never say 70% person of uttar pradesh as BANDIT or DACOIT ...uttar pradesh have very national record holder dacoits such as Phoolan Devi (Minister) Abu Salem Daku Man Singh Nirbhay Gujjar Munna Bajrangi all these peoples came from gandhi's home state — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenthink (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Citizenthink: You're still not reading the source:

• "its own government report on drugs
• "another document of the state government, included as part of 'state disaster management plan'"

So, not "the statement of some political leader." If you can find sources for your 70% claims (which you 99.9% probably made up), then you can add them to those articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

if u have reference link of any government report then provide on page. otherwise never defame the youth of punjab as drug addict..i am requesting you. i am totally agree drug is an issue in punjab.but not as much as you mentioned. kindly check the performance of punjab in 35Th national games.. punjab ranked 5th among all 30 states and 7 union territories 35th national games held in kerala in feb 2015. punjab improve his performance punjab is on 9th place in 34th national games can only 30% youth of one state defeat another 26 states and 7 union territories in national games? if yes then may be other state have more drug addicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenthink (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Citizenthink: Instead of wasting your time making nonsensical links between drug use and performance in a sports tournament, you would have been better off following my first suggestion and doing some work to find contradictory sources like this one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ayman Mohyeldin

What is not sourced on the edit on this page? Interesting that I have been editing this page for over a year without any issues, and now all of a sudden everybody and their mother has an interest in what is on this page due to the whole Chris Kyle issue. No one touched this page in a long time, until I did and now I'm in the wrong?Hokiechicklet (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hokiechicklet: Unsourced with misleading edit summary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoa..

I'm just telling the truth, OK? GatorfanWill2 (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@GatorfanWill2: No, these edits are not ok. [30], [31] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hi, It seems that you have deleted page I created for "Pahawe Manache". Its disheartning to see that Although I am not the owner of Pahawe manache, It was assumed that I am the one. Also I was just trying to add the information which I had collected after much of the efforts :(

I repetedly asked which section of the page you need citation or reference, I can try to get the same or simply delete that perticular section. But removing entire Page is discouraging

Regards, ऋषिकेश — Preceding unsigned comment added by ऋषिकेश (talk • contribs) 03:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

ऋषिकेश, I tagged the article for deletion, an administrator deleted it. There are lots of notes on your talk page telling you why. Here's one: "This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, I am not able to explain as the website is real new thing in that language. Since It is not english may be there is gap in understanding. Its more like mix of "imdb, Blogging nd Rotton Tomatoes" in Making in a foreign language. Its important Milestone in web-sphere in India, as almost 85-90% Indians communicate in their regional languages although everyone knows English. This is opening of new market. Anyways, may I added that at very early stage of the website. My intention was to highlight this. Sooner or later it will anyway come as innovative experiments. Till then I will wait.

Thanks any ways. You gave most exact response till now other than just giving links

I dont think wiki is cup of my tea.

Good bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ऋषिकेश (talk • contribs) 05:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sleep Apnea & Acupuncture

I want to fix the article on sleep apnea. I don't understand why it is being reversed. Please contact me at somazx@gmail.com either chat or email. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somazx (talk • contribs)

@Somazx: Please read our WP:MEDRS guideline. "Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. Many such sources represent unreliable information that has not been vetted in review articles, or present preliminary information that may not bear out when tested in clinical trials."

In other words, we don't cherry pick individual studies (primary sources). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I did read it. Which citation wasn't acceptable specifically? All three? One is published by the same journal cited in the didgeridoo citation a paragraph lower (BMJ). All citations were to peer reviewed journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somazx (talk • contribs) 05:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Somazx: New thread opened here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Sleep_apnea.23Alternative_treatments. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

PUNJAB

another document of the state government, included as part of 'state disaster management plan'" PLEASE PROVIDE LINK OF THAT REPORT..THEN I WILL SAY SORRY TO YOU..NEVER HESITATE PARTAKING IN NOBLE DEEDS WITH NO FEAR AND WITH FORTITUDE. WHO GAVE RIGHTS TO MAKE PERSONAL ATTACK ON SOMEONE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.153.178 (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Before you start yelling and making up false accusations of personal attacks, read User_talk:NeilN#Punjab.2C_India. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My YouTube page Suggestion

Hello NeilN,

I saw your message about my YouTube page suggestion. I agree that it is lacking in reliable sources, but I'm a little confused by what you meant when you said "seemed to be a test." Could you please elaborate?

Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark SRAW (talk • contribs) 08:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mark SRAW. You made a subsequent edit (adding a speedy delete tag that seems to be a test. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN After having posted my original suggestion, I realized that I had not officially requested it as an edit. I added the speedy delete tag to my original suggestion, a comment on the Talk:YouTube page, after having created a better-written (to me personally) suggestion in the form of an actual "edit request" in order to eliminate redundancy.

After making these changes, I saw that someone had replied to my original comment on Talk:YouTube. I apologize for not having seen it in the first place. If by "seemed to be a test," you were suggesting "seemed to be a test for fellow Wikipedians," I'm sorry for the misunderstanding that came from my actions. I was not trying to test Wikipedia. I only meant to make a better suggestion and request it through the appropriate channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark SRAW (talk • contribs) 09:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mark SRAW: I mean it seemed like adding the tag seemed like a test edit on your part. Speedy delete tags are for articles not talk pages. The only reason why talk page posts are deleted is if they contravene Wikipedia policies (are very obscene, defamatory, contain copyrighted material, etc.). See WP:TPO and WP:REDACT for more info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN Thanks for the help! I understand now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark SRAW (talk • contribs) 00:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Stevie Ray Vaughan

Actually I have proof on the Stevie Ray Vaughan thing because I'm Samantha Claire Vaughan as in stated in the close family. So I know that because my grandfather Thomas Hugh Vaughan always told me stories about him and Stevie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pajamismai (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pajamismai: Actually you are an anonymous user who is vandalizing the article. [32] If you actually want to do something constructive, do some research using published sources and then add new cited content to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Talk page watcher

A tag has been placed on Template:Talk page watcher requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Talk page watcher

Template:Talk page watcher has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Graham Jones article

Hi -

Good work on the SGJ article, which really needed that trim. Can I ask you to hold back on adding material to it (even if you were planning to)? I'm putting together a wikithon on Native literary topics at an event at which then man himself will be present, and was hoping to use this article as a showcase for wikiediting. Let me know if that's a problem. Vizjim (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vizjim, no problem. You'll have proper, independent sources, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, not looking to do primary research. Don't know how much we'll get done at the event itself, and certainly there'll be much still needed afterwards. Vizjim (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Revert

Hey NeilN, you have started an Anti-Marathi Campaign? In the past too, you had reverted the marathi scripted version of Kalyan city by some editors, why dont you focus on other cities as well? Why dont you help in enforcing WP:Indic Scripts for every city in India, You are behaving like a Anti-Marathi Monarch seriously Sarita Narvekar (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sarita Narvekar: Kalyan is on my watchlist and lately it has been infested by sockpuppets (cough, cough). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Everyone

If u really serious about WP:INDICSCRIPT, then start removing all indic scripts of the starting sentence of any city not only in Maharashtra, because your reverts somehow convey that either you hate Marathi language or either you are an immigrant from some other Indian State having no concern for Marathi. Marathi is the official language of Maharashtra, You should not revert the indic scripted version because its not causing any harm to you or your contributions Sarita Narvekar (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Cough, cough. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry , But..

Sorry, if i did anything wrong. But after doing a minor change , i was put to a ref. link, where i just input the url , from where i gathered the information. If this is wrong, than sorry. If not, than .. Please correct it. Mikil Narayani 27/2/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikil narayani (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Mikil narayani, please read WP:LINKSPAM. Linking to stores is heavily frowned upon. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

dude

dude,

i am kurd. my family is kurdish for thousands on years.

turkey is establish as country in 1923. prior to this it was

ottoman empire. in the ottoman empire there were only kurds, jewish,syrians,bulgarians, greeks and armenians.

you blocked me for a month, bcoz i'm helping you to correct an article?

kurds are fighting for independence. we are going to have free country, independent and free. why you are blocking me to tell me that i'm nationalist?

dude, you are not going to win a noble peace prize you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And now three months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Discouraging

NeilN Sir, your style of reverting any contribution of new editors shows that you are keen on discouraging new editors under the roof and misguide of WP:So and So. Please stop this, Today is Marathi Day in Maharashtra 27th Feb Sarita Narvekar (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"New editors" should follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Natwest

can you tell me why you have deleted my edit for natwest bank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy thompson amt (talk • contribs)

@Andy thompson amt: This.

Add a "State" headline below Goa

NeilN, with respect to your recent edit of the Goa Article. You have reversed my edit.

My edit had the "State" header which is now missing. Its just below the main article headline, the original article of 2014 had it. Its there for all Indian states Article written as "States of India"., Pls add this to the Goa article as someone has removed has its gone missing. I had put it now but u have revered it.

Pls do the changes,

regards qwerty3594Qwerty3594 (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Qwerty3594: That's not what your edit did by a longshot. Repeating what I put on your talk page, "I strongly suggest you not blindly revert the article to your preferred version, wiping out the improvements of others. If you wish to make changes, incorporate them into the current version." There's no need to work on an older version of the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

NeilN Ok I got it. Now regarding the article, will you add the "State of India" headline below Goa or shall I put it Qwerty3594 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Qwerty3594: It's already done. The info was already in the template but not showing because the first parameter name ("name") was incorrectly capitalized. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NeilN. Reagards Qwerty3594 (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Mobile edits

Hey. This is Jaywubba1887. My apologies for the editing errors. I have been using the Wikipedia mobile app and for some reason when I edit some articles, the app, once it saves and processes my edits, will delete large sections of the article by itself. I have no intention of deleting the sections and will edit on the full version of Wikipedia from now on, so this won't happen again. I feel like it is a code error or something on the app version of Wikipedia. Additionally, I'll be more specific with the edit summaries on the regular version of Wikipedia from now on. Sorry again for everything. Jay (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jay. I figured it was something like that. My fat fingers have clicked the wrong link more than once during the rare instances I edit using my tablet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding NeilN. I'll stick to the full version from now on. Happy editing! Jay (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Odyssey 5 "cause" from Pantherslair

Quote: "For the thousands of advocates of [some cause] we need a link to [some advocacy site] to publicize [some cause] as we're not getting the attention [the cause] deserves." --NeilN ^{talk to me}

I take it from your "title link" you wanted me to "Talk to You" about this? You can assist with our cause? The thousands of fans or advocates as you put it, do not ask for much, just a way in which we can generate the support we need by giving the fans easy access to our cause. I admit, I am not an expert in the usage of Wikipedia, so any help on how to prepare this on the Odyssey 5 page would be appreciated. I also apologize for my earlier passionate posting, but this means an enormous amount to the fans and the 12+ years of frustration have taken their toll on many of us. I look forward to your feedback. Pantherslair (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2015 (AEST)

Hi Pantherslair. The "talk to me" link is equivalent to your "talk" link. I think it's been made clear to you by now that Wikipedia articles can't be used to generate support for your or any other cause. The best was to proceed is to get an independent published source to write about your cause and then we can summarize that info in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Goa

What is wrong with this article about GOA:

(transclusion of a version of Goa removed)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugal Editor Exploration (talk • contribs) 12:31, 1 March 2015‎ (UTC)

NeilN, I hope you don't mind that I took the liberty of refactoring the above user's comment, when he dumped 80k worth of his preferred version into your talk page. I've also mentioned his conduct at Talk:Goa—and refactored a similar version dump—and I've added Goa to my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks C.Fred. Both edit warriors have returned to the article after a couple months of inactivity so more eyes would be welcomed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

pic copyright

so what's gonna happen with the photo i uploaded... i need some help about how to make licenses... in that specific case it's Lily Aldrige's personal pics from her facebook account... i'll apreciate the help...

--Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Leo Bonilla: The photo will be deleted. You cannot "make" licenses. For pictures of living people, you must find a source that explicitly states the photo is in the public domain or has a free license. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Can a url works? or if I specified where or how the pic was taken... and for what?

--Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Leo Bonilla: No. We only accept public domain or a freely licensed photos. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

the pic's still in Commons... should I delete it or maybe someone is fixing the copyright issues??

--Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Leo Bonilla: I tagged it for deletion a while ago. An admin will delete it within a few hours or less. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

eyesonchrist legal threat against you

I'm just letting you know that Eyesonchrist has made a legal threat against you after being blocked indef for making other legal threats. As a result, I have blocked him from editing his talk page --04:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLeon (talk • contribs)

Thanks. That was quite... something. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow. LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, NeilN, I would like to bake a cake for you. A cake with a file baked in it. I will deliver it to the prison where you are being held for all those crimes you have committed. So, what flavor? What kind of frosting do you like? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I find it's usually easy to distract the guards by offering them some nice Troll House Cookies. EEng (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Chocolate frosting of course, to go on my Devil's Food Cake. I did some googling on the names mentioned - pretty crazy stuff from one particular person. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

EEng is clear that it was all just a misunderstanding. After all, the guy did state "trail," LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

All levity aside, that diff should probably be oversighted as it contains some serious accusations against living people. WikiLeon, what do you think? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, go for it. --w^{L<speak·check>}

WikiLeon, I was talking about a regular admin revdel. It's okay, I'll ask at ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The Wolf of Wall Street

Hi Neil,

I'm new to this so please verify - what I write here is just between you and me - it's not posting anywhere - or is it?

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.254.74 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi 173. Anything you write on Wikipedia can be viewed by anyone in the world. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Greets!

Happy Holi!!!......Happy Holi!!!

Hello , may you be surrounded by cheers, pleasure, peace, success and happiness on this Happy Holi and through out the year 2015. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Holi, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Happy Holi 2015. Happy editing, -- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 07:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?

Please don't undo my edits because I am trying to fix a Wikipedia:NPOV problem with the page Naturopathy.--67.80.218.118 (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:PSCI: " Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathic medicine is not pseudoscience. It is considered alternative medicine, so WP:PSCI will not take effect.67.80.218.118 (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)--

Might want to actually read the article. Mainstream science considers it pseudoscience and Wikipedia classifies it as such. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, why do naturopaths have fewer clerkships than conventional doctors?--67.80.218.118 (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't care. If you want to argue that Naturopathy is not a pseudoscience you can do so on the article's talk page. Good luck with that - your irrelevant questions won't get very far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice try. "Don't care" is NOT a proper argument here on Wikipedia. Neither is "irrelevant" or "won't get very far". 67.80.218.118 (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC) --

It is when you ask irrelevant questions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you read what I just said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.218.118 (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I discounted it. Your question is about as useful as asking, "Naturopathy cured my mom, why isn't it considered a valid medical technique?" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Discounted?! Stinging nettle is used to cure hay fever!!! -- SERIOUSLY?! 67.80.218.118 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Lots of plant extracts contain compounds which are scientifically proven to have medical benefits. Tossing in stinging nettle alongside some music and aromatherapy to alleviate hay fever doesn't mean my method isn't pseudoscientific. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Stinging nettle's ability to cure several medical conditions including cancer when used with other herbs is something naturopaths rely on to cure diseases.--67.80.218.118 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You still don't get it. First, you need to provide a WP:MEDRS to support your rather sensationalized and misleading claim that "stinging nettle cures cancer". Second, using some scientifically accepted techniques does not mean the rest of the pseudoscientific techniques are suddenly okay. Applying pressure to stop bleeding is accepted. Playing music so the wound heals faster is not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturopaths DON'T play music to cure diseases, NeilN.--207.241.247.150 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)