Jump to content

User talk:NeilN

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gkalogiantsidis (talk | contribs) at 22:45, 13 June 2015 (→‎Parametric Chassis: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


 If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. NeilN
The Signpost
22 July 2024

hi

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.15.60.102 (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 103. Were you looking for some help? --NeilN talk to me 14:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your help with the Talen Energy logo and in recognition of all the good stuff you do here at Wikipedia. Truly outstanding! Grahamboat (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Grahamboat, appreciate that. --NeilN talk to me 19:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain.

Please explain how my edit "vandalized" Wikipedia. I stated a fact which many people agree with and you called my editing disruptive. I see absolutely nothing wrong in what I did and I would appreciate it if you would explain your reasoning behind your threat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx.can't.think.of.a.good.username.xX (talk • contribs) 21:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious you are joining the mob in denigrating Drake Bell. If you must, you can do that elsewhere, not on Wikipedia where we have a strict biography policy that applies to all articles. --NeilN talk to me 21:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Bell

I've seen you removing vandalism at the Drake Bell page. Does the whole thing with Caitlyn Jenner qualify for inclusion in his or her article? -- Deadpool100 (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deadpool100. We cannot add anything unless we have good quality reliable sources covering it (not tabloids). With these types of things I like to apply the ten year test, only cut down a bit. In a couple years, do you think anyone will still be mentioning the incident? --NeilN talk to me 00:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, NY Daily News and Billboard as far as I've seen. But the Justin Bieber thing has been going on for three years. That, maybe? -- Deadpool100 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Deadpool100: The Bieber thing is already mentioned in the article. If coverage is ongoing, and you think it warrants more space in the article, go for it, keeping in mind other editors might object to what they see as adding trivia. --NeilN talk to me 00:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for your help. As you see, I'm pretty new. But I read up on policy and such before editing. And jeez, there has been a lot of vandalism on his page since this happened. -- Deadpool100 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Deadpool100: Yes, when a celebrity does or says something controversial their article usually experiences a wave of disruptive edits. Thank you for helping out on this one. --NeilN talk to me 00:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I look forward to editing with you in the future. And looking on the history, a major editor to the article hasn't touched it in a while. Did something happen? -- Deadpool100 (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Deadpool100: They got blocked from editing for six months for persistent edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 01:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, shame. I hope he does come back after the block. Granted, I wouldn't, but maybe he might. He looked like a positive contributor to quite a number of articles. If he does come back, maybe he'll learn from the block. And don't keep tagging me, I'll be watching your page. -- Deadpool100 (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Nepal

im from nepal and you I am trying to edit page systematically whats your problem and where are you from ??+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul Giree (talk • contribs)

Hi Rahul Giree. As per the messages on your talk page (which you have deleted) you can't just add your own commentary to articles. Content must be written in an encyclopedic tone and be verifiable: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." That means providing references to reliable sources. Also, please don't use inappropriate or misleading edit summaries. [1], [2] --NeilN talk to me 03:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NeilN for proving my mistakes sorry for previous things that I have done editing Wikipedia's articles sorry I waana know where are you from ? From today I will only add things in Wikipedia's tone and add things that are proven right sorry for mi.... (copied from [3])
@Rahul Giree: We were all new here once and learning how to contribute to Wikipedia can sometimes be challenging (but rewarding!). Just read through the help links on your talk page and ask if you have any questions and you should be fine. As to where I'm from - some editors reveal details about themselves on their user pages but I don't. I prefer to keep my personal details private and I want other editors to judge my edits without having any preconceived notions about who I am. --NeilN talk to me 04:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Taoism Counter to Christianity

Dear Neil,

I am working off my tablet until I am to replace my computer and do more formal research to site credible sources. However, if you actually study the topic of Taoism, it is actually a pagan religion and needs to be correctly catagorized as such. Someone has been citing multiple books and its similiarities to christianity, and while there are some similiarities, Christians need to be FULLY aware that as a "folk" religion/philosophy, observations and reverence of nature, and most importantly many references to taoist magick (ie: sorcery, alchemy, and worship of local spirits) this creates a major conflict because as you know Christianity condemns magick of all religious forms as being "evil" and moreover, considers the worship of any spirit, diety, or god other than the Christian god as a sin.

Please read the main entry page for taoism as well. It also further emohasizes what I have said. I will contact those who submitted the similiarities to christianity and inform them of their inaccuracies. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idx730 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Idx730. This makes it seem you are writing about your own analysis and conclusions. Along with our sourcing guideline you should be aware of our no original research policy. Even statements of opinion must be attributed. --NeilN talk to me 13:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Query

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bladesmulti

Seendgay's comment that he is administrator. How a sockpuppet became admnistrator?

Very much confused. Right now the account is blocked. Is it true that he was administrator?

This question has no relation to your administrator candidature!Cosmic  Emperor  17:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CosmicEmperor: Seendgay was mistaken. Bladesmulti was never an admin. --NeilN talk to me 17:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Z

Neither of us can prove that the source actually says this about Generation Z as follows "ABC Family uses the term "becomers" for its future target audience (Gen Z)."

So why is your edit more valid than mine?

Do you have access to Broadcasting and Cable?

2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PAYWALL: "Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." You cannot reject a source just because you don't have online access to it. --NeilN talk to me 22:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that makes sense about a paywall source. But I doubt the source says it that way. Also, it's an inferior fact -- I mean who really cares if ABC Family uses the term "becomers" for its future target audience" -- what does that even mean? In addition, the person who added the statement should rewrite it in a way that tells the audience what they are talking about and provide some context. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to challenge material because you don't think the source backs it up and ask the person who added the source to provide a quote. Or if you think the material doesn't belong in the article at all. Both are valid reasons but "this reference is behind a pay wall" is not. --NeilN talk to me 00:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

hi, you reverted my edits just because the qadiani hackers hacked the website of www.irshad.org and because of the you couldn't access the page I referenced from Mirza's book. For reference see this archived copy of the same book page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamiri~enwiki (talk • contribs)

@Kamiri~enwiki: I don't consider this anywhere close to a reliable or scholarly source. --NeilN talk to me 01:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Necromancy

Thanks for catching that. Somehow I managed to miss the talk page discussion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitted Santorum edit

I have resubmitted the Santorum edit, with an additional citation which I hope will meet your standards for verifiability. Johnd39 (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnd39. I've removed the synthesis. We need a source that explicitly makes that connection. --NeilN talk to me 03:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed revert

Hi NielN, I see you have taken out a citation which I put in, on a page that specifically requests "citation needed". You have marked it as "good faith", which it was, so I don't understand why you are taking it out again? It's to a peer-reviewed journal article specifically on this topic. Why the change? Sorry this is a repeat message, I didn't add subject/headline last time. apiano (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained here. --NeilN talk to me 16:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NeilN, I have changed the internet troll edit, is that better?

apiano, looks that way but you have another editor disputing your addition. Do you have any connection to Binns? --NeilN talk to me 16:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, I had half a day so have done several things at once, which I think is what he is annoyed about. I've left him messages asking him to suggest changes but he is hitting undo to everything. On the Ask.fm and Formspring pages in particular, I think the current entries have clearly been written by the new owners and I think the citations to peer-reviewed research (and there is very little on the subject) are valuable. I work in the same dept but she is in no way a client. Do you have a suggestion for conflict resolution?

Ohnoitsjamie What do you think about apiano placing proposed edits on the talk pages of articles for other editors to review? --NeilN talk to me 16:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with her proposing edits on the talk pages for others to consider, providing that she discloses her COI (either she is Binns or she is doing this on behalf of Binns) on any such talk page proposal. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
apiano, please read Wikipedia:Edit requests, specifically Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Making_requests on how to do this. If you have any questions, just ask. --NeilN talk to me 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NeilN, I think I have added a request edit to the talk page of Ask.fm, can you please take a look and tell me if this is helpful?

Hi apiano. I've fixed your post. [4] Also, please remember to sign your posts. --NeilN talk to me 16:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GreenEarth Cleaning

Hi,

On the GreenEarth Cleaning page,someone had put false information, some of which is just blatant lies, the rest is out dated, non conclusive research, which has since been proven wrong by the EPA, SEHSC, and Environment Canada. I made the appropriate edits to the page. Your editor Joesph2302 then reverted those edits, stating I did not give valid reason in my edit summary. I simply stated the information was not true. I then went back and made the edits again, and was more descriptive in my edit summary. He then accused me of creating an edit war. I then received a message from another editor saying my username was in violation. So I thought may that that may have been the issue all along. So I created a new account as ajnewport, I was using the the GreenEarth Cleaning username because I thought it would be good to be up front, apparently not. Regardless, can we get this resolved and get the false, irrelevant, & outdated information off of our page please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnewport (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajnewport, you've triggered sockpuppetry, edit warring, and conflict of interest reports. The best advice I can give is to stop editing the article immediately and place a note on your talk page saying that you won't be making any more changes. Then use the article's talk page to discuss the changes you want to make. Note that simply claiming the info is false or outdated is not enough. You must provide reliable sources (not vague pointers to the EPA, SEHSC, and Environment Canada) to back up your assertions or say why the existing sources are flawed. I see one of our very experienced editors, Jytdog, has carefully gone through the article and has stubbed it, citing specific problems with sources. Hopefully this should allay your concerns. --NeilN talk to me 20:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Rangeblocked

Have blocked 169.57.0.192/27 for 31 hours since they were primarily being used recently to troll your and User:Black Kite's page (and prior to that User:Liz's pages along with the False accusation of rape article), and the 32 IP block was held by a single company. Any admins watching your page are welcome to extend/modify the block as they see fit. Abecedare (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Thanks and FYI --NeilN talk to me 05:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Synagogue

Please can you clarify why the assertions I made on the US.org.uk wiki page are not allowed to stand with this source: http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/10/12/381997/israel-lobby-to-block-uk-palestine-vote/

which clearly points out that

"The Zionist pressure group "United Synagogue" has called on all its members to press their constituency representatives to reject the motion or make amendments to it

and that

"Meanwhile, Davis Lewin, the Deputy Director and Head of Policy and Research at the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), has hit out at planners of the recognition proposal, describing them as people who openly want to destroy Israel."

Why is this not a quote that is allowed to stand? Internetwikier (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at ANI --NeilN talk to me 15:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

neilN

I wasn't vandalizing wikipedia Neil . Woody Paige was born in 1941 and he is a Snooker hall of fame voter (his cousin is a good snooker player) And yes Paige is friends with bob Saget and Michael Gross

I hate adding sources,it's so hard to find them and when you do,they don't work. And Paige was born out in unincorporated territory in Tennessee (rural tennessee) so it is like parts unknown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edhor3332902309 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't add sources, then how can other editors trust what you've written? I mean, lots of people make the assertion "because I said so."--Mr Fink (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No sources because it was vandalism. [5], [6] --NeilN talk to me 05:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at User talk:NeilN/RFA.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is your 12th RfA question. 103.6.159.179 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously won't be answering that question and have asked that page to be deleted. --NeilN talk to me 15:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me...

...to be one of the first to congrat.... Wait, where is everybody? Am I the first one here? Darn it, I showed up too early. Well, let me leave this T-shirt and crystal decanter of Clorox Cleanup over here in the corner, I'll be back a bit later when the party has started. Zad68 18:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for adminship

Hi NeilN, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations for your clear pass and place on WP:RFX100. As always, the administrators' reading list is worth reading and the new admin school is most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere on the project. Have fun and good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 20:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done NeilN! Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! ^-^ I know you will do well! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. This is good news for the encyclopaedia. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good on you mate, I supported you. Well done and keep up the great work - EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

I'm sure you will be getting plenty of these in the next few days, but I wanted to congratulate you for getting the mop - a very successful RfA, I'd say! I know you'll be a real asset to the administrator's group. Cheers! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See two sections above. - NQ (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, always good to see =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you going to go with {{administrator topicon|tan|cat=no}} (Wikipe-tan with mop) or {{Template:User wikipedia/Administrator}} (Wikiglobe)? Im talking about your admin userpage icon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't decided yet - still getting used to the new links/buttons. Let's look at the block log - whoops, there's now a "block" link where the "block log" link used to be... --NeilN talk to me 21:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I do like {{administrator|tan}} --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All right, then. Let's try that out on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 21:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations - the community showed a lot of faith in you, and you obviously deserve it. Welcome aboard. But wait - where's the T-shirt? I see a link above, but hey! You're supposed to get a crappy T-shirt, not a crappy LINK to a T-shirt! Here it is. Wear it with pride, you earned it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Neil! I think this is overdue. I hope you enjoy your new range of activities as much as you enjoy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pile on congrats! - Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved. Congratulations. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was quite the RFA, congratulations. §FreeRangeFrogcroak
  • Ah, at last! Now I just have to figure out how to write a Edit-filter/IFTTT script so that any "can you look/protect/block?" request at my talk page is immediately duplicated onto Neil's. :) Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone

Thanks to everyone who nudged me to run and thanks to everyone who participated in my RFA. I honestly wasn't expecting that level of support, given that I usually just keep my head down and try to fix what needs fixing or help where needed. I'll be starting off slowly and carefully with the admin tools so please don't expect any magical declines in the backlogs :-) Any advice from admins regarding their particular best practices or scripts/tools they use will be gratefully received. --NeilN talk to me 20:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you don't accidentally block anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants The Bbb23 Experience™ please let me know, and I'll block them for 60 seconds so they can feel the buuuuurn. never gonna live that one down §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
especially for possible incompetence - NQ (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, an admin would never make that mistake. Any "accidental" blocks are just put in place to give the blockee a new user interface experience. --NeilN talk to me 20:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like that...so, we are giving vandals the opportunity to have a new user interface experience? Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Permanently, in some cases. --NeilN talk to me 21:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the recipient of one of Bbb23's accidental blocks, I can confirm that it never happened. Alakzi (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best of luck! Should you want to get started, RMs are one of the safer areas, and it's hard to get in trouble at WP:RFPP. If you want to close AfDs, use a script. Never go to ANI unless you have to, and always tell people to use DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Ed. Doing some work at RFPP now. Ironically, some of the reports resulted in users already being blocked hours ago so all I'm doing is updates - something I could have done without the tools. --NeilN talk to me 22:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper and User:MusikAnimal/MoreMenu - NQ (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NQ: Oh those look helpful, thanks. I'll have to figure out if I want to switch to Vector or use User:Haza-w/Drop-down menus instead. --NeilN talk to me 22:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vector offers more flexibility, but it's hard to say goodbye to monobook if you've been using it long enough. Tough choice. MusikAnimal has incorporated a lot of sysop specific tools into his version. - NQ (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@IJBall: You can sometimes get feedback on a possible admin action just by asking other people, before you start a new ANI. Or you can take the problem to a more specialized noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, officially! And I'm glad to see somebody opened and presented you with the T-shirt. The importance of wearing the T=shirt while performing ALL admin actions cannot be overstated. Best of luck, and just keep doing what you've been doing. Zad68 22:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes and congratulations - I know my !vote aroused some interesting opining from some, but it was made in the best of faith that you will be careful in AfD matters, as I have full confidence in your vandalism reverts -- Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Collect. And yes, if I close AFD's I will be very careful. I haven't seen any constant complaints about AFD backlogs so it's likely I'll be focusing elsewhere. --NeilN talk to me 00:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck mate! Simon Irondome (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats for getting the mop! Just be sure you do not delete the main page or block Jimbo or ClueBot or do anything foolish enough to warrant yourself a lovely day in the stocks. Oh, and please please please please remember to lock your computer when you go AFK so nobody can come in and use your mop to deface Wikipedia. That would not be a pleasant experience. Anyway, congrats! --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 00:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! Congrats and good luck! Jianhui67 T★C 01:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An admin's new toolset
Congratulations! You will do a great job.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was a bit of a nail-biter, wasn't it? ;-) . Hey don't forget the little people now that you are one of the suits. Remember: We knew you when .... Softlavender (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think janitors wear suits :) --NeilN talk to me 02:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! If I knew you were running I'd have baked a cakevoted for you. I keep missing out on who's applied 'cos I'm usually being oppressed for being a disciplinarian (ping, ping, ping!). More than happy to accept a rap on the knuckles from you! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, NeilN. And I know that you will do well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! See you around.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Neil :). –Davey2010Talk 19:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many congratulations and thanks for your support. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could admins please use their spidey-senses and judgment on this IP

Could admins please use their spidey-senses and judgment on this IP, who has posted nothing but vandalism and disruptive nonsense: Special:Contributions/205.215.254.132. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, not enough disruption or warnings to block. I've given them a {{uw-test3}} and will check back periodically. --NeilN talk to me 05:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Continuing Excavations of Leigh Daniel Avidan

Greetings --NeilN talk to me

I wish to discuss with you about a recent edit I've made to the page Qumran Caves. I believe there was a little misunderstanding between the two of us, thus leading to a rather uncomfortable situation. Wishing that no offence is taken by you, I would like to inform you that there was a slight research error on your side, the error being that the above mentioned Qumran Caves were actually dug by Leigh Daniel "Seven and 3 Quarters" Avidan among others. I also wish to inform you that I've found the ban threatening message you've sent me quite offensive and a bit rude due to the fact that your research into this topic wasn't accurate at all. I hereby wish that you apologize for the ban threat you've sent me, but if you don't want to I will find it appropriate for you to simply leave the text I, and many other companions of Leigh Daniel Avidan, have left on the Qumran Caves Wikipedia page. For what are my personal feelings in comparison to the truth. I thank you in advance,

Sincerely, Proja — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proja (talk • contribs) 14:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Proja: Please do not perpetrate hoaxes. [8] --NeilN talk to me 14:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why all the activity on this page?

What is going on? ;) -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 15:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: I got a crappy T-shirt and a rather sad looking mop. Also, a new range of opportunities for people to tell me I'm wrong. --NeilN talk to me 17:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Are they all currying favour? Do you need some dungarees? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 17:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roxy the dog: I've already hit Jimbo's page: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#RfA_is_broken --NeilN talk to me 17:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you have some IP's on your case, all the same person I am sure. I wouldn't take anything they say to heart, it sounds like a grudge of some sort. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness

NeilN. i made edits to removes some examples that showed some bias and did not lend to the general understanding of "political correctness". the "right wing political correctness" section is pure BS, since the term seems to only be used by purveyors of liberal bias (as a google search shows the first page of results are mostly used in editorials and blogs). without any substantial confirmation by use, the term cannot be seen as relevant to the subject and should not be included. even the " Dixie Chicks political controversy" example does not in itself ever mention "political correctness" in any form. using a made up term as some sort of counterbalance, does not benefit to the readers and give them a better understanding of the subject. the entire section "right wing political correctness" uses an example (dixie chicks) that was about "patriotism" and not about political correctness and two sources (Krugman and Latham) who are both admitted leftists. overall, political correctness is not necessarily a liberal only concept and the entire article seems to have a "wing" bias to it, with unneeded uses of "left wing" and "right wing".

the other edit was eliminating the "false accusation" section that equates "christian" to conservative, and it is fact that most christians worldwide are not politically conservative, therefore, christian opposition to "violence (and sex, and depictions of homosexuality) on television" is not a "political correctness" issue and cannot be an example that validates the section. additionally, the "baa baa black sheep" example as "false accusations" refers to an article for support, yet that very article states "Just one problem: the reasons for the singing of words other than black is nothing to do with "political correctness".". even with the contradiction, the entire paragraph does not make any sense, eve after re reading it several time, i don't understand it. again, this section does nothing for the reader's understanding of the subject.

you just undid the edits, without even an attempt to understand why they were made...and i know this because you undid them within few minutes of my making them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthisfreedomandjustice (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Truthisfreedomandjustice: I did in fact look at your removals and saw your were removing sourced, attributed opinions. You then inserted your own point of view into the article. [9] Here you referred to European Christians but the example explicitly was about American Christians. You may have points, but these should be discussed on the article's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 18:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as mentioned above, the "sourced" opinions were either not related to the subject or were poor sources...i'm sure i can find sources for alien invasions of earth. and nowhere did i add my opinion to the article. my point about the christians is that the statement equated christian with right wing, and that if false, no matter the nationality of the christians. again, opposition based on religious beliefs is not "POLITICAL correctness". as i mentioned above, political correctness is not an exclusively liberal concept, but morality is not a part of political correctness. in any case, these is no value to keeping these sections in the article, since you agree that i may have points...it makes more sense that questionable sections should be excluded until a discussion can support inclusion. inclusion of what is clearly biased material distracts from the purpose of the article Truthisfreedomandjustice (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your definition. And I said you may have points, but these should be discussed on the article's talk page. This is so other interested editors can participate in the discussion if they so choose. --NeilN talk to me 19:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Truthisfreedomandjustice Forgot to ping. --NeilN talk to me 19:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topicons

Congrats on becoming an admin. You might, however, want to remove the autopatrolled rollbacker and reviewer topicons from your userpage now, since they don't apply to you anymore. Everymorning talk 20:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Everymorning: You're right! Updated, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 21:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tea house

That question has no answer. How long it remain answerless in tea house — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.4.215 (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will go unanswered until a volunteer who knows the answer, answers it. If no one answers it after a period of time, the question will be moved to an archive page. --NeilN talk to me 01:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad

Maybe you should remove the tags, I found the problem "Such edits are frequently a sign of corruption caused by the inappropriate use of WP:VisualEditor." from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Tags.

This is not a deliberate action of adding tags which I don't what it was before this. RussianDewey (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RussianDewey, whatever you're doing isn't working. All you're adding are the tags (three times now). --NeilN talk to me 20:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a miscommunication, I understand now, when I was on my watchlist, I clicked on diff to see what changed and it seemed like the whole of my edit work was deleted at least most of it, so after the third edit I was thinking of not using the virutal editor and do it manually and realized no text were being removed, so I understand my mistake now RussianDewey (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

109.149.202.215

Could you revdel his other contribs too please 109.149.202.215 (talk · contribs) Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, is that the right IP? --NeilN talk to me 20:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is now, thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley, looks like it's already done. --NeilN talk to me 20:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as involved admin, please do not freeze Meghan Trainor article to state achieved via Winkelvi's edit warring

Please allow an uninvolved admin to handle this. Thanks--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved. How do you figure that? --NeilN talk to me 00:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC) BoboMeowCat Retry ping --NeilN talk to me 00:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, I seem to recall you being involved in an edit war, along with Winkelvi, on another Meghan Trainor article. When I have a chance, I will post the diffs regarding this (or retract this if I am mistaken). It also seems I recall past support from you for user:Winkelvi who appears to be edit warring disruptively here against talk page consensus, so it really seems better to let an uninvolved admin handle it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BoboMeowCat, please post diffs for this article. Just because I might edit Alabama does not mean I'm involved at Arkansas. These are my edits. Two corrections total to factual inaccuracies. Six hours full protection saves you all a trip to WP:3RRNB. --NeilN talk to me 00:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, It was on Meghan Trainor discography where Winkelvi was edit warring against multiple users to change the opening sentence of lead. Content which had been in the article for months. At one point in the discussion, I inquired why you didn't simply ask Winkelvi to please stop edit warring against consensus: talk page discussion here: [10]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BoboMeowCat, I remember that. I got thanked by MaranoFan, one the editors usually arguing against Winkelvi, for that one edit. [11] --NeilN talk to me 03:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken, because at that point, MaranoFan had put herself on self enforced block, which multiple users attributed to wikihounding from Winkelvi, which led to an AN request to interaction ban Winkelvi. I'll see if I can find link to that discussion to confirm dates. (add link to WP:AN disussion: [12]) --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the diff? --NeilN talk to me 03:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a link to a barnstar from MaranoFan not a diff. Perhaps we are both remembering correctly though. I think perhaps Winkelvi was edit warring so long on that article that it spanned beyond Marano's departure. I also remember right before Marano's departure, she was accepting edits that seemed disruptive from Winkelvi, apparently in hopes of getting article stable enough for FA. I've had all the Trainor articles on watchlist since flurry of RfC's and ANI's a few months back and have witnessed an unusual amount of disruption. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was aware of that AN discussion. Given the history between you three, did you not think the way things were going today, all of you wouldn't end up at some noticeboard? --NeilN talk to me 04:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted once and opened talk page discussion via BRD. I also don't recall having much history with Lips, beyond the fact that I believe we both voted in support of that proposed interaction ban. I honestly don't think the problems on Meghan Trainor articles are going to improve if editors who perhaps admire Winkelvi's good work elsewhere, don't acknowledge some problems. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're assuming protection was somehow an endorsement of Winkelvi, it was not. It was simply the WP:WRONGVERSION. Protection was lifted over three hours ago, constructive comments about content have been made, and you're free to heed them or not. --NeilN talk to me 04:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latest gender identity matter at Chris Crocker article

If you and/or one or more of your talk page watchers don't mind keeping an eye on this matter (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gender identity matter at Chris Crocker article, with the WP:Permalink for it here), please do. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh. I had no idea Leave Britney Alone was anything more than a video of the day type thing. --NeilN talk to me 03:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot all about Crocker? Shame on you. Well, as you know, that video was huge. It sustained Crocker's fame for some time. And as the Wikipedia article shows, Crocker went on to do other things and presented in a way that a lot of society deems good-looking. But then again, a lot of people felt that Crocker was pretty at times when presenting as a woman. Anyway, for now, I am avoiding male pronouns for Crocker even though Crocker has yet to state that we should start using female pronouns and the name "Christine"; I keep MOS:Identity in mind, and would rather not having anyone telling me that I am misgendering and being otherwise transphobic. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

belated congratulations

I'm late to offer my congratulations on your successful RFA, but here I am! Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway.
  6. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
KrakatoaKatie 07:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. All rights released under GFDL.

No Worries

I'm not overly concerned with this, Neil. The user was headed in the wrong direction and failing to listen to anyone. I regret it but I saw it coming. Tiderolls 17:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Turk Middle East Dispute

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Greco-Turk Middle East Dispute and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Greco-Turk_Middle_East_Dispute

Responded --NeilN talk to me 22:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion on Red Meat article

I am sure you are confused. Because this article is so lacking I attempted to alleviate some confusion with an excerpt from the Beef article. I am sorry that this other article does not meet your quality standards, and would suggest looking at it and correcting it, as you thought my edit was so egregious that you interrupted a discussion i was trying to start about off topic discussion that seem to be deliberately influencing the readers. Some commentary about the confusion (deliberate by the pork lobby and not deliberate due to the other definitions of the term is needed in the article. I hope since you are so keen on removing a the addition (which i admit is a work in progress) you will find a way to replace it that meets your standards.144.188.128.3 (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 144. I believe Macrakis reworked some of the useful text while keeping out the restored unsourced text. [13] --NeilN talk to me 23:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
not realy, the good part was the stuff that was removed, indicating that there is confusion in because of the multiple definitions, now it is just accuses the meat lobby of deliberately confusing people. Which is an interesting side note that this confusion can lead to manipulation, but it still does not address the confusion. One would think that the cause would have some place in the page. 144.188.128.2 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 16:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ip socking

After you protected this page, faizan came back to edit with registered account. Can he be blamed for IP socking? Most SPI cases, check users say, no comments on IP. But this is not a good practice: If i log out and IP edit to pose as a different user and then log in. I disconnect my net connection and then reconnect, so that i get different IP address and then edit as a third user. --Cosmic  Emperor  04:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CosmicEmperor:, I assume you're talking about Kashmir conflict. When you have a registered account mixed in with IP accounts SPI will evaluate if there's sockpuppetry involved based on behavioral evidence that you have to provide. It's not enough to say that an editor showed up after an article was semi-protected. My advice is to not make any socking accusations unless you are ready to open a SPI with rock solid evidence. --NeilN talk to me 04:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same user is asking me to play video games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashmir_conflict&diff=666510733&oldid=666486732

Thiese IPs starting with 39.47...... --Cosmic  Emperor  17:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Bravo (footballer) page :

Hello, I know you said no yet to protect Claudio Bravo but it really becomes silly how many edits and reverts(all removes are happening by IPS none by registered users ) at this page daily, so will you please take a look at it ? already a discussion about this matter happened at :

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Thomas_Vermaelen (similar case to bravo) . 

and also at Talk:Claudio_Bravo_(footballer)

and here is the reference for this matter which is stated clearly by the UEFA regulations (this is official UEFA website!) who gives the medals : Forty gold medals are presented to the winning club, and forty silver medals to the runner-up. Additional medals may not be produced. nothing mentioned about playing minimum minutes or not , and they left it to the club to decide .nothing mentioned about playing minimum minutes or not (http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/09/88/17/2098817_DOWNLOAD.pdf) and Barcelona official website says he has it {http://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/first-team/staff/players/c-bravo}

even this is the source is used for which honors he has, I mean If we are not going to stick for what they are saying how are we using this as a source? since when editors can pick what they want from the source and delete what they don't want ? hope you take a look at this and thank you for your time Adnan (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan, what I see is a content dispute detailed on the talk page. I see the last revert by the IP was without explanation. I will talk to them and indicate they need to continue discussing. --NeilN talk to me 16:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but wikiproject page already discussed this matter
once here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Thomas_Vermaelen.27s_page_question_please_:
another time here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Thomas_Vermaelen
and again did you see the links i have provided ?I provided two official sources one of them is the booklet regulation published by the organization and another one is the official club website and they says he won it.. people keep arguing by saying a report by media from ( voetbalkrant.com ) said otherwise. again only IPS disagree with this and remove it, but registered people are going with what has been said to the wikiproject . thank you for listening :) Adnan (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adnan, see WP:INVOLVED. I cannot say your sources are good and then semi-protect the page. If you have consensus then other editors will revert back to the agreed-upon version and the IP will be forced to use the talk page to change consensus. You are, of course, free to seek the opinion of another admin regarding protection. --NeilN talk to me 16:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no need for another admin , It would be silly to jump from admin to another just because another admin didn't agree with what I have said , you don't know me neither know the IPS so I believe you are trying to speak fairly and neutrally and you have been for 9 years so I am sure you know what you are doing :) therefore I 100% trust and will support your decision bud , I was trying to explain my points for you only for real :) I stopped trying to revert it if you noticed since sometimes I think other two users recently they have been trying to add them back. there are other articles to work at :) thank you for listening man :) Adnan (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alen Halilović

Hello again today :) , there is page Alen Halilović an IP keeps changing the infobox. i tried and explained for him how we only put league appearance(s) at infobox and how he is facing 3RR but he didn't really listen and did it again , what is the next step I should do please ? thank you Adnan (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of this matter , the consensus about this is way before even I joined wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_football_biography/Archive_4#Non-league_league_appearances.3F

I will post this at his talk page maybe he can see it is not like something i have decided , but can an ip really see messages we leave for them on talk pages ? thank you again Adnan (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Adnan, you discussed it with the IP which is good. What also be useful is if there was a set of community guidelines for football player infoboxes you could point to. I've reverted the IP and left an explicit 3rr message. --NeilN talk to me 19:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adnan, yes that's excellent and yes, IP's can see messages left on their talk pages. --NeilN talk to me 19:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again :) It is a learning process I am getting more and more used to it everyday. I posted the guidelines for footbal player infoboxes on his talk page thank you Adnan (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning: Statements Reply

This message is concerning the statements made against User:AndyTheGrump. Andy and I have since updated our situation (see; 22:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)) and I am in the process of clarifying issues with him. The statement that he had unauthorized accounts has been officially retracted. I have not mentioned this to Andy on the basis that your review process had restricted communications. Please forward a copy of this memo to Andy as an official apology that this issue may be resolved. Habatchii (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Opinion?

Is this canvassing? Asking a user to take a look at edit war is different but giving the details of editing is not.

first IP Edit

IP request

Use comes back--Cosmic  Emperor  05:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I give new editors some leeway as they are unaware of WP:CANVASS. It's not unusual for them to ask for help on an article (my own talk page history has lots of examples). --NeilN talk to me 11:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ip users involved in Kashmir Conflict gives names for facebook then other Ip mentions the name on talk page.--Cosmic  Emperor  10:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 11:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gen Z and Millennials page

Could you please take a look at the recent edits and warn or block the user on these pages today? Thank you.! 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the other editor a 3RR warning before your note. Please be careful of WP:3RR yourself. --NeilN talk to me 16:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant warn and then bring to it to the admin edit warring notice board first. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will, could you deal with the new changes and clear violation of WP:3RR on the Millennials page now. Thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Already reported: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Andre_bachel_li_reported_by_User:NeilN_.28Result:_.29 --NeilN talk to me 16:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you revert the editor's new changes on Millennials? I cant' or its WP:3RR. Thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your assistance.2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet update

New IP 85.243.157.170 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No rangeblock is possible so we'll have to block/protect as appropriate. --NeilN talk to me 17:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is to block IPs and pages. New IP is 81.193.2.157 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SLBedit, I can't see any evidence the sockmaster edited that article. Do you have any evidence besides a similar IP address? That range has many edits. --NeilN talk to me 18:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because I know the vandal very well. He edits articles related to Portuguese sports all the time (Benfica, football, other sports). I have also noticed that he comments regularly on Record.xl.pt. Same type of writing, same type of interests. SLBedit (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SLBedit: Ok, I can't block/protect on that basis (sorry). Perhaps you should expand on your ANI report. --NeilN talk to me 18:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thanks. SLBedit (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks <gasp>

PP at Watts Up etc much appreciated NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mann jess' request at RFPP made a lot of sense. Hopefully discussion comes to a conclusion before the protection expires. --NeilN talk to me 19:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re part 1, absolutely! Re part 2....... AhhhhH HAHH AHahaha hahhahha.... oh man, I'm dying here..... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request Since you (wisely) implemented FULL page protection, would you mind posting

{{Move portions from|Watts Up With That?|discuss=Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)#RFC - Should discussion of Watts' blog be moved to the article about Watts' blog "Watts Up With That?"|date=June 2015}}

to Watts Up With That? I already added Template:Move portions to Anthony Watts (blogger) and started the indicated talk page thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy, are you sure that shouldn't be Template:Move portions instead? --NeilN talk to me 22:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your request gives me "It has been suggested that portions of Watts Up With That? be moved or incorporated into this article. (Discuss)" --NeilN talk to me 22:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I screwed up! The text that needs posting (and this has been tested) is

{{Move portions from|Anthony Watts (blogger)|discuss=Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)#RFC - Should discussion of Watts' blog be moved to the article about Watts' blog "Watts Up With That?"|date=June 2015}}

Thanks for paying attention NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --NeilN talk to me 22:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mucho gracias! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Turk Middle East Dispute request for arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Greco-Turk Middle East Dispute arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 05:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i am trying to delete it

What is even the point of this "deletion function" if I can come back at any time and restore. It's so stupid. Can you at least blank out all my "notifications" and cancel the ID again? I really see that "thanks" from Alessandro57 as an insult and injury after his blind reversal of legitimate updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt hg (talk • contribs)

@Mt hg: So don't come back and restore it. Just leave it alone. --NeilN talk to me 16:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLW

Hello Sir! At Bangladesh Liberation War, it needs at least semi-protecting. The edit-warring IPs are not discussing it on article's talk. We need temporary protection. Please reconsider your decision. Faizan (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for two days. --NeilN talk to me 16:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it will allow force the editors to concentrate on the talk page. Another request, can you have a look here? I mean can you add "Page Protected" there? Faizan (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --NeilN talk to me 16:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Faizan (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protecting the page. Another request; you protected the last revision which still carries the edits done by the IPs. Please if you can protect this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangladesh_Liberation_War&oldid=666764786 version i instead. This was the version edited by Faizan and myself beyond which the edit war began. Thanks PakSol talk 18:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PakSol: Please see WP:WRONGVERSION. Unless the version has a BLP violation or vandalism, I'm not touching the content of the version I happen to protect. --NeilN talk to me 18:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason behind the edit war which was initiated by the IPs was that it was adding 'sources' which did not support the text they were added to. I added a citation needed tag and reluctantly the IP came up with certain sources which infact were not accurate. Ref # 13, 14 and 15 added by the IP became the cause of the problem. I have gone through each source and can tell you that they do not support the text they are attached to. May be if you can, I would request you to see it for yourself.

The sentence which was edited by me was: "The junta formed radical religious (bold part was removed) militias- the Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams- to assist the Pakistan Army during raids on the local populace"(citation needed was added here).

As a response, the IP add sources 13, 14 and 15. I am placing the snapshots of these sources below, I would request you to go through them and decided if they support the unsourced text above:

File:Ref13.JPG
Does this proof they were 'radical religious'?
File:Ref14.JPG
Does this prove they assisted Pak Army during raids on civilians? It only mentioned Al-Badar, what about the Razakars & Al-Shams?

PakSol talk 19:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. As the admin who protected the page, I don't get to judge content per WP:INVOLVED. --NeilN talk to me 19:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand your limitations. But I can conclude that in an edit war might is always right. Thanks for your time PakSol talk 19:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: RPP

Even under the circumstances where user was clearly editing/blanking/reverting under extreme bad faith then I see. I'll just point out the rather rude things he was saying in his edit notes as he was reverting both of us. Melody Concertotalk 20:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Melody Concerto: WP:OWNTALK is worth a read. And I've removed those edit summaries. --NeilN talk to me 20:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you very much! Melody Concertotalk 20:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parametric Chassis

Hello NeilN. You said that the article was for promo, it wasn't... Its a Greek patent and innovation with copyrights . The article talks for what is parametric chassis and suspension module, phrases that you haven't here, so we extend your library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkalogiantsidis (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gkalogiantsidis, as I stated on the Help Desk, the article read like a press release. --NeilN talk to me 22:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

post

My post was rejected earlier on. I believe that's unfair, as the information which I posted was factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamicsecrets (talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamicsecrets, please see our policies on original research and neutral point of view. What you wrote was an essay, exalting a religious figure. --NeilN talk to me 22:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parametric Chassis

I don't understand... where is the problem, because you read it like a press release you deleted it ??? I told you that the copyrights are ours and the article is writen by us, so NeilN where is the problem ???

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN&oldid=666821438"