User talk:NeilN

stana katic

i apologies for doing what i did i was upset when i heard the news it just i still indenial along with other people i speak to intill she confirms it and not her rep i dont believe cause mostly thing on the web are not true and with socail media it get blown up it dont mtter if there credible sources i need to hear it from her and the picture dont look like her hand and the ring on the wrong finger alot of people noticed that and mentioned iti mean no spotting together since june 2014 and all of sudden this drop and two of th cast members congratulate her an the rest dont if it true she need to confirm it if true why is it not on her website as breaking news i sorry for what i did just seeing that made me sick cause i dont believe it intill she says it tweets it post it i not going by her rep ad a picture and the other stuff again i am sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caskett2015 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Caskett2015. But it does matter that there are credible sources (her representative) speaking to reliable sources. Given she got married a few days ago, I doubt going on social media or giving interviews is at the top of her list. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Neil, at least you got an apology! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Caskett2015, the next time you see a problem like this, the preferred way to handle it is to use an edit summary when you revert the material — possibly something like "reverting per WP:BLP; claim doesn't appear to be reliably sourced". If others disagree and put the material back in, don't just pull it back out — that's a sure way to get in trouble for edit warring (or its cousin, the three-revert rule). Instead, go to the article's talk page and express your concerns there — if you really do have a valid point, other editors will come to your defence, and it won't be just you against the whole world anymore. Yes, it's true that we are required to act quickly when unsourced (or poorly sourced) contentious material is put into a biography of a living person (or any mention of a living person anywhere in Wikipedia). However, unless it is absolutely obvious to any sane person that the material in question is indisputable vandalism, repeatedly taking something out even as others are putting it back in is not the way we do things around here. (And if it's clear that more than one other editor disagrees with you, chances are the material in question is not "obvious vandalism", even if you think it is.) — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Emailed you

- Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictures in the wikipedia section of god

Your statement: "Humans create representations of many "unknowable" things. For this particular example, see God the Father in Western art."

Please understand that God is not only a "thing". And the article God the Father in Western art is more related to Christianity, but the article God should be from a more general point of view. And the pictures which should depict God are neither necessary for the completness nor for better understanding of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrobreak (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Judeo-Christian representation of God is fairly common and it's useful to show how God has been visually represented by believers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Question re: a Help page or Help template link

Hi Neil, three or four days ago I wrote a note to myself to look at your Talk page again and copy a link you had posted. It was something like a Help page or Help template and in my note to myself (scribbled at 3 AM) I called it "sources links" or "template sources links". Does something of that nature ring a bell? I recall it was a page with lots of helpful advice and examples on referencing, sourcing, or whatnot. I hadn't ever run across it on WP before, and I can't find it myself now either (like many helpful parts of Wikipedia, it is somehow buried or invisible to the naked eye, and isn't list on any relevant list or template that I came across). Anyway, I hope this rings a bell. As I recall, the page had a lot of yellow or something of that nature. I must have somehow looked on your talk page three or four days ago for some reason, and I could have sworn I saw a link to it there somewhere, I can't find the mention now. (PS: It may have been a Help template re: source links that when posted on someone else's Talk page, opens up to a big thing with lots of info.) Softlavender (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC) PS: If it helps, one thing I think(?) it might showed was how to consolidate refs by naming them. I may be wrong on that though. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender, no yellow but was it Help:Referencing for beginners? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles - NQ (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Neil and Nathan. Unfortunately it wasn't either of those, although they are both helpful. I'm thinking now it may be a template that isn't really visible (even on the template documentation page) until you post it on someone's TALK Page. In other words, I think it is a Talk page template for a user, but it's not a warning; it's information. I don't know why I wrote down Neil's name; it may be someone else's Talk page I saw it on -- but I can't remember who. *sigh*. Next time I am just going to copy these things right away rather than believe that when I am half asleep I can mentally file and remember to come back to them and remember where I saw them. Softlavender (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your outstanding and strenuous effort to keep Wikipedia's content reliable. P.S. - Exactly 78000 edits on en wiki as of now. Hope you fix the red link Zach suggested above. - NQ (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NQ. Coming from someone who basically is the Resource Exchange, this means a lot. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

explain your self

why did you warm me i didnt do anything wrong!!!!???? Nenon145 (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty surprised you haven't been blocked already. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, @Nenon145:, what you did wrong was removing the fossil range from Leopard Seal's taxobox.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Dawkins edits is what I warned them for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	You step in like a breath of fresh air and save the day. Thank you so much for your contributions. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 18:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I should have checked

The block message was at the bottom. He was already blocked three times. I had no idea that he was blocked again as i thought he will be careful for now. But I don't know whether he was blocked for that edit i mentioned or some other acts of vandalism. --C E (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Maggie Smith is Dead

Neil, Have you even watched the News lately? I am not vandalising! It is the truth, Maggie is dead, I'll miss her but she's dead. Please, don't ban me because I speak the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.108.209 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop playing silly games and do something productive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that you'd risk being banned for inserting a blatant and potentially libelous lie that insults the intelligence of all humans with even rudimentary ability to operate a search engine, and not for "telling the truth."--Mr Fink (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

My edit was deleted

Hi, NeilN, You deleted my edit to Korean cuisine because I didn't cite a website, book, etc. Unfortunately, I didn't see how. Sorry, I'm really bad with tech ;) but I think the story about how Kimchi was made would really spice up the cuisine section (no pun intended). I got all my stuff from a book called South Korea: The Country, People, Religions, and Diets of South Korea. by Geun Yeong. If someone could please show me how I'd love to add a citation to my contribution. Thanks, Seo Gi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.218.151 (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The claims in that edit conflict with the sourced information at Kimchi#History. It sounds like a folk tale at best. I'm not finding that book on Amazon, Google books, or even Google. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I haven't found anything that backs up the claims either. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Casual Query

How good are you at reading Russian?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr Fink, da, nyet, spasiba. Everything else goes to Google. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Just curious, as I just got my hands on an amphiaspidid paper by Novitskaya today, and the only thing that would make me even more excited would be if I knew how to read it.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I had to google "amphiaspidid" and that's in English! More or less. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I present to you (one of) my latest baby(ies) Amphiaspidida--Mr Fink (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Kashi Samaddar & another article

Dear NeilN,

I find some of you like to continue with mistakes as in:

1. Kashi Samaddar

2. List of people by number of countries visited

I have studied well, have much knowledge and edited with proper links as supporting but mistakes are being continued. Kindly check. Does wikipedia not need certificate? Without certificate, mere news paper article is wrong! Can you kindly and advise

Regards --Editwikigu (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Editwikigu: No, certificates are not required. Secondary sources like newspapers are preferred over primary sources anyways. Please mind the final warning I've given you. It seems you are only here to promote this person's accomplishments. Please stop jamming in puffery and irrelevant videos into articles. Also, please learn how to add references properly. I've pointed you towards a help page and offered to answer any questions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What do they hope to gain

Hi. Thanks for reporting 91.148.76.220. I was just headed there myself. I really don't know what these POV IP editors hope to gain - it's always going to end in rapid reverts and a block. Anyway, thanks again. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: I've asked Bobrayner if he knows who the sockmaster is. It's obviously the same person and doing this every day, asking them to use the talk page and watching we don't trip over WP:3RR ourselves, is a pain in the neck. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed! Cordless Larry (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR does not apply when reverting sockpuppets. bobrayner (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: The sockmaster has to be a blocked editor. So, either a blocked registered editor or an IP whose past IP is currently blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. bobrayner (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, do you guys mean that the sockmaster has to be blocked for the 3RR rule not to apply, or are you speculating on who the sockmaster is in this case? I presume the former, but just want to make sure I understand the policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I answered my own question. "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users" is an exception. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, just to be clear - unless you can definitively link the current IP hopper to a currently blocked account I would not rely on an exemption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, understood. Many thanks, both. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

One of my concerns is that this is a very active editor who has been doing it for several years. Probably deserves a WP:LTA case by now. As long as they're easy to spot, they're easy to revert. I am wary of publically disclosing the evidence that connects them to the specific permablocked parent account, because revealing their tells would make future abuse harder to deal with. But that name isn't actually necessary; since they're an obvious sock I'm happy to keep on following WP:3RRNO. (If we ever made it mandatory to name the parent account, it would be impossible to protect topics like this which attract multiple sockpuppeteers and a few enablers too). bobrayner (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this IP editor again, Neil. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, hopefully a longer term block this time as it looks to be a fairly static IP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Two weeks, which is helpful, although I have a feeling that we might be back here again in a couple of weeks... Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I was just wondering if there was a way that confirmed users could apply to have a page semi protected or something similar? CaraDele (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi CaraDele. Any user can request semi-protection of an article. An administrator will look at the article's history to decide if there's enough recent disruption to warrant protection. The standards are relaxed a little for biographies of living people but if you're talking one or two "bad" edits a week it's unlikely protection will be granted. If you want more info, please see WP:SPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your Disruptive Editing on Bekka, Lebanon

Here is the link: to the discussion page of User:LeoFrank --Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Human Chlorophyll: That's not a discussion. That's one post by you with a vague assertion. Please use the article's talk page to discuss specific points. I suggest you point out a specific reference and state why it doesn't source the text in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your reinsertion of the paragraph is quite disruptive because none of the given sources corresponds to what is written in the paragraph.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Human Chlorophyll: That's not clear at all. The sentence "A temple at Bakka is mentioned in sura 3 (Al-i-Imran), ayah 96 of the Qur'an, where it is said to be the site of the first place of worship to God by Adam." has three references. I checked one and it says, "The Koran says: 'The first sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah, a blessed place, a guidance for the peoples' (3:96)" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the sources given, for example, is "The New Encyclopedia of Islam By Cyril Glassé, Huston Smith, p 302". When I opened the source on this link, I found that the source is actually saying: "Originally, Mecca was called Bakkah". The source doesn't say at all that "the Quranic Bakkah" is a place in Lebanon.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The another source is given is: "Muhammad and Jesus: A Comparison of the Prophets and Their Teachings By William E. Phipps, p 85". When I opened the source on this link, I didn't find it saying that the Quranic bakkah is a place in Lebanon, but rather, that Bakkah is an early name of Mecca.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk page for this discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I will copy this discussion and paste it on the talk page for a period of 3 days, then I will remove the paragraph again, but I expect you to remove it yourself as it has been explained for you that "the Qur'anic Bakkah" is not a place in Lebanon as the paragraph is saying."The Quranic Bakkah" is itself Mecca. You can check the article of Mecca and see yourself. --Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I have copied the discussion to the article talk page. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you very much! and I am really sorry because I misunderstood you. Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Human Chlorophyll. And thanks for persevering and clarifying your point so the article could be corrected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

About my edits

Thank you. I didn't notice the navbox, I will check it and see what are the existents links. I saw that other pages that have similar "See Also", I just trying to unify the layout. I will delete the links that are also in the navbox of this pages.Rupert loup (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: Thanks for your efforts. You might want to add the navbox to appropriate articles that don't have it and add links to missing articles in the navbox. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that in the "see also" section of the pages that I edited (i.e. Persecution of Muslims and Persecution of Jews), there are already links that are in the navbox. I think they should be removed. What do you think? Rupert loup (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: Yes, you are correct. We have a guideline on this: WP:SEEALSO - "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

And what about "Persecution by ...", I don't see it in the navbox and it's use in the Persecution of Christians's page. And why did you deleted the portals and the Commons Category in some of the pages? I didn't mean to be rude, I'm just want to know how this works. Rupert loup (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: Not sure what you're asking me. If you think I removed links that aren't in navboxes or in the "External links" section please feel free to revert me. I looked at what you were adding and just did a spot check comparison. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I see, thank you for taking the time to help me. Rupert loup (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Advertising agency

Could I get more clarification on my edit?i was trying to provide an example of a small agency just like there were for medium and large agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KansasCityRoyal (talk • contribs)

@KansasCityRoyal: Those other agencies have Wikipedia articles to show they're notable and they don't have links to their websites for obvious advertising purposes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

NORN

What's happened to NORN? Hardly anyone involved, people seeming happy that you can state that a source doesn't mention something, etc. The original editor has both reinstated all the text that others removed, and keeps messing with my edits to his talk page.[1] Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. And I know how irritating it is to have posts refactored [2], [3] but at the end of the day, sometimes you just have to throw up your hands and move on. [4] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:CABAL and WP:OWN

I have replied to your concerns on the talk page.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You can defend your edit warring at WP:3RRNB. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Prinsgezinde

If you saw this, then you know that I have my eye on this editor; this a very sketchy editor, who doesn't at all appear to actually grasp Wikipedia's policies and guidelines despite knowing of some of them. See here and here, for example, which show that he wrongly applied WP:COI. See his talk page for more inaccurate WP:COI descriptions. See this inaccurate WP:Inuniverse tag. I could go on about this editor's problematic editing. I think that this editor is familiar with me; where he might be quick to revert others, he has avoided reverting me thus far. This scare quote edit he made reminds me of Acoma Magic (talk · contribs), who would obsess over removing scare quotes from religious and LGBT topics. Since I'm not yet 100% sure which past WP:Disruptive editor this is, I'm alerting you to this editor so that you and/or your talk page watchers might help keep a lookout. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic/Archive#Comments by other users 9, I was waiting for Prinsgezinde to make a video game edit, and he very recently did so. If he did so before this, I missed it. So again, this editor might be Acoma Magic. And that is likely why he has been cautious as far as reverting me goes; he knows that I can identify him. WP:Pinging Sjones23, MrX, Viriditas and Black Kite to this section since they are other editors familiar with Acoma Magic's editing style. I know that it's been a significant time since any of us identified an Acoma Magic WP:Sockpuppet, but do any of you think that Prinsgezinde is likely one? I would have also cited British spelling since Acoma Magic was British and/or Australian and used British/Australian spelling; but with this edit, Prinsgezinde used American spelling for "lead" ("lead" instead of "lede") and British/Australian spelling with this edit for "grey" ("grey" instead of "gray"). Even if Prinsgezinde is not Acoma Magic, I'm convinced that he is a WP:Sockpuppet of a past WP:Disruptive editor; looking at his contribution history, or things he's stated on his talk page, it's easy to see that he is not at all a WP:Newbie. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing jumps out at me at the moment, other than both editors having edited Anti-Christian sentiment. Acoma Magic and his socks were obsessed with changing LGBT-related articles to reflect their POV. Prinsgezinde did make this faintly quacking edit to heteronormativity, so there may be something to Flyer22's suspicions.- MrX 21:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I've started an WP:SPI investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Acoma_Magic#08_May_2015. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sjones23 and MrX. The WP:CheckUser data is likely to read as stale in the case of comparing Prinsgezinde to Acoma Magic. So I'm not sure that the WP:Sockpuppet investigation will be too helpful. I was waiting to gather more evidence as time went on. After more evidence, I think that I would have been able to make an 100% match to Acoma Magic or to a different past disruptive editor. More evidence would mean a solid WP:Duck block. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That stated, a WP:CheckUser could state whether or not Prinsgezinde is editing from the same area Acoma Magic edited from (Britain or Australia). Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for immediately stalking me and reverting all my edits before notifying me even once. I understand this post may also be removed right away. First of all, I don't have to defend myself against any of those non-SI accusations as they are nothing more than personal attacks based on wild assumptions. Yes, I changed one LGBT article.. Wow, sure got me there. I'm certain you know that this McCarthyism is not at all in line with the rules and a gross violation of WP:GOODFAITH. I advise you both read WP:NOASSUMESOCK and particularly WP:SOCKOPHOBIA. Now, at least have the decency to communicate with me. You can also just get it over with right away and CheckUser me; you'll find out I'm from the Netherlands, and have, plus only ever had, ONE account in total. Before I made this account I had rarely ever IP-edited a pages before. Despite all that, I'm still honored to officially have my first (false) investigation against me, even if it's based on nothing. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde (talk · contribs), whether or not you are Acoma Magic, you are not at all a WP:Newbie, and I am 100% certain that you are a past WP:Disruptive editor who has returned. Your contributions, the way you have been editing disruptively and deceptively (including this recent mess), show that this is not a case where I should apply WP:Assume good faith. That you supposedly currently live in the Netherlands does not mean that you are not Acoma Magic, who, before this latest WP:Sockpuppet investigation, last had a WP:Sockpuppet investigation filed on him in 2013. And my response to you pointing to the WP:NOASSUMESOCK and WP:SOCKOPHOBIA essays, which is further indication of your non-newness, is what I state on my user page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

More assumptions. First of all I am obviously not Acoma Magic, as you said he was from Australia or the UK. I'm not. I can easily prove I live in the Netherlands by being able to speak Dutch perfectly. (Als je wil dat ik als test iets vertaal, ga je gang en stuur me iets.) Secondly, rules clearly explain not to fill your sockpuppetry accusations with critique of a user's edits. I doubt many started off great right away. Up until two days ago I thought "minor" just meant roughly any sentence-scope edit, regardless of significance. I haven't read every rule, but I try to be rational. Thirdly, compare this situation to: you, as a detective, accusing me of a crime -> me rejecting the allegations -> you subsequently saying: "Even if you didn't do this particular crime, I'm sure you did others!" If you are "100% certain" that I am "a past WP:Disruptive editor who has returned," maybe you shouldn't be on the Sockpuppet-SWAT. Once again, just go ahead and CheckUser me. How do I know about CheckUser? I have actually suspected another of sockpuppetry in the past. I didn't start rumors, but instead did it the formal way. And lastly, calling my edits "disruptive" hardly says anything. Let's take that GTA V article, then. What the blazes is "disruptive" about it? The relatively small controversy stirred by one lone lawyer and "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" was getting as much weight ("However, ...") as the thousands of overwhelmingly positive reviews, directly violating WP:WEIGHT. I didn't even remove it, just trim it. Furthermore, what could I possibly gain from messing with that article? The wide variety of topics about which I edit pages would make for a really odd personal agenda, don't you think? And as for my "disruptive editing," will you ignore the thank yous and agreement I have had on many of them? Cherry picking regretful and/or controversial ones is the sole basis of this sockpuppetry theory. Do you see me accusing you of disruptive editing? And yes, I sometimes like to look up Wikipedia rules as guidelines when discussing their subject with someone. Doesn't mean I knew these ones before the fiasco started. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's common sense/years of experience editing this site, not mere assumptions. It's not obvious that you are not Acoma Magic; if it were, I would not suspect that you are him. Do I fully suspect that you are him? No; I made that clear above. Do I fully suspect that you are a returning WP:Disruptive editor? Yes; I made that clear above. And I know that you are disruptive/deceptive with your edits based on what I've seen, and some of it is noted above. Your WP:COI accusations are ridiculous, for example. I don't trust you, and suspect that you won't last long here as a Wikipedian. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

And you should stop reiterating that you are from the Netherlands, as if people don't move. I stated above, "That you supposedly currently live in the Netherlands does not mean that you are not Acoma Magic, who, before this latest WP:Sockpuppet investigation, last had a WP:Sockpuppet investigation filed on him in 2013." Either way, I have gathered more than enough evidence that shows that your edits should be scrutinized; in addition to various other examples, this is another one. You either have a very poor grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or you intentionally misapply them. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Something else: Yes, I sometimes come to NeilN's talk page about disruptive editors, including suspected WP:Sockpuppets. Before you, the most recent matter is seen at User talk:NeilN/Archive 22#User:AbuseResearcher. That worked out. And so has this case, since it means that more people will be assessing your edits. Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Aka "The Striesand effect"--Mr Fink (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record (I might as well note this): Even though it's likely that your account would have been identified as a Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet already if you were him, given the number of times I've recently reported him at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298, I have not ruled out that you are Cali11298. Some of your editing, such as your inaccurate WP:POV claims and editing of political topics, reminds me of him. There's also the fact that you've gone deep into the edit history to restore material that was removed by one or more editors who are now indefinitely blocked, just like Cali11298 has done; compare this to this. And even your defense in this link is like Cali11298's defense seen here and here; the use of the words "warn," "utterly," "that other user" and "the other user" especially. When I made this note to my talk page, Cali11298 and Acoma Magic were the top editors I suspected you of being. But no matter what I suspect, it's not like you are blocked. You likely won't be indefinitely blocked any time soon. And as long as you edit productively, others (including me) are not likely to focus much on you. Flyer22 (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Confused and frustrated

I need to edit 10 things to become verified and i went to do that and that you wrote me a rude remark about making random comments on pages. and the change i made on the human trafficking page was not advertising it was just to say there are established organizations that help rescue sex slave victims and help counsel survivors which i know first hand because i volunteer for human trafficking outreaches and am certified in victim advocacy, how am I supposed to become verified if im not allowed to write anything without you deleting it and writing me a rude message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchandler735 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dchandler735. You can make your ten edits to any page, including your user page and talk pages. However, when you do become autoconfirmed, you still can't add things like this and this to articles. Content needs to be written in an encyclopedic manner, without advocating for a cause, and verifiable, through the use of references. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't even attempt to find references for Prasant maths, why?

Why were you so partial towards my created pages? You are working on a project to help the unsourced articles find source. They why you were absent when prasant maths pages needed help in the matter of ref? You didn't attempt to find even two months back already published ok reference from AIFAS astrology research journal?SillyLilies (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

SillyLilies, I was not involved in the discussion but I've looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasant Maths and saw you had ample opportunity to provide independent sources. Instead, you engaged in silly accusations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

But, before the accusations [they are intellectual, not silly], I had openly called for help from wiki. You were absent. You have been awarded for reverting vandalisms in a blink.. but you didn't help me then, why this partiality? SillyLilies (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

SillyLilies You realize that no one person is watching everything that happens on Wikipedia? I only got involved because you posted on Cullen's page which I happen to watch. Other people got involved in the deletion discussion because they regularly participate in deletion discussions or are watching for deletion discussions related to science or cricket. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Your team is rejecting any/every kind of reference provided by me. I am totally confused what wiki finally considers as ref? It is calling AIFAS journal as 'profit' based, height of fraud. Which news channel/source is non-profit based, are there any at all? Can you spot a single reference amidst the indian/bollywood films wiki pages which has ref from 'non-profit' news source? AIFAS ref not satisfactory, questioning its quality/authenticity is height of fraud.SillyLilies (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@SillyLilies: You are misrepresenting or not understand what Bryanrutherford0 said. I will repeat it here, emphasizing key points: "The new link that's been added appears marginally more credible than the previous ones, but the publication seems to be an astrologers' trade magazine (however much it wishes to present itself as an academic journal), and the article is, like all the others, written by Prasant. What are the criteria for the inclusion of articles in this "journal"? What sort of peer review have its articles undergone? What sort of attempts are there to replicate the "research" published in this magazine?"

To show notability, we need sources independent of Prasant, published in non-fringe periodicals or magazines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Its still not late, you can help me, suggest me what are the 'correct forms of ref? wiki ref article is too much confusing... at one place research articles not allowed, book published under own name not allowed, but lillywhite new ref is from book published by lillywhite itself.. it is totally confusing..

And what more, the second ref is pointing towards error page!SillyLilies (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC) ALAKURTTI air base page created without anything, not even an article, in 2006..and still breathing happily in wiki. How, why? SillyLilies (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'm done here. See Cullen's page for my comments. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Same is the case with Alanya Kebab..since 2006...without even an article? Why were you wiki team quite particular about my created pages? Airbase is non commercial, and simple maths is commercial, why this partial treatment? You are a popular id here, your team could have passed my articles, too, to you.. even now it is possible because my pages are not that much defective as the above mentioned, isn't it so?SillyLilies (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you feel another article shouldn't be in Wikipedia, you are free to nominate it for deletion yourself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Manhattan Literary addition on Ghostwriter page

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ghostwriter for the flow from earlier paragraph, and fuller edit of 'Remuneration and Credit' section to accommodate this change)

Here, NeilN, is the paragraph referencing Manhattan Literary, isolated:

This price range reflects a standard that was in effect for several decades. It began to shift only recently with the emergence of new markets for shorter books. The novella-length text (about 35,000 words and under) was formerly a very small market, but has widely expanded with new imprints like Amazon's Kindle Singles. [9] As a result, starting prices have come down by as much as half. This level of remuneration for a professional ghostwriter now makes sense, but only if the work is shorter. Manhattan Literary states that "book projects on the shorter side, tailored to new markets like the Kindle Singles imprint and others (30,000-42,000 words) start at a cost of $15,000." [10] [11]

Mariwiki77 (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariwiki77 (talk • contribs)

@Mariwiki77: I've copied your text here: User:NeilN/sandbox and marked some problem areas (note that other Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources). Feel free to work on that version if you want or if you have questions, just ask. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I've come up with a new version of this, Neil, following your edit requests. Done in the sandbox. Rgds/Mariwiki77 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Judas mistake

Hi I did not mean to edit Judas's name to Judas Hogg. It was a mistake. Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.117.85 (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, no harm done. Hmmm --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Also note the IP changed Judas Iscariot to Judas Hogg twice — quite a mistake. Blocked. Bishonen | talk 23:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC).

Meghan Trainor discography

Hi NeilN. I was wondering if you could return to the Meghan Trainor discography article and help out with bringing the opening back to focus on the article subject. I have been fighting to keep it in a manner consistent with the MOS for formatting as well as other discography articles [5], but a chronic edit warrior is insisting on putting it back to where it was before you improved it a week or so ago. I'd really appreciate you help on this as well as at the discussion I started at the article talk page. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Saw it. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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.

So...

Who's this troll who keeps popping up? Amaury (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Amaury: Poor Malik Shabazz might have a clue as he's one of their constant targets. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a long-term vandal who likes to harass editors who don't share his POV with respect to Israel and Palestine. WP:RBI is the best way to deal with him. I'm sorry that you've become one of his targets. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Treatment of Newbies

OK, Thanks for the email Now I understand. You are trying to figure out what I see as having caused Chandler to leave, and how you might be able to do it better. Certainly a fair question. This is how I see her thinking as she decided to leave:

1. The newbie gets reverted.
2. The newbie does not receive any welcome Template on her talk page.
3. The newbie gets notified in a very cold and official voice that she is a "Promoter".
4. This cold and officious voice then strongly implied that the Newbie was posting here for commercial purposes when the word "Advertising" is conspicuously highlighted on her talk page.
5. The newbie gets reverted again.
6. The newbie is again told in a very cold and officious voice that she does not undertand what to her is this seemingly arcane and cryptic policy called "reliable source", a policy that usually takes newbies at least several hours to digest
7. Again the newbie is reverted by you.
8. She begins to feel exasperated in an environment that is totally alien to her, and so far as she knows, is filled with cops who will only revert her and tell her she is some kind of a cyber-criminal, when she knows she is not.
9. At this point she has had a total of 8 highly negative interactions with this cold and totally cryptic "official", all of her first five edits have been reverted, she has not yet received a single positive word of encouragement from anyone, so she bravely spends some significant time trying to figure out how to respond on your own talk page, and she reaches out to you, telling you exactly what her experience is at this point, essentially begging for help and at least a small ray of hope. She explains that she is under the impression that she will never be "verified" (by the first 10 edits) because none of her edits are being accepted.
10. The official responds in the same flat seemingly accusatory tone, seven hours later, and only after I started to try to save her from throwing in the towel. Your reply still does not reallly answer her question about how she can ever get her first ten edits accepted if all of her edits are being reverted, but only lists all of these pages that she has no idea what they are, suggesting that she try editing there, still the accusatory tone of the answer suggests that she is now "guilty" of this same type of "advocating for a cause", which is the only reason she came here,
11. She comes to the only logical conclusion that anyone in her position would come to. She concludes that she has been asked to pack her bags now before she gets in further "trouble". Still no welcome template, not a single kind word, no explanation that her first five edits still counted to her first 10, and no explanation as I gave her, how she actually could advocate for a cause in a sense, if she was able to report on properly cited things that added to the quality of an article, that might happen to also be aligned with her own perspective.

What did you expect? The outcome was almost 100% precictable from my perspective. Yes you followed policy to the letter, but that is what killed her. Scott P. (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Neil, when you adopt your "cop voice" you scare me too. The only reason I feel comfortable telling you all this here now, is because you responded to my emial plea in a non-cop way. Scott P. (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Scott P., I did not ask you for your personal recap as you've made your feelings quite clear. I asked you (twice) if you had any ideas how the wording could be changed while still getting the message across. Right now I think this is markedly superior than the mass of text you later added to the user's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion of what made her leave, I am entitled to mine. I thought you asked me why I thought she left. I told you. Now good night my friend, please.... Scott P. (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"Unfortunately there's only so much you can soft-peddle "Please stop doing that" or "You can't do that" before the message becomes meaningless. Dchandler735 was making advocacy edits but if you can come up with better wording to stop that, I'm all ears."

"I said if you had any ideas how the wording could be changed while still getting the message across, I would be happy to hear them."

Don't know how I can make it clearer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have now deleted my reply to this question of yours over at my own talk page, as you requested...Thanks, and I suspect that my little bru-ha-ha here is not easy on others too, besides myself. I apologize for this, and I thank you for all of your contributions to that discussion. Scott P. (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no good way to handle the firehose of Special:RecentChanges. Neil might have taken an hour to attempt to engage the user, but those of us who have tried that know the success rate is extremely small. Most new edits (that aren't vandalism) consist of puffery or promotion. Outside those categories, I rarely see edits as naive as those in question—sorry to be blunt, but it is hard to see how someone who might develop into a useful contributor could imagine that posting their thoughts into articles was appropriate. I confess that sometimes I just ignore misguided newbies because I'm busy off-wiki, and I know that someone else will notice and clean up. So I am also responsible for the cold reception, and the above shows that Scott is another with no ideas for what to do. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a good way that does not require maneuvering, but in the current atmosphere around here, it has been forgotten. It is called "Turn Down the Firehose". What do I mean by this? I mean, rewrite Newbie Policies so that fewer of them are allowed to post. Duh????? Scott P. (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I came on board in 2004 after all of the core policies were already in place. I have no idea how many of the policies were Jimbo's ideas and how many were Larry's, but I'm sure all here would agree, those two were absolute genuises!! During the first five years or so, I did dabble a little in policy making. That's how I know that policy does not have to be "sacred canon". Some of my ideas were incorporated into minor policies, others were rejected, but I felt that all were given due consideration by the folks there at the time. I get the feeling that Jimbo has drifted off somewhere and is hoping that others will arise to take his place. I also get the feeling from him that so far, he is not impressed. Those at the helm need to be as bold in working with policy as Newbies are encouraged to do in their now outdated welcome templates. I believe that such is the only way that Wikipedia will be able to keep itself from eventually getting "dashed on the rocks" itself. Scott P. (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I remember that. Neils efforts were doomed from the start. Newbie with no wiki experience wants to edit stuff, thinks "ooooh, the 'pedia anyone can edit" and tells all her mates on bookfarce, twitter, linkedout, linkedin, linkedover, tinder, tander, tonder and instagram, then jumps in and writes just like she does on all those other sites, where you can write what you want to without any cares in the world. 'rules? c'mon, i'm just writin stuff widout any capitols or punchewatin or knowin about cap i's, it's just like any other public site eff off i'm doing no harm.'

Very difficult knowing what to do, and I made the value judgement about chandler at the time. (It was ... "No more time to be wasted on this one Neil") My initial wiki experience was not the best, and so I went away for years, and didn't get a ban or block until last year. That admin is a twit. This is "Teh Internetz", be careful out there, and perhaps take some time to learn the groundrules, newbies. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 09:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Even just explaining about how Wikipedia isn't the USpedia could have been a challenge with this user — an aspect Scottperry didn't address in his long message to the user. (Scott, I think you made very good clarifying points in that message, for instance the comparison to doctors, but concise is still king.) She'll post things like "Instead of thinking of something foreign people are now realizing this is happening right here in our own backyards."[6] (So much wrong with that sentence) and "On the bright side it is statistically proven that Teen Pregnancy has dropped over the last 5 years."[7] (Globally? I really doubt it.) But I think the biggest problem is that people from charitable organizations come to Wikipedia with a feeling of righteousness, and are highly offended when you call their contributions "adverts". Perhaps we should have a special warning template for non-commercial promotion, which really explains that you don't get to promote good causes here either. I think emphasizing that to the user, and acknowledging the worthiness of their intentions, might help with such newbies, Neil. Bishonen | talk 10:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. An actionable suggestion which I will take on board. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, your "linkedover, tinder, tander, tonder" commentary gave me the giggles. Thanks. Yes, there are far too many social networks out there. Flyer22 (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And "bookfarce"? LOL!! Flyer22 (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, so she was sent packing because of an over-abundance of spelling, grammar, punctuation, word-usage-errors and policy-ignorance errors in her first four edits. That thinking certainly has a somewhat reasonable ring to it, no doubt, but..... Why have a system where newbies seem to be used simply for backyard target-shooting-practice shenannigans? Is that fair to Chandler, or to Wikipedia itself? Why not simply be honest and set up a new policy about the special rules for Newbies?

Such a new policy could read something like this: Newbie Verification: New contributors who have 5 or more spelling, grammar, or word usage errors in their first 5 article-space edits will be banned for one year? Why not merely state simply and fairly what is required of Newbie editors, and at least let them know why they are being effectively banned from here?

Maybe now is the time to consider such a new policy that would clarify the true "entrance requirements"? If we had such a policy, I would bet many would carefully take it upon themselves to improve their writing quality, and their policy-knowledge over the course of that year, and then would be capable of writing truly good edits at first go upon their return, thus simplifying what is obviously now a very difficult and painful process for Newbies, and for peole trying to put out the fire-hose with another fire-type behavior of their own called Newbie Abuse, plain, simple, and clear to all? Scott P. (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And yes I know that the policy pages is where I should be making such a proposal, but there again, why not administer that process more fairly as well while you're at it? My last proposal was essentially gunned-down using procedural maneuvers, not fair and transparent reason and logic. Why would I want to go back there at all? Is it not true that in that place too, it has become a place where brute-force and censorship seem to prevail, and policy-newbies like myself are essentilly routinely gunned-down too, but in a much more sophisticated way, as is necessarily required when dealing with slightly more "seasoned" editors such as myself. Scott P. (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I notice you paid no attention at all to my post and my practical suggestion, Scottperry (indeed not even to my compliment to yourself). But when you're on a sarcasm roll I expect that can easily happen. I'm done here, it's too noisy. See you later, Neil. Bishonen | talk 12:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC).

Now continuing this discussion at my own talk page, as per Neil's request. Thanks Neil, and sorry about all of this, but I still do appreciate each of your edits. Scott P. (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Scott P., what requests? I made no request to move this discussion or for you to delete a reply. The "I have no idea what you're talking about" moments are getting more frequent... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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.

Scott P., please stop emailing me. I have no idea what you're referring to and would prefer to communicate with you in public. Please provide diffs of these requests. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Very good Neil. That was exactly the type of reply I had fully expected. What has happened to Wikipedia in the last 6 years is shameful. Before 2009, what some call old fashioned common sense, and what I call Wisdom seemed to rule here. It was a place of light that seemed to be dominated by logic and reason. Whoever had the best sounding idea won. There was little or no maneuvering, secret communications seemed to be kept to a bare minimum, and certainly not the routine encouragement of "deulling" in order to dispose of the dead body of one's enemies. Now all with whom I speak that I would consider to be encyclopediasts tell me they have noticed a subtle degradation of Wikipedia itself from stem to stern. I say, this is because Machiavelli now rules here in Wisdom's sted.

No Neil, I don't really have any plans at all to get into a deull with you. I am not a good deuller, and would undoubtedly shoot myself in the foot. You all would gladly be my pall-bearers I am sure. Instead, I will now walk out of here on my own two feet, a bit bloodied up by my rough-housing friends I suppose, but still standing. Much to the dismay of Machiavelli I am sure. Good bye again for a good while I pray. May you all be so fortunate as to learn Machiavelli's greatest lesson which is simply that:

"Everyone who plays the Machiavelli-game ultimately, in the very end, only loses".

Scott P. (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Why can't you simply provide diffs of my supposed requests instead of going on completely irrelevant tangents? Seriously. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Equality before the law

That was Badmintonhist, probably stalking Roscelese. He uses the Rhode Island Educational Network to evade his block. I'm not sure if you were serious or sarcastic, but it did uncover the fact that the Cato Institute was being used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Unfortunately, I was being serious as I had no idea about the socking or the questionable source. All I saw was an effort to make the article adhere more closely to what the source was saying. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It did look good at the time if you didn't know the whole context. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Cato's back. [8] No idea about the editor's bona fides. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for calling my attention to Anupamsr/Cubancigar11's sockpuppetry. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Opinion Requested

Greetings. I'd be interested to get your opinion (as a neutral party) regarding the user behavior I've documented at User:CFredkin. I attempted to engage with the editor a year ago, but it seems to have had no impact. Is this editor's behavior acceptable? And if not, what action do you think is justified at this point? Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi CFredkin. Some of those diffs are problematic and I see you've opened an ANI discussion. One thing I would have done is provide exact wording that is problematic for the first three or four diffs (this is what Hcobb wrote, this is what the source actually said). This is so reviewing editors can immediately see the problem. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I've made some edits to try to address this. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

just calm down bro. Answer me, i wil run away

Bro, why dont you answer properly? you are supporting lie about God Gdteda (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gdteda: Stop evading your block and canvassing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Fwiw, I did take a look at the sources the user was citing. Setting aside the issue that they are not reliable sources by wikipedia standards, they don't even support the case the socks are trying to make. Essentially the user is jumping from Shiva/Rudra being associated with red (already mentioned in etymology section of the article!) + rudhira meaning red in Tamil to rudhira being the "original" pre-Sanskrit etymological source for Shiva (huh?), which not even the sources they cite claim.

Not that any of this is going to convince them. Will just need to wait for the block to be applied. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Block applied. And as you said, Tamil is already mentioned in the article. "Some authors associate the name with the Tamil word śivappu meaning "red", noting that Shiva is linked to the Sun (śivan, "the Red one", in Tamil) and that Rudra is also called Babhru (brown, or red) in the Rigveda." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Meenakshi023: another one? Want to get a second opinion before posting at SPI. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare, I think it's too soon to tell but none of their edits have been particularly helpful - it's like they're doing ten edits to get autoconfirmed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly on the auto-confirmed bit. Filed an SPI (trying not to spell out why I am a pretty certain). Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. stop edit warring. allow other views in talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdteda (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing more attention to your socking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I will draw even more attention to your sock / meat puppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdteda (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

See above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Undid revision 661879490 by NeilN (talk)

I would like to apologize and have my report appelead, i regret my actions and i will stop my vandalism. I am very sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukaneville2012 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukaneville2012: Okay, I've added a comment to the report. [9] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Help with closing Move Request

Hi, Neil: as an non-involved and experienced editor, could you please close Talk:2015_Baltimore_riots#Requested_move_May_2? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: I had my close written out, hit save, and boom! edit conflict. FWIW, I had the same result as the admin. "Move to 2015 Baltimore protests. Most editors expressed a preference for 2015 Baltimore protests as a more accurate representation of content. Dissenting editors expressed an opinion on what the article should contain, not what it actually does contain." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hcobb

I catch your point in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hcobb_.26_BLP.27s, but I still see problems with the report.

Every item I've looked at so far has been reverted, and in no case have I seen Hcobb attempt to reinsert it. In no case have I seen a discussion of the issue on any article talk page. And in none of the items cited on ANI is there any discussion on Hcobb's talk page.

Yes, there was an allegation of inaccuracies a year ago, but it was disputed by Hcobb, and dropped. While I haven't investigated those allegations, if someone tells me I made an error, and I tell them they are mistaken, I wouldn't count this as a "warning" to me.

I do see issue with the edits of Hcobb. My plan is to try to address these with Hcobb (as you can see on their talk page) and see if that is successful. If it is not, then a report to ANI (which ought to contain proposed sanctions) may be warranted. Do you disagree with my approach?

If you have looked into any of the listed edits, and have an opinion, I hope you will weigh in at Hcobb's talk page, or pone one of the article talk pages, if appropriate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I looked at some of the diffs CFredkin pointed to here and saw they were problematic. It's not that the reverts were uncontested, it's that the edits were made in this first place. If Hcobb says he made mistakes I suppose we can AGF but they should be strongly warned. Adding this in a GA is unacceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree they should be warned. And if they do not heed the warnings, then escalation to ANI is warranted. Apologies for being a bit of a process geek, but I prefer warnings first, then ANI. That was my main point. I see that User_talk:CFredkin#Hcobb doesn't see my involvement as helpful, so I shall return to OTRS work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo War

Thanks for your effort regarding the IP at Kosovo War. I took another road and the article is now pending-change protected for three week. The Banner talk 20:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@The Banner: Thanks. The IP likes to hit 4-5 articles so their block should help too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate displaying of information on Black people

Moved from your user page; was tempted not to post it here to your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not delete correct information, as you did at Black people, without citing adequate reasons why the article is too lengthy (which is the only valid reason to delete correct information that I can think of currently). Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and take this opportunity to become aware of basic and obvious logic that you cannot usually prove (nor "cite") the fact that people do NOT do something.                     ~Rayvn  00:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

RayvnEQ, Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is a WP:Essay, not a WP:Policy or guideline. You also need to fix your signature so that editors can click on it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@RayvnEQ: My edit summary was clear as were my two other messages to you. [10] A blog is not a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, your edit summary did not exist as nothing was written there whatsoever, and the fact that you believe you are "quite clear" is irrelevant to the fact that I am informing you that you should not delete correct information or harass people.                     ~Rayvn  00:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)

@RayvnEQ: No idea what you're looking at but anyone can see this has an edit summary of "Not a WP:RS". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No idea what you "think I am looking at" but yes, indeed, anyone CAN see that your edit summary consists solely of letters which are not words and therefore is a non-existent edit summary as I have already stated; not sure how proof of that is supposed to somehow help YOU, as one would USUALLY expect it to do if you are the one posting it.                     ~Rayvn  01:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

First you say, "your edit summary did not exist as nothing was written there whatsoever". Now you say, "edit summary consists solely of letters which are not words". "Not" and "a" are words and WP:RS is a link to the appropriate guideline. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This does not change the fact that you had no edit summary, nor does it change the fact that whether or not you had an edit summary is irrelevant. Also, edit summaries are edit summaries, not links.                     ~Rayvn  02:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

All right, it seems you cannot see what is pointed out to you with a diff so it's no use continuing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Neil. You may have already gotten a ping about this but in case you haven't you are mentioned here Wikipedia:Help desk#Harassment. Oh and I agree that your edit summary was perfectly readable. Cheers in spite of this. MarnetteD|Talk 01:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Neil, apparently you should moderate your moderate harassment? Or something? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 01:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD and Ebyabe: Thanks to you both. I had a feeling things might get interesting when I read this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Actually, I'm almost offended that I'm being ignored by them in this. Or is that a microaggression? Or is saying it might be a microaggression a microaggression? I'm macroconfused.  ;) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 02:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to help as well. Looks like a spectacular case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. You could have added WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE in your edit summaries and they would have been unable to read them as well. Macro/Micro that is funny stuff Ebyabe. Thanks for the chuckle. MarnetteD|Talk 02:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome all. I live to amuse. I’ll be here all week, try the veal. 'Night. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 02:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Beginner Questions

Hey Neil,

I am starting out new and since you reverted a couple of my changes - I have a couple of more questions for you :)

1) Are hand-drawn pictures allowed as substitutes for photos? For Eg. is this a valid image - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhanupriya

2) Regarding adding movie posters - what is the policy? I see all recent movies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magadheera) have "fair-use" tagged with publicly available theatrical posters, despite not having the actual license. Would it be possible to follow a similar approach for old movies as well. For Eg., for this movie - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayalodu, Can I use the following image - http://www.filmiclub.com/photo-gallery/mayalodu-1993-first-look-poster-axgzt18c (The website claims it is a movie poster)

Let me know.

- kvsrh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvsrh (talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kvsrh. I'm going to answer your questions in terms of Wikipedia's copyright policies. Sketches can be added to articles if the sketch is in the public domain or has a free-use license. Your example has a Creative Commons license so it's fine from a copyright point of view. Copyrighted movie poster images can only be added to articles specifically about the movie. They cannot be added to articles about actors in the movie. This is covered in our non-free content guideline. I hope this helps. Feel free to post here if you have more questions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kvsrh. I want to add a couple things that I have encountered in regard to sketches. I have seen some that looked nothing like the person and were removed but that is not the case with this one. Also, I have seen some removed if the work seems to be promoting the work of the artist. I do not know whether this is the case with this one. To be fair the time that I encountered sketches was at least 6 or 7 years ago so my info may be out of date. I wanted to mention them just in case and I am sure that NeilN will correct any errors that I have made. MarnetteD|Talk 03:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

NeilN, Thank you for your recent input at ANI. I'd also like to take the opportunity to recognize the outstanding work you've done for the project. In particular, I think the efforts you make to guide newcomers are really beneficial.CFredkin (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks CFredkin. I'm keeping an eye out for a response from Hcobb. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

United States Merit Systems Protection Board

Reading this thread I was puzzled why Drmies was asking that you ping them to protect the article. Surprise: you're not an admin. Wikipedia isn't utilizing its assets very well! --regentspark (comment) 00:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Govind Kumar Singh

Please check link and add require information . There might be grammar need to change or text reduced but those information are quite informative .--Rohtak camp (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Rohtak camp, those links are glorified press releases. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sexism vandal

Can we at least temp ban user Penelope37 from the sexism article? Something? I don't really know how this works. I've tried reasoning and the best I've gotten is what seems like a kind of "report me for being biased" comment on my talk page. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

She has been blocked for a day and a half. I have a feeling she'll get a longer block when that expires, since she seems entrenched in her position, and is unlikely to work positively with others. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 21:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, there are usually second (and third, and sometimes fourth) chances on Wikipedia. As this as their first block, they'll get the opportunity to come back and show they can work with others. If they can't, blocks of escalating length will usually follow. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Roger that. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

JP Cormier article

Neil:

I am JP Cormier. I have begun an edit of my page on here because it is inaccurate and totally incomplete. You have told me now that I as the actual person that this article is about am not allowed to edit it without references? Two questions arise. Who made this page, because it wasn't me and I nor any of my signatories have ever been asked to verify the information in it, and it is annoying to have this on the web as incomplete and out of date as it is. second question is, what better kind of reference is required to post information on me my life and career, than from me myself? How do proceed here? I am intending to post only information that can be verified by me, the person these things happened to, and items that can be witnessed by historical media from various sources. I am also very aware of libel laws and am not going to put anything on here that jeopardizes me or any other person or organization.

I'm also a little upset that you erased three days of work.

At any rate, please tell me how to fix this, or I may have to have it removed because of it's inaccuracy and it would seem a stranger's version of my life is deemed more trustworthy than the information from the person the page is about.

Sincerely

JP Cormier Jpcormier (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Cormier. Wikipedia articles are written by volunteers interested enough in a subject to research and write about it. Any kind of "approval" from the subject is not required. I see that J. P. Cormier is largely unsourced so please remove any incorrect information from it. Wikipedia requires information in an article to be verifiable. Verifiability means that the information must come from a previously published reliable source like a newspaper or magazine with a reputation for fact checking. We will consider taking information directly from the subject only in very limited circumstances that are outlined in WP:ABOUTSELF. Note that this information must still be published elsewhere first. We have this limitation partially because subjects frequently have a hard time writing about themselves in a neutral and factual manner, including only what is notable to the average reader. To go forward, you must furnish sources like this and only add content (preferably on the talk page as per our conflict of interest guidelines) that can be verified from these sources. I hope this clarifies our policies and guidelines. If you have further questions, please ask. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi neil:

This seems like a complete paradox and completely contradictory. I have read HUNDREDS of wiki articles on celebrities, some of them quite involved. Are you saying all the information on these people is taken from sources other than the subject of the article? No autobiography material allowed as a reliable source?? what happens if the subject of the article is the only person that can verify a statement made in the wiki article? So, everything I've read about living public figures on Wiki is material based on what other's "expert opinion" is on that subject's life and work?? This makes no sense to me.

Jpcormier (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jpcormier: If a particular fact is not published elsewhere then it will not appear in a Wikipedia article. This is core Wikipedia policy: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." We can report on what the subject says if their statements appear in third party sources as articles are not substitute home pages or autobiographies. For example, Eric Clapton has 168 published sources. Waylon Jennings has 124. Chet Atkins has 32. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse invite

Hi! NeilN, As an experienced editor, your knowledge is very valuable to new editors. Teahouse Hosts help new editors at the Teahouse and beyond. If you'd like to get involved in assisting new editors at the Teahouse, please learn more here. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi EoRdE6. I help out at the Teahouse when there's a question I can clearly answer. BTW, that other editor you mentioned - I think they're a sock and am looking into it now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't sure whether to take action on that. Either socks or meatpuppets... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: This person. Preparing a report now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ping me in when its ready. Thanks for taking care of it! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I can rollback edits!

I put a rollback editor because I can rollback edits. Writer freak Contributions 18:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Writer freak: You know that refers to WP:ROLLBACK per your denied request here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I still can make rollback edits. Writer freak Contributions 18:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

origins of the name Mekong

Hello, Why was I blocked from making changes to Mekong entry page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.58.154 (talk)

Hi. Other editors are disputing your change so you will need to use the article's talk page to explain why your change makes the article better. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't insert your

...topically quite separate, and in this case, completely snide comments, in the midst of other personal discussions going on at my talk page.

And yes, I have largely been gone, largely, in this past year, and am still pushed out by any of various sorts of childish and inconsistent behaviour here, such as you again seem to lase into—in this by interjecting in the midst of that other discussion, and as well, downplaying the real matter I raise at the archive. It seems to me—correct me if I am wrong, below—that you lot are arguing the very opposite of what you did on the earlier 3RR discussion at the Nazanin Afshin-Jam article. Since I have again broken a rule (in discussing the archived matter in the archive), I will move it here, so you can respond again (this time thoughtfully, and respectfully, I hope). Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, you are incorrect on both cases. I was directly replying to your first post when you tried to justify adding to an archived page. I explained I reverted your edit (and mine when I responded to your ping). I also noted you have a habit of threatening to leave when anyone calls you on your behavior. Secondly, there is no "you lot". Different editors pointed out different instances of edit warring on different articles. Please be more precise in your declarations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with the removal of the information on the archived pages. If this is proper, and your job to do, so be it. "You lot" is my reference to people who enforce rules selectively and inconsistently here, not in support of quality content, rather, in support of an editorial end they personally wish to achieve (or the sense of personal control, or importance, etc.). You can make the case below this does not involve you. As far as I can see, vis-a-vis achieving editorial ends, it still does. But I am open to see that I have mistaken the different directions to which the past and current situational vectors point. Argue away. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, there's nothing to argue. If you have an issue with my specific edits, point them out and say why. If you have an issue with others, post on their talk pages or host a centralized discussion on your talk page, not here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, at my talk page. Respond or no, I do not care. (But do not delete from my page.) Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: No idea why you think I would delete it when I suggested doing just that. And you've already copied my response. By the way, the pings won't work so the editors won't get notifications. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Care to explain why? Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Because pings only work when they are accompanied by new signatures (~~~~). If you think about it, this makes sense otherwise you'd get pinged every time an existing post with a ping was moved or archived. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Still won't work. You didn't add a new signature. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. See, if you care to, you can teach old dogs new tricks. Granted, not without their begging, but that is what dogs are expected to do. Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: This still won't work. You have to add a new signature, not modify an old one. Do you want me to do it for you? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I erased the old, and re-signed with four tildas. If this is not creating a new signature, then I do not know how I could. Yes, do whatever will lay this to rest. Please. Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Done. Erasing and replacing makes the system think you are modifying, not adding. The easiest way is to create a brand new post with a ping or delete the existing ping and signature in one edit and then re-add the ping and a new signature in a second edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

TY, glad it is achieved. Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

AAH page

Dear Neil,

Wikipaedia has reported two issues with the AAH page: 1."This article relies too much on references to primary sources" 2."This section lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole" My changes attempted to address both these issues. Attempts to remove references to peer-reviewed articles and actual news events contravene Wikipaedia's stance as an unbiased information source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 15:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Aquapess: You realize the "undue weight" tag refers to the mass of text detailing the specific claims, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how you can have a page about a specific theory without outlining the details of the theory and supporting facts. The article is overwhelmingly pitted against the theory and it lend undue weight to criticisms that are 25 years old now. Deleting references to recent papers or events from the last ten years is an attempt to stifle facts for the purpose of pushing your own point of view. Including things like Westenhoffer's political views are irrelevant, and there is no information on his wikipaedia page to suggest that he had strong Nazi leanings. It's not his fault that his country went through political turmoil at the time when he was alive, and it has no bearing on the AAH, which the article is supposed to be about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 15:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Aquapess: However you neglected to add the same criticisms exist as detailed in the sources you used. Wikipedia is not the place to push your personal theories and observations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Neil, I don't understand. I can only imagine that you haven't looked at the sources I've added. I mentioned three peer reviewed articles, including one from leading palaeoanthropology journals such as "Evolutionary Anthropology". The article was written by leading anthropologist Robert Foley! I'm not sure if you have ever studied anthropology, but he is a huge figure in the field, anyone who has ever studied palaoanthropology would have heard of him. And the note about David Attenborough is a fact which happened, not my opinion. Excluding it from the page would mean not keeping up with recent events. It happened almost two years ago, and has re-sparked the heated debate about AAH in the palaoanthropology community since then. I can't believe it has been neglected to be mentioned on the AAH page up until now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC) ] Extra edit, I have just seen that Robert Foley is in fact so esteemed, that he actually has his own Wikipaedia page. He cowrote this paper last year. To not include it would mean that the Wikipaedia AAH page would be out of date

@Aquapess: Yes, you've added a cite to the terrifically respected Medical Hypotheses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert Foley is not a "huge figure" in paleoanthropology. Having a wikipedia page is quite low bar and is not evidence of exceptional academic standing, just evidence of having been subject to third party coverage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm terribly sorry if a journal with an impact factor of 1.196 isn't quite good enough for you. The key quote in the article is "The AAH does not appear to have passed the peer review process" is nevertheless negated. The IF of "Evolutionary Anthropology" is 4.88. Do let me know when you publish something about Westenhoffer being a Nazi in a journal that even has an impact factor. It's double standards to keep a comment with no references, and then delete a comment with peer reviewed references to back it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This topic must be incredibly hurtful to you. All we want is a chance to explain the theory properly, and Wikipaedia is supposed to be an "unbiased" source. But by only presenting the anti-AAH arguments using references from 1991, it's sadly failing to live up to its usual high standards. Times move on, and the opinion of a scientific community can change. It's time to update what is happening in the field of Palaoanthropology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is happening in the field of paleoanthropology in regards to AAH. Regardless of a few semi-celebrities signing on to some of the ideas. It is dead in the water so to speak. Being objective and unbiased means not letting proponents of fringe theories give more space to their ideas than the actual stading of those ideas in the scientific community merits. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Aquapess: "All we want is a chance..." That's the problem right there. See WP:SOAPBOX. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I reported them for edit warring, and they're blocked for 48 hours. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Inbound marketing

Hello, NeilN, thanks for getting in touch. I respect your decision to remove my recent contributions to the Inbound marketing page and if that is how you want the page to look, so it is.

But I had to send you this quick message just to mention that I disagree with what you mentioned about my addition being some sort of 'promotional' - it was not, I simply tried to make sure that page had a few curious facts: things that inbound marketers do, or better, how inbound marketing is usually practiced (nothing promotional about myself, someone else's job, and nor even a brand advertising)

Carlos Eduardo Lovato Dare (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Carlos Eduardo Lovato Dare. Text like "A couple curious facts about inbound marketers are..." simply isn't encyclopedic and it would help if the source wasn't an inbound marketer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Please make Dakshina Kannada a Featured Article

Hi NeilN, please make "Dakshina Kannada" article, a Featured Article. --Simple-man-everyday (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Simple-man-everyday. From what I can see, the article needs work to first become a Good Article. For example, many statements are unsourced. Once that's taken care of, check that all the good article criteria have been met and probably ask for a copyedit. Then you can ask for an assessment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, can it be elevated to a 'B-Class' article right now ? --Simple-man-everyday (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Simple-man-everyday, the article looks comparable to Kollam district and Bagalkot district, both B-class articles, so I've done so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much NeilN. --Simple-man-everyday (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, I've made the changes which you have specified to the article. Also a copy edit has been mentioned. Can a 'Good Article' assessment be made now ? --Simple-man-everyday (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Simple-man-everyday. The jump in expectations from a B-class article to a Good Article is a substantial one and any assessment of the current version would result in a quickfail because of existing issues. I've tagged the most obvious ones in the article. What I recommend:

1. Fix the identified issues while looking at articles like Shinan District and Rameswaram to see if you can structure/expand/trim the article to be better.
2. After that is done, ask for a copyedit.
3. After the copyedit is done, ask for a GA assessment

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello NeilN, I've added citations to all the statements and trimmed the article. Also a copy edit has been mentioned. Can you review this article now? --Simple-man-everyday (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Simple-man-everyday: Please slow down and read the instructions more carefully.

1. A GA assessment is done AFTER the copyedit.
2. You have not requested a copyedit in the proper place which I linked to above: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests
3. Have you carefully gone through the GA help material including Wikipedia:Guide_for_nominating_good_articles#Before_nominating:_review_your_own_article?
4. AFTER the copyedit is done, then follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_2:_Nominating_the_article

The article will then be reviewed by an editor experienced with reviewing Good Articles (not me). This is not a quick process. Expect it to take 3-4 months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Belgrade IPs

Please look at this result from the rangecontribs tool. If you can identify which IPs are probably the same guy, a rangeblock could be justified. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert Sears.

Your edits are not neutral at all. All of my edits are sourced. I will be following up with dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookwormAtTheBorder (talk • contribs)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I just noticed my blunder, but you fixed it before I could.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I have some CSS that renders pages nominated for deletion in bright pink on my watchlist. I saw VPP and went hmmmm.... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

hey thanks!

Hello NeilN,

"I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Key (lock) because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you."

Thanks for letting me know.

Quick question: I read the Wikipedia policy but the verifiability of sources seems rather vague so I was thinking how should I improve on them?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaiserKIS (talk • contribs)

Hi KaiserKIS. Sources need to be independent from the subject. Press releases from companies don't qualify. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

edit on valmiki community post as some of the words insults the community which is punishible under sc/st act and IT act India

hello how are you sir what kind of references do you need kindly tell iam a student of a writer who writes on the matter in hindu religion it is written that brahmans come to this world from mouth vaishyas from chest rajputs from stomach and shudras from feet do you want me to give these kind of references from books of holy religions which were made just to keep the slaves of india always a slave. The things which i have said i obvious as valmiki community is a aboriginal community of india and they fought to keep aryans away from india as all know that aryans invaded india thats y they have been called warriors further any word or phrase that insults the comunity is punishible under prevention of attrocities on sc/st act India and also IT act i have discussed it from our lawyer. Also there is no data which tells that this community is traditionally of sweepers as in all the govt jobs there are all the communities kindly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atulaadvanshi (talk • contribs) 02:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Atulaadvanshi: We need modern academic or government sources, not religious tradition or beliefs. Note that any Indian law does not apply to Wikipedia or article content. I would steer far away from that justification per WP:NLT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

St. Laurence Justinian

Here's the Wikipedia link: Please correct your "correction?" Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agufdz (talk • contribs) 04:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Agufdz: Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Rider ranger47 ^Talk 11:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Jbhunley

"I'm not sure why you're still continuing to complain instead of providing what every article needs" -

It's pretty simple. Jbhunley seems to be dogging my every step on Wikipedia now. To nominate an article when it has an "under construction" tag on it, is not only extremely inept, it's also pretty offensive. He's been going through dozens of articles I've written, and complaining about them - this is plainly a form of common-or-garden stalking, which would not be acceptable in a workplace. There are thousands of editors on Wikipedia, and I don't like being singled out by someone who has even fewer social skills than I do.

There are much more skilful ways of dealing with other editors than Jbhunley's. If he'd actually approached this in a more appropriate manner, we wouldn't be having this conversation.-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

MacRùsgail, the only unacceptable behavior here is yours. Being asked to provide a minimum of references to show notability does not warrant "you have serious psychological issues of your own" and "Go back and crawl under your rock you pathetic little man..." Your "under construction" article has had no sources to show notability for 21 days now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"Being asked to provide a minimum of references to show notability" etc - Are you making any effort to see my point of view here? Apparently not. Please do. I've no idea what the current count of editors on Wikipedia is, but I suspect it is vast now, and some of them need a lot more attention than I am getting here I ask you to re-read what I said in that last paragraph.

Every time I come back on here, I find the same person bothering me. Listing a number of articles. Trying to destroy them without making any contribution which could be considered "co-operative". This has been going on for quite a while now. I regularly improve other people's articles. I don't go through their edit history trying to get it all deleted. Better to tag the article with something saying that references are needed, than "prod".

The manner that this has been conducted in is plain clumsy, and actually pretty offensive to me. This is what you need to consider. If this was a work place or even an academic institution, I would have recourse to some kind of redress or extension. But it's not.

"Your "under construction" article has had no sources to show notability for 21 days now." - For some reason I feel completely repulsed by Wikipedia right now, despite having been a member for years. Not only does this kind of attitude drive away new editors, I'm sure it's driving out the old ones too. Maybe folk need to rethink exactly why they are on Wikipedia. I know why I am. I don't know why certain others are. Maybe they need to rediscover whatever reason they had for joining. And they ask why virtually no women want to join Wikimedia.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

MacRùsgail, following basic Wikipedia policies is not a gender issue. If you create a problematic article, expect your other articles to be examined. As I just suggested, perhaps using the Draft space would be a good idea to get your articles ready. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This isn't just about references within articles - it's about interpersonal skills. I am in no position to talk about these, but I feel like I'm dealing with a certain user who has even fewer than I do.

You still haven't made any effort to see my point of view, or why the way this has been conducted has created this situation. Wikipedia is written by a collection of human beings. If it is run in such a way to be a nuisance to regular users (even if it is "licenced") then it shall start to fail.

"following basic Wikipedia policies is not a gender issue" - I think you're missing the point here. I'm a man. I'm pointing out the obvious here - women would be even less tolerant of most of the nonsense on Wikipedia than men. Is it basic Wikipedia policy to single someone out so that they're unable to do much at all on in their time on Wikipedia? I don't come on here to have long discussions like this, but that's exactly what's happened. Is it more constructive to tag articles as needing references or to get rid of them? (I don't like deleting other people's articles unless they're truly awful.)

"As I just suggested, perhaps using the Draft space would be a good idea to get your articles ready" -Thanks toJbhunley, I've had pages in personal space interfered with indirectly by Jbhunley, and tagged articles put up for deletion minutes after I've written the first draft. You might want to consider why I find that irritating, or why someone singling a user out after behaving like that might also be irritating and counter-productive. (Actually if you're talking of personal attacks, there's an obvious one on me on the user's page.)

If I see someone going through everything I do, and trying to get it deleted rather than making a constructive method to help that article's evolution then I consider it harassment, and I should be allowed to call "foul".-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@MacRusgail: Articles that have no sources showing notability should be deleted. Jbhunley offered to work with you to find sources. "I really like science fiction so in the spirit of cooperation and moving beyond our conflict, maybe we can work together constructively to improve these articles. No question SF Encyclopedia is RS but WP:NAUTHOR requires more and it might be fun to see what there is on those people. Maybe you could point me to some of the sources you use since, based on your comments you do not like search engines." You came back with personal attacks. BTW, you may want to look at Wikipedia:Drafts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick drive-by. The only articles in MacRusgail's user space which have been touched by me are his talk page and when I moved an article, at AfD at the time, back into article space after he moved the article into his userspace and redirected it. He has done this twice. Jbh^Talk 19:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: And your digging has uncovered at least one significant mistake. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"He has done this twice." - Yes, because I never got much of a chance to edit the things, because of your rudeness. When you behave like this, I don't particularly wish to spend much time editing this website. Suggest you read this article. All three of us could do with more of it.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: You appear to have made no effort to see my POV here. I feel like I am talking to a robot or a Vulcan here.

Jbhunley has behaved in a highly inflammatory manner, with tagged articles, user space articles in at least one case, marking articles for deletion rather than attempting to improve them or to see them improved by tagging them etc. Also trawling through someone's edit history for a number of articles to get deleted is clearly a form of Schadenfreude and personal abuse, not the actions of a neutral editor.

I don't care whether or not he or she is hiding behind a rule book. Bullies often do. I have gone through all this, but you completely ignore my side of this argument, and are in fact encouraging said user to behave like this in future towards other editors. Hunley refers to this as a "career" - in a workplace one usually has recourse to tribunals etc.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

MacRùsgail, it's because you have no valid argument. Stop complaining about and insulting other editors and provide references that show notability for the articles you create. You might also want to acknowledge Jbhunley's work helped uncover a significant error in one of your articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

My argument is perfectly valid. If one behaves in a certain way, it will p off other editors. It's called real life. It's quite plain and simple. You have made no effort to understand this. Do you understand that at all? (Well, you're obviously not reading much of what I say, so this is pretty pointless)

I'd like to see you and Hunley try treating people like this offline and seeing how your friends and significant others react. Try talking to your girl/boyfriend (or whatever) in this fashion and your relationship won't last five minutes.

Also, try following around someone for days on end (off the computer) and see how they react. At the very least they will set the police on you, or worse. But I don't even have that privilege on this tinpot website. I'm not even apparently able to ignore my molester unlike most websites either.

"You might also want to acknowledge Jbhunley's work helped uncover a significant error in one of your articles" - I don't call following someone about for days on end "work". If s/he wishes to "help" me, s/he can do so in a more skilful/irritating manner.-MacRùsgail (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC) p.s. Is any of this sinking in at all, or do you still think stalking is acceptable?

This isn't a personal relationship. All our contributions are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If they don't, other editors will probably take the appropriate actions. "Go away and leave me alone" is not an appropriate response when the content you're adding has issues. I suggest you get over having one of your articles being deleted and focus on any current content issues. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

re: one tree hill

for some reason you've dismissed my edits as "vandalism" and reverted them. i think if you look at the wiki page for the television show "one tree hill" it will be obvious to you that its presence on wikipedia is highly inappropriate--it would fit in much more on an unofficial fan-wiki. the length and detail is unjustifiable. perhaps a compromise can be reached where the page is allowed to run with a skeletal amount of the info it now contains but in the interim i feel total deletion is the most sensible option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:D000:909:39EB:9566:8B58:1823 (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to trim the article, propose specific trims on the talk page. Deleting the entire article is not an option. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Turki bin Nasser

I am the source as I am his head of investments and have been asked to correct this page. Do you need a reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saudiexp (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read below. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

information is correct

Dear sir,

I am the head of the family office. I have been asked to correct his Wiki page. The information added was correct and factual.

Saudiexp (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Saudiexp: It was completely unsourced. Please read our verifiability policy and conflict of interest guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The photo belongs to us and we published.

How can i straighten this out with you. We are trying to update his Highness profile as its incorrect and we have spent 1 hour on this now...Saudiexp (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Saudiexp: Please follow the directions here. You will need to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org verifying you own the copyright to the image. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Phil Copperman

Basically, all editors have the right to revert any contributions made by an editor in violation of a ban, and Phil Copperman is a confirmed WP:SOCKPUPPET. I need first to revert what I can and then editors are free to make relevant changes afterwards. I see you reverted me at Emmerdale and I have no problem with that. --Mario Payne (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Coconut oil

Hi,

I noticed you reverted back my edit and that I should gain consensus on that user's talk page. All I did was consolidate a large paragraph that basically boiled down to "Many health organizations advise limiting intake of saturated fat". Drawing that out to a large paragraph of listing a bunch of organizations seems biased to me, like someone wants to really emphasize this point. And even I agree that you should limit saturated fat intake, but that paragraph really does not read like one you would see in a professional encyclopedia...

I just want to know how this works...So I write what I basically wrote here on that person's talk page? And what happens if that person doesn't agree? Does that mean my content on antimicrobial effects is effectively never going to reach that page?

I noticed a lot of edits on coconut oil were removed, some with good sources and mentioning other studies that have nothing to do with saturated fat, like my section mentioning the antimicrobial effects and cited studies. Who's supposed to be on the defensive side here?

Maybe I don't understand the Wikipedia process, but it seems like it's going down a slippery slope if it's completely censoring entire sections of content, like antimicrobial effects. Why couldn't the last three people, including you, keep the content I wrote about antimicrobial effects, while maintaining that long-winded paragraph every seems to love about saturated fat--which quite frankly is oversimplified, since coconut oil is composed of medium chain triglycerides, which are metabolized differently than long chain triglycerides. But I didn't want to go down that route because somehow I knew someone would delete that content, despite me being able to source at least 5-6 journal articles on that. Instead, all I did was consolidate that long-winded paragraph into what should've been a sentence, and keeping the original sources in tact.

Are we entering a dark age of information? or am I simply missing the point? Wouldn't the more balanced thing be to include studies that go against what I wrote, rather than pretending that what I wrote simply isn't true? given that the information I wrote is properly sourced from journals?

I find this pretty disturbing, because a lot of people are relying on wikipedia for information and balanced view points. And completely removing material that sourced from multiple journal articles (repeated studies) seems to be some kind of info war. Am I wrong here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.61.2 (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi 89.205.61.2. The first step is to try to hash out any issues on the article's talk page. If that fails, and you feel your policy and guideline-based arguments aren't being heard, you can try the different options outlined at WP:DRR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi i was not pretending to be you that was my cousin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesarmistead25 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked both (?) those jokers. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC).

I think it's unnecessary to use plural in this situation.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I see both young editors have been unblocked. Who knew Bishzilla had a maternal instinct? :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Bishzilla is practically a soccer mom these days.[11] Very dull. :-( Stuffs everybody into her pocket, more or less gently. Anyway, one of the rapscallions has got himself a promising mentor (no, it's not Bishzilla), so I won't stand in the way. Bishonen | talk 22:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC).

Scientific misconduct

Please pinpoint where is an attack in the recent addition to Individual cases/Scientific misconduct? The details of the plagiarism affair in Israel are well known in the entire scientific community, they are well-documented both in Hebrew and English language media, so what is the reason to delete them? The most problematic point in editing the original variant is a constant removal by XXanthippe and NeilN the information on the relatively fresh retraction in conference proceedings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HITplagiarism (talk • contribs) Xgolf (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 06:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Xgolf, thanks for changing your user name. The wording of "after the academic dishonesty of Dr. Spivak has not been openly denounced by the HIT officials and the plagiator was even awarded a sabbatical leave (which is not a vested right of the faculty in Israeli colleges). In May 2015 (apparently during his sabbatical), yet another paper was retracted from the NumAn-2014 Conference Proceedings." makes it clear you are trying to use the article as a soapbox. Please write in a more neutral tone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

why you posting on my wall bro? do i even no u