User talk:NeilN

This is NeilN's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

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

Odyssey 5 "cause" from Pantherslair

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

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

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

Goa

What is wrong with this article about GOA:

(transclusion of a version of Goa removed)

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

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

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

pic copyright

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

eyesonchrist legal threat against you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, go for it. --w^L^{<speak·check>}

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

The Wolf of Wall Street

Hi Neil,

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

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

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

Greets!

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

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

Seriously?

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

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

Naturopathic medicine is not pseudoscience. It is considered alternative medicine, so WP:PSCI will not take effect.67.80.218.118 (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)--[reply]
Might want to actually read the article. Mainstream science considers it pseudoscience and Wikipedia classifies it as such. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why do naturopaths have fewer clerkships than conventional doctors?--67.80.218.118 (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care. If you want to argue that Naturopathy is not a pseudoscience you can do so on the article's talk page. Good luck with that - your irrelevant questions won't get very far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. "Don't care" is NOT a proper argument here on Wikipedia. Neither is "irrelevant" or "won't get very far". 67.80.218.118 (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC) --[reply]
It is when you ask irrelevant questions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I just said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.218.118 (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I discounted it. Your question is about as useful as asking, "Naturopathy cured my mom, why isn't it considered a valid medical technique?" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discounted?! Stinging nettle is used to cure hay fever!!! -- SERIOUSLY?! 67.80.218.118 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of plant extracts contain compounds which are scientifically proven to have medical benefits. Tossing in stinging nettle alongside some music and aromatherapy to alleviate hay fever doesn't mean my method isn't pseudoscientific. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stinging nettle's ability to cure several medical conditions including cancer when used with other herbs is something naturopaths rely on to cure diseases.--67.80.218.118 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't get it. First, you need to provide a WP:MEDRS to support your rather sensationalized and misleading claim that "stinging nettle cures cancer". Second, using some scientifically accepted techniques does not mean the rest of the pseudoscientific techniques are suddenly okay. Applying pressure to stop bleeding is accepted. Playing music so the wound heals faster is not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Naturopaths DON'T play music to cure diseases, NeilN.--207.241.247.150 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. "Showing the color blue so the wound heals faster is not." Better? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, I have never heard from the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians about them using chromotherapy. 207.241.247.150 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't solely about one specific group of naturopaths. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I am telling the admins about this problem. --67.80.218.118 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admins don't decide content but knock yourself out. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG for your WP:3RR violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WE DONT ACCEPT THREATS!!!!! --67.80.218.118 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who's "we"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians, to be exact. Don't force an edit war, NeilN. --67.80.218.118 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians don't push their personal beliefs in fringe medical practices into articles and ignore sourcing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Naturopathy is not a fringe medical practice. I will source the edits and all of that stuff.--67.80.218.118 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Naturopathy cured hundreds of humans before, why isn't it considered a valid medical technique by you? --67.80.218.118 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.218.118 (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on naturopathy counts for squat. If you can find literature reviews or systematic reviews published in peer reviewed medical journals saying naturopathic practices are scientifically valid then I would totally support putting those in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring my question. Please visit www.naturopathic.org for your reference, and check the WHOLE site. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because your question is irrelevant. My opinion on naturopathy doesn't matter. Your opinion on naturopathy doesn't matter. Only what we can find in WP:MEDRS matters. And that website is not a WP:MEDRS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP, NeilN is correct. Just follow the WP:MEDRS guideline and you will be fine on this matter at Wikipedia. Well, unless you cannot accept the WP:MEDRS guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) I am REALLY SMART. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Also, there are several sources in that website that are considered WP:MEDRS. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Young Naturopath 01: It's not a great idea to reveal your age here - see Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Please provide the exact links to the pages you consider WP:MEDRS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider reading Dr. Mercola's articles.--Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neil can do whatever he wants, but I suspect he knows that Mercola's POV on just about anything is very misleading. You would be wise to avoid his articles. At Wikipedia, his opinions are only allowable as documentation for his own opinions, but never as documentation of truth. He's a horrible source of information. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer, I suspect you and NeilN are BOTH MDs in disguise. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And such speculation is forbidden here. It's considered a personal attack. Otherwise, thanks for the compliment, but, although I'm a health care professional, I'm not an MD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BullRangifer, you consider the "MDs in disguise" comment both a personal attack and a compliment? I'd just consider it a compliment and shrug. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a smiley for "irony" and "sarcasm"? The NPA policy considers it a personal attack, and that was obviously the intention, and I was jokingly noting the irony that being considered an MD was an unintended compliment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Young Naturopath 01, if you're REALLY SMART then I'm not sure why you can't tell there's a gigantic gap between literature reviews or systematic reviews published in peer reviewed medical journals and a person whose views and practices have been characterized as "relying on slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics" and "unsubstantiated claims [that] clash with those of leading medical and public health organizations and many unsubstantiated recommendations for dietary supplements." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, I suspected that because of your behavior, and also, I now found out that Kww is the ringleader of this "anti-nature" campaign that is wrecking the POV of pages related to natural healing. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dun Dun Duuun!! - NQ (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something you might find interesting
Fossil pushes back human origins 400,000 years If you are interested in the papers mentioned and do not have access to Science I have them. Jbh (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbhunley: I saw anonymous edits to some Wikipedia articles yesterday that referenced this finding - cool to see IP's helping with that. I'm no means an expert in this area so the Science summary is good for me, but thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very good to see people coming in to edit like that. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
God
Zxuiji (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)zxuiji 22:55 6 March 2015 (UTC) In regards to you're 'answer' for my edit request [1], I hardly got halfway through the first paragraph before I realised you were out-right denying rock solid logic and instead choosing to believe that logically proving God's existence is misplaced belief and is not worth giving every reader a chance to save their soul from eternal damnation when God decides their time has come. I pity you and all the people that will not be saved because you refused to add a small snippet to the existence section of God's wiki page.[reply]
@Zxuiji: Please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Urgent Deletion of Article on False Claims
Please it's urgent review the talk page of this article that has been created by you. [Rajaraman]
Please it's urgent review the talk page of this article that has been created by you. [Rajaraman] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjoy64 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editor indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jr. NTR
Hi, Neil. Can you upload an image of Jr. NTR. That old one was identified by a bot without copyright. I am just a beginner, so I don't know how to upload.
Thank you, Maheshreddy2 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maheshreddy2: If you can first find a photo with a free-use license then I will help you upload it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Am I dim or what?
Please explain how you consider that I have "violated the three revert rule". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text is a warning against edit warring. It does not explicitly state you have violated the three revert rule (note the "if"). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So your edit summary "Warning: Violating the three - revert rule on Islamic calendar" was just intimidation? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you need to be warned before being reported. If you revert again, then you can't say you were unaware of WP:3RR if you are reported. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're saying that one more revert will be a breach of "the three - revert rule". How do you work that? If you can't answer it's pure intimidation. Note that all your edits are a breach of WP:NPOV. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Currently you have four pointy edits to the caption in less than three days. That is edit warring. Per the warning, "Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A warning that you are about to breach 3RR isn't intimidation, it's intentionally worded strongly to avoid having to block people who need the notice. Please remember that edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion and consensus-finding on the relevant talkpage. Until a consensus emerges on the talkpage in favor of your proposed edits, you should confine your edits on that subject to uncontroversial matters. Not getting your way on the talkpage doesn't entitle you to breach 3RR. Acroterion (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It is intimidation. Four allegedly "pointy" edits in less than three days is not "about to breach 3RR". NeilN needs to explain himself because intimidation is blockable. Note that only NeilN claims the edits are "pointy". Other editors would say that removing sourced content breaches WP:NPOV and other editors have every right to reverse that. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained the warning appropriately as has Acroterion. You'll get no more from me on that matter. Your current edits are a continuation of what you tried to pull here and discussed here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Just to clarify, there has been an open thread on the talk page about this for weeks. NPOV is one of the five pillars. That is non - negotiable. If NeilN wants to argue that his version is kosher, fine, but I can assure you that other editors will interpret silence from him as an indication that he doesn't have an argument. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Naveen Jain
Welcome back. Thanks for reviewing and responding to the situation there. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronz: You're welcome. Given his stance against COI editing, I found Jimbo's comments and unfounded accusations puzzling to say the least. I am glad that previously uninvolved editors like CorporateM did their own research and identified no major issues with the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find Jimbo's comments shocking. I can understand his getting worked up once when called upon by personal acquaintances to intervene, and so taking their side without a proper review of the situation. However, this second time he seems to be taking the side of a coi-editor with an axe to grind. I guess this gives some insight into why Wikipedia has been so slow to address conflicts of interest properly. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronz: WTF. That's all I can say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jimbo Wales
It was a reference joke; not the right place for it. I apologize. --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I got ya back my brotha --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Arise again, Arisedrew!: Thanks but a simple question should clear this up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Somebody is doing some nice work! Yash! 16:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yash!. Appreciate that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit removed?
Hi, NeilN. Why did you remove the information I provided about Zoe Saldana? Thank you, -Brent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentcox (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brentcox. Articles are encyclopedic in nature and not the place to add the "trivia of the day". Do you think anyone will care about Saldana's comments in a couple weeks or will they have any notable impact on her life? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that concern, so help me understand the right way to frame the information, please. Or are you saying there is no right way to frame this so that it's relevant? On other Wikipedia pages we find references to anti-semitic comments made by other actors, for example, or anti-gay comments by other actors, but we don't dismiss these as mere trivia. They're important statements that give insight about how the actor views others and certain issues.
How can I include Saldana's comment that boycotting D&G over their anti-gay comments would be 'stupid' because it would compromise her wardrobe? If she had made such a comment about calls to boycott an openly racist diner, would that be relevant enough to add to her Wikipedia page? -Thank you, Brent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentcox (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brentcox: Take a look at Mel_Gibson#Alcohol_abuse_and_legal_issues. His anti-semitic remarks were widely publicized and had an impact on his life and career. You need to find sources that say how this is going to affect her life or career. Again, actors are quoted every time they open their mouths. Very little of what they say is important enough to include in a biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, thank you. That does clarify. I'll hold off and wait to see if this evolves. -Brent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentcox (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NBA All-Star Game
how is it not a reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidClutch26 (talk • contribs)
Hi KidClutch26. The website's disclaimer has "This website is not affiliated with the National Basketball Association or any other organization." and there's no indication who runs it. Have you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
actually if you scroll all the way to the bottom of the page it says source National Basketball Association (NBA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidClutch26 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KidClutch26: That's where it claims to get the info from which doesn't make it a reliable source. It also has links to a couple of webpages that Wikipedia has blacklisted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i'm a rookie at this so that's why i'm being a little stubborn in my changes. if that's what you believe is right so be it and will look into, but i wouldn't mind for an admin to look at this if i need to find new sources that will be fine too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidClutch26 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KidClutch26: The reason why I would get an admin involved is because, aside from the reliability issue, it links to some pretty dodgy sites. Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive873#NBA_All-Star_Weekend. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
so what exactly is the url they are talking about — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidClutch26 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KidClutch26: It's on this page. I can't add it here because it's blocked. As an aside, please don't create new sections every time you post. Edit the existing section for a topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
so sorry i keep on annoying you, but really see nothing wrong with it. it takes me to the right events the only issue i had it would open a spam window or it might just be my computer. i more of a visual person so if you can show or give me a walk through of what your trying to get at that would greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidClutch26 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KidClutch26: The people who run the site that starts with "allstarweekend" falsely claimed they were the NBA's official site and threatened to sue Wikipedia if we didn't let them add their link to articles. But again, the site you're using is not a reliable source, irrespective of what links it hosts. And again, can you please stop adding new sections and instead click the "edit" link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
what you said now makes sense, but now can i see it in the fine print. also i really had no clue on hitting the an edit link as i said i'm a rookie at this you can at least cut me some slack on that i will keep that in my for future edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidClutch26 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KidClutch26: I've moved your post again. When you read this page do you see [edit] beside the NBA All-Star Game header? Click that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oh i see so sorry about that told you i'm a rookie, but anyway sorry for giving you such a hard time i looked into it and you were right thank you for the help and sorry i was so stubborn. you don't need to get an admin i'll use a more credible source like NBA.com, but if i have any further questions is cool if i comment here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.205.189.56 (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KidClutch26: Hey good, you've posted in the right section! Wikipedia has a fair amount of policies and guidelines to help ensure articles are of good quality so if you have a question, just ask here or at the Teahouse. The next thing you can try doing is signing your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end of them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zeus is the God of incest.
Zeus was married to his sister, which is incest considering he had 70 children in his lifetime. So why not make Zeus the god of Incest, its not like he would be stealing anyone else's divine incest powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron9028 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron9028: Because we don't make stuff up here. You'll need to find reliable sources that discuss Zeus as the god of incest. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:AbuseResearcher
Regarding this, what I stated about the other accounts, I suspect that User:AbuseResearcher is User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte (etc.). I recently commented on that editor at the Child pornography talk page. I am discussing him via email with a former Wikipedia editor who easily recognizes him, and that editor pointed out this edit by User:AbuseResearcher; I'd overlooked focusing on that edit. But looking at it combined with the other edits that User:AbuseResearcher has made, I am more convinced that he is User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte (etc.). So if I seem tense around this editor, that is why. I'm not sure if I can get a WP:CheckUser to look into this matter this early into the stage, unless it is Alison, but I do know that, if this is that WP:Sockpuppet master, this editor keeps trying my intelligence as far as recognizing him goes. One would think he would have learned by now not to create fully-referenced, WP:MOS-compliant Wikipedia articles right out of the gate, or almost right out of the gate, since that indicates his editing experience, and, in that regard, especially not articles that concern sexual aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief - here comes a sock army. And yes, Confirmed. Hold on ... details coming - Alison ^❤ 19:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed socks:
AbuseResearcher (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

SecurityAnalyst720 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Restofyourlife (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Wiki142699 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Avastsava (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

PeachBush (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Kod Peas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Mammoth Kod (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

K LeFet (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Orkney Springs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Victoria Crescent (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
I've also gone ahead and contacted ArbCom to let them know, as he's banned, and deleted most of his cruddier articles. You might want to pick through his edits for pro-pedo POV-pushing - Alison ^❤ 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Batman! Flyer22, you bring me such lovely articles to add to my watchlist :-j --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the check, Alison, for deleting most of his articles again, and for contacting WP:ArbCom about this. I'd hoped that since his User:Ferberson account, and previous accounts were globally banned by WP:WMF, this meant I'd have to worry about him less; I was under the impression that his IP ranges are blocked long-term. They likely are. But, of course, he can get assigned new IP ranges if he has a dynamic IP or moves to a different city or country, and he still has the option of using WP:Proxies. Because he keeps showing up under a different user account to create a Wikipedia article (and, obviously, to make other edits), I think it's an excellent approach to revert his edits and delete his articles...no matter if the edit is valid (unless it's vandalism or correcting a blatant error) and no matter if the article is decent. Otherwise, he still gets to contribute to Wikipedia each and every time. So per that, and per what I've stated at WP:Med about his Vaginal laxity article, I also think that the Vaginal laxity article should be deleted. Perhaps you or Euryalus will delete it? If you two would rather not, no worries; I don't mind seeking the deletion elsewhere. I also considered that Banglange (talk · contribs) might be User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte (etc.), as seen from this "future reference" diff-link (though the inclusion of transgender aspects in his editing would be a change from his typical editing style), and I questioned that editor's newness, but your check above indicates otherwise as far as the editor being User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte (etc.) goes.
NeilN, LOL. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted per WP:G5. It might benefit from being replaced by a redirect, but will leave that up to others to work out the best target page (or if that's worth doing at all). -- Euryalus (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Improvement intended on the page on Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses
Hi Neil, I received this message from you:
"Hello, I'm NeilN. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! NeilN talk to me 23:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)"
The piece I removed was the following: "BeDuhn also stated that whilst there are "a handful of examples of bias in the [New World Translation (NW)]", that "most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers." He concluded that "the NW and [another translation] are not bias free, and they are not perfect translations. But they are remarkably good translations ... often better than [the other six translations analyzed]."[294]"
This is evidently a piece of propaganda formed by the ingenous citing practices that Jehovah's Witnesses use to manipulate points in favor of their standpoints. Since the page is called "Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses", I judged that the sentence in question is not relevant to the page. JW have enough space to defend their views on the main Wikipedia page: "Jehovah's Witnesses".
Therefore I would like to ask you kindly to restore my edit.
Greetings, Casper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.189.67 (talk)
Judging from your words, it seems a pointer to WP:NPOV is in order. "Criticism of [subject]" articles aren't one-sided hit pieces on the subject. To present a neutral point of view, rebuttals are also presented. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But what if the rebuttal is based on faulty citing of another author's work (DeBuhn)? Just look at the content of the citation. It is basically a creation of cut-and-paste remarks glued together and ripped out of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.189.67 (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or do you want me to go as far as to look up the specific page in the book to proof that the actual sentence and context are saying something different? --195.240.189.67 (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you need to use the article's talk page to explain why the article text is a misrepresentation of the source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the username confusion and pages
ok noted. sorry. the instructions are really confusing tq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.92.146.62 (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Political Bias in Wiki amung you and other senior editors
Hello I am wondering why you and the other admins/major editors on Wikipedia have a blatent biased political stance. I see this all the time in relation to articles on countries that are not alligned to Israel/USA/NATO.
For example I see you and other editors change articles on Wiki to have a pro Ukrianian stance in the articla of the 2014 Odessa Massacre. I looked at the history and there is a clear poltiically motivated aggressive movement of various editors to change the massacre to cut out any information showing that the massacre is a massacre (editors claim it was an accident even when there is proof presented it was deliberate), as well as editors trying to downplay the fact that Ukrianians chased the victims into a building, lit it on fire, and shot anyoen escaping. All issues that have been shown in media, including through undisputable video evidence. There is a very clear political bias here.
This bais is shown all over Wikipedia. I see this in many articles and I have seen many discussion boards all over the internet discussing the blatent polticial bias in wikipedia. I am wondering why you people destroy wikipedia and do you get paid for it or is it a very deep rooted poltical bias against, in the previous exampe at least Russia?
Why is the overall political bias in Wikipedia not addressed? Are the oldest admins politically linked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCouchsky (talk • contribs) 00:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
McCouchsky, let me adapt my answer from here. People like yourself who advocate for a particular political stance or wish to use Wikipedia as a soapbox are generally going to be unhappy with articles that don't reflect that stance or when their "my side is good! the other side is evil!" edits are reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
YOU are the one that is making wikipedia politically biased. Not me. I don't even edit it. I'm here to point out that YOU are the one who has made Wikipedia regarded as a joke. Ask nearly anyone anywhere outside of the little box here that you live your life in and there is now a concensus: Due to its nature the political biases of the senior editors reflects most articles, espcially ones that are political in nature. Now you are mad and you claim I am using it as a soapbox...for one thing YOU are the one making the edits, I'm here to point out you (senior admins) have destoryed and made a joke if Wikipedia from which it will never recover. This was initially a place to learn and is now a punchline. Secondly when I try to bring the attention to the fact it is SENIOR EDITORS that make the politicaly motivated changes you get angry/scrared of the issue being brought up and you try to use the age old tactic of projecting your biases onto me..a person that doesn't edit wiki just sees that it has a huge corruption issue...ugh..I wonder if you people feel good knowing you can spread your own prejudices and political biases onto the less informed and children...at the expense of making Wiki a farce to anyone even half educated or serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCouchsky (talk • contribs) 00:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
McCouchsky you don't edit Wikipedia? [2], [3] And this destroyed and joke of a site is the sixth most visited website in the world, partially because we try to keep religious/ethnic/political/pseudoscientific biased nonsense out of articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I made my account 1 hour ago and made an edit to correct political biases shown by an editor..I then proceeded to see in the history that on many of the articles, including the one I edited, there are very serious very aggressive actions by senior editors to guide articles into a very biased stance, for example one that is pro american/nato/ukraine in question. I'm not even russian..i'm a polish canadian and i dislkie russians yet i'll call a spade a spade at least when it come to massacres..I have some respect for the truth unlike you, clearly.
DO THIS AND COME BACK: Look at the title of the article an consider a hundred people got herded into a building and then it was lit on fire, and anyone escaping got shot. THIS IS ALL ON VIDEO all over the internet...the deaths...the fires...the murder...100% on video. Go watch the videos begnnign to end if you ahve the stomach, then re-read the article in question, then come back here and tell me again there is no biased stance in your edits and in Wikipropagandia.
The fact that the site gets hits doesn't mean anythign about its reputation. Do you honestly think people do not know that its inherent structure makes the articles biased towards the views of the most senior editors ? Seriously? I didn't think it was possible not to know that. There are topics here that may not be biased due to their nature, but when it comes to anythign political the articles are edited in such a biased and ridiculous fashion they make CNN, RT, and Alex Jones blush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCouchsky (talk • contribs) 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@McCouchsky: Sorry, when you compare this site unfavorably to Alex Jones, you lose all credibility with me. 2_May_2014_Odessa_clashes#Trade_Unions_House_fire looks to be properly sourced and balanced and written in a non-sensationalistic manner (unlike what you have above). If you wish to present other reliable sources (not random Youtube videos) then use the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess you won't go see the videos and then compare to the bias in the article. You wouldn't want to see that you've wasted ten years editing just another propaganda site..fear and ego are big drivers so I can understand you not wanting to put yourself through seeing videos that crush the world you built up around you
Anway if you think Wikipropagandia has more credibility than Alex Jones (who makes arguments based on selective evidence as well) then I feel sorry for you. I hope you enjoy knowing you spent 10 years on a site that has such blatent biases and propganda that it has become a punchline. Heck, even mainstream media has numerous articles claiming you, THE SENIOR EDITORS, have turned it into a sensationalist politically motivated rag. Enjoy the next ten years well wasted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCouchsky (talk • contribs) 01:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hilarious in a very sad and pathetic sort of way that, whenever some Young Turk whines vociferously about "Wikipedia having an intolerable bias," it is because Wikipedia is not biased towards aforementioned whiny Young Turk's personal agenda.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What personal agenda? That I want aricles to be neutral and not biased? Why is it that every article here on Ukraine is blatently pro natio biased? I'm not talking about having it pro russian I'm talking about it not even being neutral. It's ridiculous! The sources cited that are anti-russian are fringe blogs and guys with cameras filming themselves. Whenever someone with a half decent source posts something contrary to the official State Department narrative it is deleted, or worded to sound illegitimate. You know exactly what I'm talking about. It's not just the Ukrainian crises either, seems to be many articles everywhere are very left leaning instead of neutral.
Whatever. No point in arguing with some wikipedia senior editor, your life is only existant on an online pseudo-encyclopedia so I have a hard time thinking any of you will ever take contructive criticism without your fragile egos exploding. The fact this is your hobby/life just goes to show how out of touch with reality most senior editors on wikipropagandia are.. You are clearly some (Personal attack removed) keyboard warrior that will defend his biases and not address issues that do not fit your own personal agendas. You and I, and everyone else, knows this. Who else would live your life of making a biased pseudo-encylopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCouchsky (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@McCouchsky: In all your rants, you have not presented one single link to a specific source you'd like to use ("look up videos" is not a source) or a link to a source you find dubious. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is obviously some confusion here as to what constitutes a senior editor. What editing Dan are you NeilN? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy the dog™, there's also the misapprehension that "senior editors" can agree on anything. Even the color of the sky would be up for debate ("it's blue!" "not to birds, you homo sapienist!" "that'd be placing undue weight on birds, insects outnumber birds" "that's just silly" "you all are a bunch of idiots. the obvious solution is to create a sourced list article that lists all animals and how they perceive the sky and link to that") --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Followed by the obligatory RFC, ANI posts, and request for an Arbcom case, of course. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering why you people destroy wikipedia and do you get paid for it...I can see that Wikipedia is about two years behind on sending me my checks. I'm losing interest on that money, Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi party
Hi there, could you possibly respond to Talk:Nazi_Party#Pseudo-scientific regarding your recent revert to the article.
Thank you.--Hashi0707 (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for talking
nice to meet you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohinisinghaliya (talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth Taylor
See here. Sorry, I don't know how to ping people. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jill Kelley
the edits by nicvampure are vandalizing and unnecessary Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennsington (talk • contribs) 23:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kennsington: Their edits were in no way vandalism. Your reversions however, falsely labeling them vandalism, are disruptive. Please stop and use the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add you called my edit vandalism. [4] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review for Daniel DC Caldwell, I
I read your disruptive editing warning and think this is what the guidelines tell me to do.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Daniel DC Caldwell, I. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DCdanielcaldwell, the best thing you can do is stop attempting to use Wikipedia for your election campaign. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support letting it be and call it fair if I start a comparable subpage stub for each of the other candidates, too?DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alwaysremember: No. You don't seem to understand. Wikipedia is not an election hustings. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN:, I hear your accusation of WP:COI. I was hoping that the goal "to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia" and WP:NPOV would be served by balancing the Incumbent advantage in at least this one forum. So much for Fairness and proportionality *sigh*.DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The changing landscape of Private Equity
We are very busy trying to define things but by the time we have defined them they have changed, that's why i love Wiki and indeed your note saying you have removed my link on Private Equity, i am sure its an auto remove and so saying it was inappropriate was down to the fact that i added a link. Sorry, i just want to get my message out there the best way possible, yes its commercial but its also needed. Private Equity has changed, Crowd Funding is going to change everything beyond what we think the market is now and i am doing something that sits between those worlds with Quoted Private Equity and the European Stock Exchange.
Edward Fitzpatrick European Stock Exchange
Please read the conflict of interest note I left on your talk page. Wikipedia is not here for you to get your message out there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revert
Hi Neil, According to Twinkle that[5] shouldn't of happened - It was something to do with the protection which was why it apparently couldn't be nominated.... so not really sure how or why it then done it ?,
Anyway thought I'd say thanks for quickly reverting :) –Davey2010^Talk 04:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: You've also nominated Human and Frozen. What the heck? Keep pranks away from content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're allowed providing the AFD tag isn't on the article...... –Davey2010^Talk 04:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: You're putting them on the article. Adding them and then deleting them is not the way to go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly I'm deleting them .... Not leaving them on there .... therefore it's fine..... –Davey2010^Talk 04:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: All right, let me be clear. Do it again and I'll take you to WP:ANI. Create the AFDs by hand and don't tag the article at all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take me to ANI I really could'nt give a flying toss - I've apologized for the above but what I'm doing is acceptable here and I'll carry on regardless. –Davey2010^Talk 04:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: It's not acceptable to be messing about in mainspace. You can do what you want without using Twinkle. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neil It's perfectly fine to use Twinkle - Providing you immediately remove the tag from the article there is no problem at all, If you really wanna take me to ANI for essentially having a sense of humour then please be my guest (I appreciate some people hate this sort of thing but others like myself see it as a bit of fun and proving you follow the rules and don't be a complete idiot (like some at the AFD log!) then there's not really a problem), Anyway Happy Editing. –Davey2010^Talk 04:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[6] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir i am Jasmeen Kaur .I am a girl and lives in India. i want a help from you .Someone is editing inappropriate content without any references on article Siege of Sirhind please visit its talk page. Jasmeen-229 (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrate

Yoor Know Phool

Have a humorous day filled with lots of PHUN on this April Fools Day 2015. Any annoyance is purely coincidental. Bfpage |leave a message 10:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
Hello N. Just wanted to let you know that I reported Pinkelvi at UAA just before your AIV report. It will be interesting to see which one is acted on first. Speaking of "first" enjoy the rest of your April one. MarnetteD|Talk 15:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MarnetteD: I'm guessing it was a ping. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright on Kent Hovind's Picture
I don't see how I am violating copyright when the copyright for that photo of Dr. Kent Hovind is under the CSE 2011 Free Distribution Copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalvarez4Jesus (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jalvarez4Jesus: What's a "free distribution copyright"? Do the terms allow modification and resale for commercial purposes? And the other picture you uploaded - where did you get that Hovind "allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted."? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Atif Aslam‎
Here is the published source: http://www.socialbakers.com/statistics/facebook/pages/total/pakistan/
Look yourself, even if facebook is highly volatile, this information will not be changed any sooner. Because you change my information in couple of minute, I assure you that this would last longer than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maulakhan (talk • contribs) 04:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty synthy. You really should have a newspaper or magazine stating that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! got it! thanks.Maulakhan (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ghostwriting Page - re Remuneration and Credit
I re-inserted text several times last night and today about Manhattan Literary (ML), a ghostwriting firm, under the Remuneration and Credit section of the Ghostwriter page. KWW keeps undoing my edit, and NeilN intervened in what is called "an editing war." I was not aware of the rule but will respect the 24 hour rule from now on.
Similar information re ML's pricing for books was on the page for a long time, but it got removed. I feel it is useful and specific enough to warrant inclusion -- especially since many of the entries here are so generic ("Co. X charges within this range..." -- without any clue as to why the price would vary.)
KWW keeps removing the text, repeatedly, stating:
"Kww (talk | contribs)‎ . . (36,455 bytes) (-965)‎ . . (Undid revision 654652775 by Mariwiki77 ('talk)not directly supported by source) (undo | thank)'"
This is factually false. It is supported. (Why is KWW so tenacious here in repeatedly undoing my edit, and so vague?)
A reference and a citation are given for my editorial additions here: a) the ML website itself, that cites projects they have done with notable clients; and b) The Washington Post interviewed ML in June 2014 and asked about the PRICES it charges.This is specifically relevant to the section. I explained this in the edit summary -- and added that the editorial additions I inserted are new, specific, and reported by an expert in the field. No why does KWW get off merely writing "no directly supported by source."
I am a professional in this field.
Further, this ML related information on the prices of ghostwriters was formerly in this section and had been deleted by someone -- I could not find the deletion in the history -- I would appreciate knowing who did it and why -- since what was added after is merely generic info about other firms prices.
The new content here explains WHY the cost can vary. This is both interesting and probably necessary information for the potential client researching the topic.
Again, these additions about pricing policy at Manhattan Lit are substantiated by references to the ML website -- which shows a long track record in the field with some notable clients; and The Washington Post recognizing the firm as expert in a June 2014 article.
- Mariwiki77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariwiki77 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mariwiki77. This sounds a bit too much like advertising for ML to me. The best place to discussed proposed wording is on Talk:Ghostwriter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mariwiki77 Responding here just to keep it in one place. I "get off merely writing 'not directly supported by source'" because everything thing you say must be directly substantiated in the citation you provide. You only provided a link to http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/who-wrote-that-political-memoir-no-who-actually-wrote-it/2014/06/09/8e89ccae-f00a-11e3-9ebc-2ee6f81ed217_story.html , which doesn't contain material which directly supports statements like "Statistically, only about half of all clients come to ghostwriters with a draft" or "the firm stresses that any effort by the client that saves the writer time and work, or gives the project a push forward, should save that client money". The promotional tone in your edits is pretty strong as well.—Kww(talk) 21:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kip McKean
Hi Neil, I have good reason to believe that the IP editor who keeps adding stuff like this, this and this is user Qewr4231. I have an open case at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Qewr4231 about him and he probably thinks that if he logs off he'll escape scrutiny. He's been on a 4+ year mission to throw shade on Kip McKean and McKean's churches. Thanks for your quick reverts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for the heads up. I've also collapsed some problematic material on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No probls. Thanks for your assists. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recent revert to a user page
Hi. Can you please explain this edit to me? I really don't understand your revert here. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MZMcBride: Sure. The user was blocked and was complaining on his talk page that others were editing his user page and harassing him. I reverted these edits as they came in and suggested the editor ask for semi protection which was eventually done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, thank you for the quick clarification! I hadn't realized he had been blocked. I re-tried making the edit here. (This comic aside, I'm pretty sure he wants "affects" there.) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MZMcBride: I agree with you but the editor was upset enough as it was without discussing proper spelling. BTW, as for the semi, it's not uncommon - an admin semi'd my user page years ago and there was minimal disruption. It actually helps a bit as newbies have to post to the right page and don't risk having their posts overlooked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rajneesh NPOV and Primary Sources
Hi Neil,
The good faith edits including primary sources are allowed by wikipedia, where the statement is direct and verifiable and obvious, especially in the biography of persons, with the published content used to describe details of what they spoke about. The policy is here WP:PRIMARY. There are no interpretations in the article, based on primary sources.
I believe this leads a balanced NPOV, since critics are usually secondary sources allowing for interpretation, but any factual errors used in interpretation can be corrected using primary resources, which is the case here. The result is a balanced critique, as critiques are woven in with correct facts.
Regards Julianraymondk (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Julianraymondk: This is just from the lead:
"Born in a village in India, to a free rebellious childhood, and undergoing transformative experiences with death and meditation, he reported spiritual enlightenment at 21 years of age. An autodidact, and exceptional debater..."

"On 24 Sep 1985 he made a press announcement that the investigating team instead of tracking the absconded criminals, were bribing people with immunity in exchange for statements to indict and remove as many key organizational people as possible through false charges in an attempt to cripple or destroy the commune. By Nov 1985, he was accused of immigration violations of which he accepted two minor violations upon his attorneys advice and entered an Alford plea asserting innocence but conceding the jurys ability to convict him legally."

"Osho's return to Pune marked a resurgence in new techniques of meditative therapies and discourses focussed on Zen, and the ashram expanded. His health declined, and he left his body on 19 Jan 1990 and is said to have left his body in a very aware state after giving away his personal items."

You need to look at WP:NPOV and WP:GEVAL. Your proposed changes clearly put the Rajneesh-approved version of events front and center. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first point is necessary for coherency to show significant spiritual events or happenings, in the life of a spiritual leader. Just like we would show childhood prodigious nature of a artist/savant. The second point describes internal events that was especially relevant to the charging of immigration violation, a huge event, leading to the collapse of commune which is the primary subject of that paragraph. For a neutral pov, both versions need to be present especially when you are negating the views of the person who this article is about. Silencing the Rajneesh-view on every issue itself is a POV. Especially when accusations and counter accusations flow, a neutral space is where no ones voice is silenced. So you may not like the Rajneesh voice, but it should not be silenced for a balanced pov. What is your problem with the third. new therapies, zen discourses etc are well known.
I disagree that this is a Rajneesh-approved pov, since Rajneesh wouldnt advertise his arrest, commune collapse, highlighting of just the controversies about his teachings in the lead, and yet I have left them all in the lead, to reflect the opposite pov. Neither viewpoints should be silenced. WP:GEVAL does not apply to this article, since it is not a minority opinion or extraordinary claim of article, and since both views are significant to understanding the subject at hand.
This is the primary effort of NPOV... Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. WP:GEVAL being invalid for this article, should not be used discourage NPOV.
Regards Julianraymondk (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Julianraymondk: WP:GEVAL certainly applies for this bit of puffery: "to a free rebellious childhood, and undergoing transformative experiences with death and meditation, he reported spiritual enlightenment at 21 years of age. An autodidact, and exceptional debater." WP:EUPHEMISM applies to the third point - he died, nothing else. And the second point is basically inserting a press release for the subject into the lead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now you are edit warring to keep this puffery in the article. Wonderful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John Tormondsen
Sorry about the edit conflict; I had no intention of deleting your deletion proposal. Cheers, 2602:302:D88:CFA9:BC9E:B1CF:D269:DFFB (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I restored your addition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you for correcting my edit on the death panel article.
I meant to only look at it, but I guess I hit the wrong button and changed it. I appreciate that you brought it back to where it should be.
Fishycow (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fishycow. Thanks for the clarification. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How Buddhism in Nepal since Buddha was born in Nepal.
Hi NeilN, Can you please write about how is Buddhism in Nepal since Buddha was born in Nepal. I can see mostly focus in other part, I supposed Nepal also have to be done about something am I right??. I want to see whole world know the truth. tks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.164.59.241 (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Buddhism
Did you really intend to revert this with your last edit? JimRenge (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JimRenge: Are you talking about this? Yes, but I can see a case for its inclusion so if it's reinserted I wouldn't protest. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. No, I reverted too far. Fixed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I is ready fo mah edumacation
How does one confuse Manet with Monet and Monet with Manet? Should we add a distinguish tag to Chocalate for people looking for Chocolat? I admit I do not understand this. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: It's pretty easy in verbal conversation when you mishear or the speaker has sloppy pronunciation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Double Negatives
I received a message from you stating that I ought to cite use of double negatives; however I disagree since language shouldn't be cited because it's existential all around us. Infact, I was removing the hostility towards double negatives which had enough bias by creating a balanced argument. Indeed it's not cited, but neither are many other aspects within the article and of language in general. Remember, language does not belong to the few, but to everyone. How it changes ought to be accepted regardless; there's no such thing as 'X is not allowed in Y language'. Removing my contributions will only expose your own bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs) 01:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vormeph: The assertions and opinions you are adding need to come from reliable sources. Just because other unsourced content exists does not mean that editors get to add yet more unsourced content and personal opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: There are countless articles on Wikipedia whereof not even half within are sourced. Why is that out of those articles you pick the 'Double Negatives' article? You clearly have some form of hostility towards double negatives in general, otherwise you might as well wipe out many articles on Wikipedia for being unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs)
@Vormeph: I have some form of hostility to editors adding their own opinions to articles. As I alluded to before, fix the unsourced stuff, don't add more to it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kakatiya dynasty
I've long known that Kakatiya dynasty was a poor article. I've been delving into it since The Blade of the Northern Lights semi-protected the thing and I'm amazed that, yet again, we have an India-related article where there was so much edit warring about pov stuff and so little attempt to introduce the mass of other material that is actually out there. It takes me back to Nair, which was the first Indian article I dealt with and which had similar issues. That one should go to WP:GAN some time, and I rather suspect that the Kakatiya one would in due course easily make the grade also.
Seeing all these opportunities for even basic improvement lost in vanity battles is quite disheartening sometimes. - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: Wow, what a cleanup! I don't know if the issue can ever be curtailed or solved. Even if WMF campaigns to attract editors pound the need for sourcing into their heads, there's enough poor sources out there that support whatever cruft they want to add. The problem is compounded by the fact that most editors on the English-language Wikipedia cannot tell the sources are poor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, RS and NPOV are the problems even if V is resolved. - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since my name was mentioned here, I'd just like to say that I'm available to use my admin tools wherever necessary. Don't ever hesitate to ping me, someone needs to handle this area and it might as well be me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gino D'Acampo
Hi there I noticed you reverted a change someone made on Gino D'Accampo regarding his middle name of Sheffield. I have made a section on his talk page if you could read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdfwedits (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cdfwedits: There was a horrendous amount of idiocy going on. Now that the article has been semi-protected, rational changes can be made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Thank you for your all your efforts in maintaining our encyclopedia. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 23:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yamaguchi先生. Appreciate your posting at ANI - got the job done faster than RFPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Content Marketing.
Hi Neil, I posted an informative info-graphic at fundraising - obviously it had my company's logo and contact information on it for credits. We have created such educative info-graphics for the purpose of informative content-marketing - these info-graphics contain our contact information but are informative at the same time. Do you have any guidelines for posting such material? Should our Logo/contact information be smaller? - Can it include our logo if not contact information? Can the page say something about us also - as it has some information about our competitors. We want to contribute more information to Wikipedia - and at the same time get credits for it - I am sure there must be some provision for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startups Paradise (talk • contribs) 04:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Startups Paradise. Any notion such as "content marketing" is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. We are a neutral encyclopedia and help market nothing. There is no exception to this. You have a gigantic internet available to you for marketing. Do whatever you want elsewhere, but marketing is not allowed here. Cease and desist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cullen328. The editor is blocked but I've left a reply here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That could have been handled better... There's a real person behind that account that genuinely didn't know what he was doing was unacceptable. He probably walked away joining the droves of marketers that think Wikipedians just attack them for no reason and is now more likely to use astroturfing tactics than before. In the long-term, this kind of thing is counter-productive. In a majority of cases, people can be persuaded to abstain of their own accord and even spread the word of abstinence to their colleagues and clients after being thoughtfully informed. CorporateM (Talk) 15:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@CorporateM: This note by Versageek is pretty polite. What would you have changed? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I should have looked at it more closely before commenting. That image is clearly spam/advert and not content marketing as the editor so euphemistically put it. It is not even an "infographic" because it doesn't actually have any information on it. Sometimes I open my big mouth (or keyboard or whatever) sooner than I should have. Please allow me to rescind my complaint. CorporateM (Talk) 15:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Hello!
If you need help, visit my talk page. Writer freak (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Writer freak. Another editor posted to your talk page but used my signature. Not sure why. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove article 'Cameronism'
I have raised my concerns regarding the article Cameronism because it is nothing more but a sampled biography of David Cameron, current prime minister to this day. The only mention of 'Cameronism' is in a BBC article which was cited. I also think that this article has too many recursive sources, namely from those of the BBC, which is owned and controlled by the British Government. The article itself, given the fact election campaigns are underway, could seek to legitimise David Cameron's own policies and thus make the article a potential platform for implicit political campaigning. I propose the article be removed and some of the sections merged with the wikipedia article David Cameron as most of what is in the latter is only a biography just as what is read from Cameronism. The article I propose for removal does not even mention any of Cameron's policies nor talk about them. It's possibly drawing influence from the Thatcherism article which too talks about Thatcher's policies. A big difference however is in that Thatcherism as an article was created after her tenure as prime minister; therefore it would only be a suitable course of action to have Cameronism reopened if Cameron does NOT win the 2015 general election. All this is to prevent the article from being misused by Tories. I have already mentioned my concerns in the Talk page thereof, and hope for your opinion regarding this to be conclusive. Regards, Professed Reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vormeph: If you want the article deleted as a WP:POVFORK you'll need to follow the steps listed at WP:AFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Page of Samina Peerzada
Hi Nieln,
I do not understand what makes you conclude and label my edits on Samina Peerzada as "disruptive"? Will you please be kind enough to explain. I have put relevant external links to validate the edits I did. Still if you have any concerns about any information, please let me know and I will provide you enough proofs.
Thanks. Nidhi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connect2nidhi (talk • contribs)
@Connect2nidhi: You messed up proper wikilinks for absolutely no reason [7], you introduced original research, and you deliberately removed an unfavorable assessment of one her movies. [8] You have an obvious conflict of interest [9] so you should not be editing the article at all, let alone edit warring. In addition, you are required to disclose if you are being paid for these edits. From the TOU:
These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
a statement on your user page,

a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or

a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.
--NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NielN
Firstly, I am not being paid by anyone for any contribution on Samina Peerzada. Second, I did not remove any unfavorable assessment of her movies or any other work. Third, I have no interest in edit warring. Once and for all I would like to clarify to all the members of Wikipedia team that I have no interest whatsoever in engaging in any kind of edit war with Nieln or any other contributor. My only concern is to present factual information about Samina Peerzada.
If my contribution is being unfortunately percieved as an edit war I will happily like it to be escalated and decided through administrators. As mentioned earlier, all well endorsed proofs by concerned authorities can be provided if needed from our end for information validation concerns. Thank you.
@Connect2nidhi: Please explain these statements: "I am here to assist Ms.Samina Peerzada (actor, producer, director from Pakistan) to publish her factual WikiPedia page.", "Absolutely correct information through one-to-one interaction with Ms.Samina Peerzada herself.", "As mentioned earlier, all well endorsed proofs by concerned authorities can be provided if needed from our end for information validation concerns." Also, you changed (twice) "Subsequently, she directed the less well-received commercial film Shararat." to "Subsequently, she directed another commercial film Shararat (2003 film)." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Connect2nidhi:
@NielN Sure! "less well-received" is a subjective assessment. Based on what facts is it being pronounced a "less well-received" work? What is the benchmark? Where is the reference link validating "less well-received" Where as stating that she directed "another commercial film" is free of any judgements(neutral) on anyone's behalf. Going by your argument of me "removing unfavorable assessment" it can be contested that some editor has "added unfavorable assessment" of her work purely based on ones own views and not facts.
Also, I will appreciate if you can let me know why the information regarding her awards is being reverted when external links validating the same are being provided?
Please feel free to ask for further clarifications or information.
It is always amusing when a single purpose editor declares their conflict of interest when trying to gain the upper hand in a dispute about article content, and then later denies their conflict of interest when called out on it. Yesterday, the color was black, but today, the color is white. Sorry, reality does not work that way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Hold on, I thought you and I were soft on COI editors? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only in the minds of dogmatists who think that any article which has had any significant editing by COI accounts should be deleted forthwith. One can only hope that such editors will study and internalize the concept of editorial judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Connect2nidhi: This is why you should not be editing the article. You now admit to removing unfavorable information and can't see the exact same reference used to source "critically acclaimed" (which you have no objection to - no surprise there) is being used to source "less well-received". You added a number of social media links - this is not the subject's home page. And you added the awards in the same edit that messed up other stuff, introduced unsourced info, and removed the assessment of her second movie. Plus, you still have not explained your comments I quoted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Neiln: :@Cullen: :@FreeRangeFrog:
@Cullen Will appreciate if you can clearly state what you are trying to communicate through your statements.
@NielN @Cullen As far as my understanding of Wikipedia as a medium of information goes, we are here to contribute and provide "correct/factual" information and not enter into wars or arguments of any kind showing each other down or trivialising the purpose of wikipedia which is to host absolutely error free information about the subject it discusses.
I will be happy if you can guide me to the right way to provide detailed and factually correct information to the readers about Samina Peerzada instead of anything else.
I hope that communicates my purpose clearly. Please feel free to write to me in case of any doubt.
@NielN Only when you do and err that you learn. No one is born expert. I hope you will agree with me on this at least.
There is always "subjectivity" involve in judgements based on anything but numbers. So if you think just because it came from same reference and I quoted one but omitted another, the only thing I can say is there were "awards" to justify the critically acclaimed movie but nothing to validate less well received movie. If there were box office numbers, I would have treated that as a fact.
Social Media Links: I did read wikipedia policy relating to the same. It does not explicitly say that this is prohibited or illegal or anything like that. In fact I have seen pages where social media links have been provided on wikipedia pages. Please correct me if I am wrong here.
Unsourced information: Can you please point that out specifically?
Explaining what I said:
"I am here to assist Ms.Samina Peerzada (actor, producer, director from Pakistan) to publish her factual WikiPedia page. "Absolutely correct information through one-to-one interaction with Ms.Samina Peerzada herself."
As I am in touch with her I can validate the personal or professional information provided about her. One example: Her date of birth '9-April was incorrectly mentioned earlier. She asked me to see what can be done about anything incorrect being published about her on wikipedia and how it can be corrected.
"As mentioned earlier, all well endorsed proofs by concerned authorities can be provided if needed from our end for information validation concerns"
If you feel that what I am stating can not be trusted, let me know what proof will suffice.
Let me know if you have any other query and also what is needed to get the information I posted back on her page.
Thanks.
Hello there, Connect2nidhi. Please sign your posts, so other editors do not have to do detective work to figure out who is commenting. Thank you. Here is what I am "factually trying to communicate": You declared that you have some sort of special relationship with the subject of the article that gives you special insight into the "facts" or the "truth". All that means nothing to us on Wikipedia because we summarize only what reliable sources say. Cite what reliable sources say, and all will be well. Rely on your personal relationship with the subject of the article, and experienced Wikipedia editors will push back strongly. We do not give a damn about your relationship with the subject of the article. Not in the slightest. We care only what reliable sources say. No more, and no less. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Connect2nidhi: Can you please start signing your posts? You do this by typing --~~~~ at the end of your posts. The proper way for you to contribute to this article is to use the talk page Talk:Samina Peerzada with the conflict of interest edit request template detailed here: Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Making_requests. Be specific and succinct with each request, provide published sources with each request (not your opinion, not private communications), and let others make the edits if they are acceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Neiln: :@Cullen: :@FreeRangeFrog:
Precisely my point. I am not underscoring my personal relationship with the subject to make my case in any way but only for validation through the most reliable source, the subject oneself. If you feel publications/information sources mentioning wrong information about the subject are considered more reliable sources then what can I say!
Also, if that be the case, why were the edits I did were not considered reliable enough when all of them had external links clearly mentioned? Kindly share.
Also, as far as definition of reliable sources goes, we can keep arguing about it. I feel, specially for pages of biographical nature giving a damn about the information coming straight from horses mouth is quite like damning wikipedia itself. But I understand!
Thanks. --User talk:Connect2nidhi
@Connect2nidhi: The horse naturally does not want to turn into horse meat and will often try to showcase its abilities in the best (not always accurate) light possible. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN:
Thank God the horse is not dependent on Wikipedia in any way for its bread...I wonder if it would have been allowed to stand on its own legs or even survive! No offense!
--User talk:Connect2nidhi
GHOSTWRITER PAGE, RECENT ISSUES AS OF 11 APRIL 2015
START Mariwiki77 COMMENTS:
The (restored) Manhattan literary reference to pricing of a book existed as early as March 25, 2012 and got deleted somehow from this 'Remuneration and Credit' section of the Ghostwriting page. The firm is authoritative and a good source for accurate pricing. The current reference (as NeilN requested/suggested) is The Washington Post, from a 9 June 2014 article on Ghostwriting itself.
Seo-Writer and Ghostwriters Ink are self- referrals from the sellers' own websites. They should be removed, according to this rule that secondary sources need to be used as references and not the seller's own site, until they can provide such a source.
This one also fulfills the criteria of a secondary source: One ghostwriter gave the following fees in 2011:[1] Jump up ^ {{cite web |url=http://www.writersdigest.com/writing-articles/by-writing-goal/get-published-sell-my-work/how-to-be-a-ghostwriter |title= How to be a ghostwriter|last1=James-Enger|first1=Kelly |last2= |first2= |date=June 7, 2011 |website=www.writersdigest.com |publisher=Writer's Digest |accessdate=2 September 2014
Now, let's please resume the discussion here. Please do comment on the above evidence from the current page. Italic text
I have done other work on this page that I thought was careful and informative, only to have it deleted. In fact I was threatened. I am experienced in American publishing -- for over 2 decades I've worked in it in various capacities.
I am new here as an editor, so bear with me, but I am fairly stunned by the environment. For example, a man -- who, in his profile, says he started college this year, and recently did over 3000 edits in one month (this is given in his statistics; obsessional?) -- also recently deleted me and accused me of vandalism. When I wrote a defense he had nothing to say. I won't lose sleep, but what kind of operation is this? Wikipedia could be a good thing. I do understand your concerns, NeilN. You are clear when you write. I'm just looking for consistency. Mariwiki77 (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mariwiki77. I'm a bit unclear on what you'd like me to do here? I don't have any real issue with your latest edit. [10] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, are you an admin? You seem to have a substantial track record on Wikipedia. Frankresduto, over the last few days, merely deletes whatever I put up. He offers no edit summary, seems to follow no rules in particular in relation to the above discussion about secondary sources, has no history of contributions. He undid my last edit with no explanation -- the one you find no objections to. How can someone mediate this, rather than he and i engaging in an edit war. Would appreciate it. I am beginning to understand how this process works, being new to it. 38.109.98.242 (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm not an admin but admin's don't decide content. The best way to proceed is to use the article's talk page. I've opened a conversation there: Talk:Ghostwriter#Manhattan_Literary --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Olympic Animal Sanctuary
Hi, thanks for checking the article.. :-)
The Board of Directors is listed in Part IV, on the "IRS Form 990-EZ." It has been re-referenced due to the expiration of the previous reference. The current link posted is working properly.
Rsmith127 (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsmith127: That is a WP:PRIMARY source. Also, it seems the names of these people are being added to cause some embarrassment to them. If that is the purpose, please stop. Reading WP:NPF would be helpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are Incorrect:
The director's information is public information, widely available to anyone wanting to do research on OAS. (I'm assuming the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information for people's research...???)
Unlike claims of, "Some People" who think I have a vendetta or I'm trying to embarrass the board, it is not true. I don't actually know any of the people on the board and I'm not making any attempt to embarrass them. The root of any possible embarrassment would caused by the poor operation of OAS, not by the fact an article was published on Wikipedia.
All information in this article is 100% factual and well sourced from several different and reliable sources. It does not contain any sort of vendetta, just the unfortunate facts surrounding the operation and closing of OAS.
Rsmith127 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsmith127: My pointers to WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPF still stand. If you wish, I can raise the matter at WP:BLPN where others can examine the situation and your edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I read the WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPF sections. If you were more aware of what actually happened, you would agree they are not applicable in this situation. Markwell is not a Rock Star but he is not some unknown private person either. There were articles in People Magazine and the LA Times written about him and he received dozens of kudos from many less known publications, legal firms and animal organizations. It was even planned to have him as the opening speaker at a special showing of, "Guilty 'Til Proven Innocent" a movie about pit bulls, until OAS protesters convinced the movie maker it would be in poor taste to have him as a speaker.
For now, I'll leave it up to you to replace the BOD names or leave them out.....??? It still seems like relevant information to me.
Rsmith127 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsmith127: The Board of Directors are unknown people. No one is arguing about taking Markwell out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect again:
Matthew Randazzo is a semi-well known author. There has been numerous articles written about him regarding OAS and other work he has done related to animal organizations and political work. Look him up on Wikipedia... "Matthew Randazzo V"
Speaking of Randazzo, some of what is posted about him on Wikipedia appears to be total BS. It seems to be completely made up by the source listed in the Wiki article, stating:
"Two of Randazzo's books have been purchased for television and film adaptation. Breakshot: A Life in the 21st Century American Mafia was optioned by producer Henrik Bastin and sold to Fox Broadcasting Company for development as a weekly hour-long dramatic series with Oscar-winner Robert Moresco attached as producer/screenwriter."
This was posted on Wiki many years ago and there is zero evidence a TV or film deal on Randazzo's books is in the works...???
Diane Hawkins is Markwell's mother and the owner of the truck shop building that housed OAS. There was a large amount of publicity in San Juan Capistrano, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Seattle WA, regarding planned protests at the private school where she worked. She either resigned or was fired from her job at the school, apparently due to her connection to OAS.
Granted, Jason Ross is a little known person.
Many organizations tout their boards, as Markwell constantly did when OAS was in operation. As I previously mentioned, the board member's information is well known and widely available through several sources.
I'll leave it up to you to replace the BOD names or leave them out.....??? It still seems relevant to me.
Rsmith127 (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pune Skateboarding
Hello Neil,
I got your message regarding my recent edit in the sports section of Pune. I wanted to add skateboarding into it & let people know that even Pune has skateboarding culture.
You said that the information wasn't verifiable, can you tell me how I'm supposed to do it & what information is required.
Thanks
TheWrenchMate (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheWrenchMate. You need to have newspaper or magazine articles that verify the content you want to add. Do you have any you can link to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The skatepark constructed here is getting inaugurated soon & it will be covered in the newspaper but recently it was covered in the local news channel on TV
TheWrenchMate (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TheWrenchMate: We need a permanent source. I suggest you wait until there is published coverage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allright i'll get back to you once its covered. Thanks anyways. Hope you don't mind if I need help with something else later.
TheWrenchMate (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TheWrenchMate: If I'm around, I'm always happy to assist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Montreal Canadiens
Hello Niel. You changed some of my content on Montreal Canadiens. I added true facts that were just announced today. What was wrong with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedude061899 (talk • contribs)
@Thedude061899: Did you read the notes on your talk page about adding your personal commentary and unsourced material to articles? Plus, according to Vezina Trophy, at least one thing you added was flat out wrong. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neil, the season just ended today, I'm not sure if you watch hockey, and he is the top goalie in all statistics. And the top goalie gets the trophy. It is official that it's him but is not officially given to him until the Nhl awards in June
@Thedude061899: Please read the article. "At the end of each season, the thirty NHL general managers vote to determine the winner." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Price won. Please refer to this websitehttp://espn.go.com/nhl/trophies
@Thedude061899: Either our article is wrong (unlikely) or that website is a prediction of who is going to win. I will raise the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That website plainly is a laundry list of predictions, which are bolstered by the "other leaders" lines. The Ross, Richard and Jennings Trophies are the only ones that are automatic (for most points scored, most goals scored and fewest goals allowed respectively). Ravenswing 06:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ravenswing --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP edit warrior
Reported at AN3. Didn't mention AIG where he is at 3RR including his restoration of text he added that was later removed. Do you want to comment about his editwarring there? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where he thinks I'm hounding him. I did explain to him before he kept on that consecutive reverts count as 1, but he's ignored that in his comments at AN3. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see Ed semi-protected the page until May 12th. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not Notable Reverts 12 April 15
I noticed at Ark Encounter you reverted an edit that cited an opinion article from a city council member published on a reliable news source because it was not notable yet you let remain an opinion article that was not attributed to an author. How can that be notable while an opinion of a council member in the community in which the project is being built is not? Can I delete the reference to the unattributed opinion?Veraci-nullatenus (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Veraci-nullatenus. What text are you specifically talking about? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was your last edit and I am referring to footnote 90 as the unattributed opinion. Frankly I don't care if either opinion is included, I just want to know if we're not being consistent here.Veraci-nullatenus (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Veraci-nullatenus: That seems to be an editorial in the newspaper's voice which should be given the same level of importance assigned to a NY Times, Boston Globe, etc., editorial. I wouldn't remove it but won't revert if you do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken. Wouldn't an opinion in a newspaper from a city council member carry the same weight as an unattributed opinion? Veraci-nullatenus (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Veraci-nullatenus: Not for me but I realize this is a judgement call and other editors might have different opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jordan Spieth
Hi NeilN,
Thanks for your help and advice on the proper way to ask for an article to be semi-protected. Chunkylefunga (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation

I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AIG Fringe Revert
Hi NeilN:
Can you elaborate on why you deleted the following as a "fringe claims" please?
The Courier journal reported Answers in Genesis said that after granting preliminary approval to the project last summer, state officials caved in to pressures brought by "anti-Christian groups" who objected to Answers in Genesis' "statutory right to limit its hiring to people of the Christian faith, and to the content of the messages that will be presented in the Bible-themed park." ^[1]
These are allegations setforth by the developer/plaintiff in a lawsuit and reported (from what I can tell) by a reliable news source. It seems hardly fringe when the accusation is coming from the organization suing the state. Now if the allegations came from a Christian-right person in an editorial I suspect you would be correct, however, this entry appears valid.167.131.0.194 (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unsubstantiated allegation from a press release in a section that's already too long. The Ark Encounter section is already as long as the History section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2015/02/03/ark-park-officials-sue-tax-incentives/22800003/

Thanks Neil
Thanks Neil for watching out for me and the community about that possible copyright issue in the "Court" page. I am someone who is relatively new to law and was just wondering where it does state that descriptions of fact are copyrighted in this sense. Court citations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappel1992 (talk • contribs)
@Kappel1992: Think of it this way. A soccer game is full of facts. Arsenal beat Manchester United 2-1. Walcott scored the winning goal. These are basic facts which cannot be copyrighted. But when these facts are strung together in a specific description - Arsenal beat Manchester United 2-1 in a night game with Walcott coming off the bench in the eightieth minute, immediately taking a pass from Sanchez and scoring the winning goal - that description is copyrighted text. See WP:FACTSONLY. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your viewpoint. Thank you and will try to avoid circumstances like this in the future.
Wondering the difference between spam and a website?
Hi Neil, Thanks for emailing me on Wikipedia about deleting the citation. I wasn't aware that I added a spam link - I've seen GWI on that Wiki page as an authority for years, I believe, and only recently deleted with a bunch of other links that were later added by others.
I was trying to balance out that section which was mentioning prices in Canada and Germany, but not any American prices for hiring a ghostwriter, which I felt was valuable info for American readers of Wiki. I didn't refer to the company by name, only a link in the reference section (again without any name). Should I not do that? Would it be viewed as spam to add any link to a reputable firm?
Thanks for your help,
JCJoseph cabo (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joseph cabo. In most cases, adding a link to a website that sells a service/product related to the article would be seen as spam. The website is also probably not a reliable source as it has a vested interest in the topic. One exception to this is if the article is specifically about that firm's product/service (e.g., Apple Watch would link to Apple). Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources like newspapers and magazine articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And by "vested interest," we mean "conflict of interest," i.e., that their point of view is possibly deliberately skewed in favor towards the topic, what with their own livelihoods depending on more customers gaining interest in the topic.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Painting of the Muhammad (P.B.U.H)
Thank you for the message, i am trying to remove some disturbing data from the article named Islam, writer should know that there is no concept of painting in photos in ISLAM, By posting such things in the wiki articles can create some serious troubles to the Muslims, and can confuse the readers kindly have a glance on the Painting in the Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topword (talk • contribs)
@Topword: Again, see WP:NOTCENSORED. Article content is not tailored so it doesn't offend a particular group. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting study here]. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dougweller: Neat, some good weekend reading. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For your information
im not a sock Thefiremanx6 (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a crook. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tiwari etc
Re: your recent revert shown here, I doubt it is a coincidence that Tripathi is an alternate spelling for Tiwari. I'm still wracking my brain to recall who is the master of puppets in this scenario but I am pretty sure there is one and it has some connection to the long-running saga at Bhumihar. - Sitush (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: Too many socks for me. I'm certain that Ankush 89 is Sumedh Tayade returned but they seem to have damped down on the disruption so I've left it alone. I don't get paid enough to track caste socks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Demographics of Islam in lead
I give up seriously. This new user is putting it as fact in a lead which should only give the basics that Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world. He has two sources which say that with no foundation, one source which doesn't say it and in fact has figures to the opposite (which he tells me to ignore), and a study for the future which doesn't support the present and fails WP:CRYSTAL, as the third-party CNN source even admits. The demographics section doesn't even say anything about this growth, which makes me think that this is just promotion of his idea for the lead. I don't even get a valid definition of "fastest growing" - is it by percentage or absolute numbers? In what timescale? You told me to go to talk, but it's just me versus him, and apparently his version sticks. '''tAD''' (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'''tAD''', I've looked at the talk page and both of you have valid points. The other editor is blocked for edit warring on another article (and you're very lucky you haven't been blocked) but when their block expires, you have various options you can use to help resolve this dispute - WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RFC. Or, if both of you are willing, I will try to mediate between the two of you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
about the CS Article..
so I have come back.. this time.. to look to you for this matter on Cassandra Saturn Article. the matter on how the Article was handled, I personally feel this was an little bit of feeling not welcomed on Wikipedia, when I only have edited a little on this Wikipedia. not even much experience I have right now. even when I felt sad about it.
so I'm wondering if an Article of Cassandra Saturn can be done by other editors instead of me. I don't want to edit on Wikipedia because of problems here I had in past. so i'll just watch from now on. I would love to see the article back up with different revision as done by other editors. I would be happy to give them sources and information, what other else they need to make it an article worthy. that's all I have to say. CassandraSaturn (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CassandraSaturn. First, please read what was written about sources in the deletion review.

See reliable sources for wht is meant by sources. Your own pages are at best self published primary sources and so not of use for us to base an article on. If you want to just have said what you say about yourself, then that would make the encyclopedia article little more than a personal vanity piece. What we need is what third parties who have a reputation for fact checking have written about you. Are there any of those? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Links to your social media pages are not independent sources and do not show notability. And text like "...sex appeal, wonderful and nice personality, taking Cosplay work seriously, committed to her own outfit designs of cosplay" is exactly why WP:AUTO exists. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

With this in mind, can you provide any reliable sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Niel, Please help.
Dear Niel, please help.
The person doesn't let me edit Krishna's page, even though i have given a lot of reliable sources stating he is the supreme personality of godhead.
Please Niel, let me edit the page.
Thanks, Hare Krishna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadhaKrishna Das (talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RadhaKrishna Das: I agree with Theroadislong. Your sources are not reliable and you cannot call anything/anyone the "supreme god" in Wikipedia's voice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why you don't let others edit the pages when they know about the subject matter more than you? you act like wikipedia is your own. you don't let others edit it.
that person also removed this quote - Kṛṣṇa who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes. (BRAMHA SAMHITA 5.1)
will you for the sake of god let me add this quote ^^^? just that?
its so frustrating and unfair.
why not? when one is supreme, you can call him, for example - Obama is the president, so what's wrong in calling him the president, it doesn't matter you don't accept him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadhaKrishna Das (talk • contribs)
@RadhaKrishna Das:
I did not delete your messages. That was someone else.

Please read WP:EXPERT.

No, your quote is from a primary source. Please find secondary sources

Obama is the president is a fact. Calling something a "supreme god" is a belief that some people hold.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment on my contribution to Millennials Talk Page
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your patronising comment. Unfortunately you seem to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. My contribution was NOT general discussion, it was a challenge to the relevance of the topic as a Wikipedia article and intended to start a discussion that might lead to the deletion of said article as insufficiently notable. I hope you can now appreciate your error. Should you require any further clarification do not hesitate to contact me as I have probably been contributing to Wikipedia, as an unregistered editor, for longer than you. However, if your comment was simply "registered editor snobbery" please keep future comments on my contributions to yourself.81.130.80.62 (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my note. You wrote (on multiple articles):
Does anyone really care?

Does anyone really set any store by labels like "baby boomer", "gen-xer", "millennial" etc? There are many accidents associated with birth - epoch, location, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. My friends have a completely random distribution across all of these and it has never occurred to me to stereotype them under any such heading

What do you your friends or how you view them have to do with anything Wikipedia-related? If you want the articles deleted, state that clearly. It'll be useless, but at least you'll be discussing Wikipedia matters. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I posted
at ANI. Tutelary (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tutelary: Thanks, appreciate the notification. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So if Abecedare removed
So if Abecedare removed those two quotes now why don't you stop him? why don't you tell him to bring those back. you were carefully inspecting me for editing now why don't you do the same for him? how did you gave him permission to remove those? those two quotes were present before already, i didn't add those. now bring them back as soon as possible. don't mess up the Krishna page. bring those back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadhaKrishna Das (talk • contribs) 21:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RadhaKrishna Das, Abecedare or anyone else doesn't need my permission to edit. His reason for the removal (quotefarm + not relevant to this section) seems reasonable and is not against Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. I have no justification to demand their restoration. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does someone have to do here to be taken seriously!?
For like the tenth time, the claim is simply done in a jokingly way. That's all. It is not trolling (and if it were trolling, of whom could it possibly be?). And as for the article part, it isn't trolling either since none of the things written was untrue. The things written represent the things that happened yesterday as a result of a joke. What am I suppost to do so my representation of those things isn't considered trolling? Not every joke is a troll. And look up vandalism, writing about things that happened (although you might consider them irrelevant) is not an act of vandalism. I'm signing this in a jokingly way once again. Just don't take it as a way of trolling, ok? You get it, a JOKE, not a troll?
Kindest regards, King Nikola Tešić, the absolute ruler of Bir Tawil and the first ever guy to rule a country by calling dibs first — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.84.254 (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, stop adding stupid, juvenile stuff to articles and stop asking stupid questions of editors who remove your defacement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you ask me Luxemburg, Monako, Liberland and other ways of avoiding taxes and exploiting the loopholes is what's juvenile and stupid. But, at least in this post you didn't call me a troll or a vandal so thanks for that I guess.
Kindest of regards and farewell, King Nikola Tešić — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.84.254 (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revision to Gerry Adams page
Hi NeilN,
I revised the Gerry Adams page on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle and "right to personal character" (as applied by Wikipedia to my Regina Doherty page revisions...also undone). The paragraph "IRA allegations" must begin with the 1978 verdict arrived at under due process of law i.e. that Mr Adams was found not guilty. It is not a neutral position to ignore this conclusion. All other contentions are hearsay, already dismissed by the not guilty verdict. To the use the word "however" is to dismiss the conclusions and favour the hearsay.
The revisions undone do not present a neutral viewpoint. The tarnishing of a man's name by many based on hearsay is not neutral and should not be repeated on Wikipedia.
You have removed every single one of my edits. I want an explanation for each one or else I request that they be reinstated.
Regards
Honesty — Preceding unsigned comment added by HonestyPolicy (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Chilton Moore
Read the references on Charles Chilton Moore one of them is titled Kentucky's Most Hated Man, also he should be in the category critics of religions considering his outspoken atheism. 31.52.182.255 (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
pk subban, your strange idea of a "reliable source"
I noticed you reverted the pk subban page to take out the mention of his diving/embellishment reputation because it didn't have a "reliable source|. This is relevant information and was backed up with an nhl.com source, a news story posted by the nhl public relations. Could you please explain better why you don't think that the official web page of the national hockey league is not a reliable source for information on NHL players? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.160.89 (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WOW. what is your idea of a reliable source? do I have to get a picture of PK Subban holding up his 3 fines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.160.89 (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My "strange idea" of a source is one that actually backs up what you are adding to the article. Your alleged record isn't mentioned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Academic Sources
Hi NeilN, Can the citations from Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies (OCHS) be compatible with polytheistic mentioning of Hinduism Ankush 89 (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ankush 89. The website is recognized by Oxford University so it may be a reliable source. I would have to see the exact page you want to use to give you a more definite answer. Another option is to search Google Scholar which gives sources like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there
Unesco2015 (yet another TZM SPA) has a few more edits. I had to self-revert because I'm at 3rr, but there's still some of his censorship left in the Zeitgeist movie article. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images - Telugu Movie Actors
Hey NeilN,
Thanks for the info regarding image policy. Would it be ok to pic images of Actors from their official facebook pages? Let me know.
- kvsrh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvsrh (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kvsrh. Unfortunately not. Unless there's an explicit note on the Facebook page explicitly saying the picture has a free-use license you have to assume the image is copyrighted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar: the Sexism article

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

For your stellar efforts at the Sexism article and its talk page, including defending the WP:Neutral policy and applying it the way it's supposed to be applied, and removing inappropriate commentary. I don't award many barnstars, but I felt the need to do so in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z147

Thank you, Flyer22! Mind you, not all people are happy with me. Wonder why I got picked out when no one else (as far as I can tell) supports that sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is Eastside Online reliable?
Eastside Online is the school newspaper of Cherry Hill High School East. [11] Is reliable for it? As appeared on We Like Digging? reference section. 115.164.215.193 (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 115.164.215.193. I do not think school newspapers meet WP:NEWSORG so, no, it wouldn't be reliable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your fast reaction
Thank you for deleting the trolling comment from Scaravich105nj within minutes, what we really don't need is more heat in the ongoing debate.Lucentcalendar (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add original research . . .
You wrote "Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Mehmet Oz. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 03:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)"
I apologize for appearing to add original research, but (my fault) I was in a rush, and the video with him saying what I said he said is all over the web, including being rebroadcast almost hourly on CNN.Daqu (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And the part about the U.S. Constitution not containing anything guaranteeing the right of one's free speech to be broadcast on TV is something that a smart 2nd grader could verify, so it is not "original research", either.Daqu (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Daqu: "He has not observed, however, that the U.S. Constitution has no guarantee of anyone's right to broadcast one's free speech on television." - original research and/or your own commentary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, NeilN, it would be original research if I claimed he had said that. Then I'd have to state a reliable source.
Why are you asking me to be a great deal more scrupulous than Oz himself is?Daqu (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Because you can't prove a negative the way you can a positive. You have no reliable sources as to what he has or has not observed. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Daqu, you are incorrect. Per WP:NOR: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the source". Stating someone did not say something is still a conclusion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what "published material" are you claiming I analyzed or synthesized?Daqu (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Daqu: Okay, so you didn't have any sources. Same policy: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AwkaAwka
Thank you for your comments. The previous amend you made to undo changes also threw out a lot of other minor changes that were made in previous weeks. I have reverted to the page as was before the last significant changes and taken on board your comments. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkwaAkwa (talk • contribs)
Hi AkwaAkwa. You are aware that your external linking is still a problem, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN Needs to Work on His Manners
Dear "NeilN"
You need to learn some manners. A person in your position ought to know how to be polite and professional under all circumstances. Perhaps Wikipedia should have a hyperlink that shows on every page which provides clear but succinct instructions about how Wikipedia works, what is required to qualify as an "editor" for Wikipedia, and how to properly address information that Wikipedia has evidently approved which is biased, one-sided, rude, sarcastic, or otherwise in appropriate. Instead of snapping at people in a rude way, you should remain professional, polite, courteous, and provide such information. Instead, you sounded like an ass who does not care what anyone thinks about him. If that is how you really feel perhaps you should not be handling these issues. Have I made myself clear? See, you didn't like that last question, did you. Just wanted to provide with an example of how you come across. Very arrogant and rude. All of this is call constructive criticism. You should invite it, embrace it, and seriously consider it before striking back like a child (sorry but I'm anticipating what I think you are prone to do). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.186.121 (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All this because I gave you a warning for this? Or is there something else? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, it's rude to revert the edits of an omniscient anonymous editor and warn them instead of showering them with praise? Color me shocked.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP editor needs to work on their manners, but somehow I doubt they will pay any attention to my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Muara Bungo
Hi.
You reverted me on this article, and then warned me in strong terms.
Do you think that this article adds to the encyclopaedic knowledge provided by wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbertybob (talk • contribs)
@Bobbertybob: You are edit warring across articles and restoring deletion nominations with invalid criteria when others have told you to stop. Please listen to them and review WP:CSD and WP:PROD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon B Hinckley
NeilN, please specify the 'largely primary and poor sources'. I will eliminate the hymn reference in favor of another. By primary, I am assuming you mean speeches, letters, and created at time under study? As Hinckley is a recent person, obviously some sources (and many currently in the article!) were created at the time under study. I have used the following sources: his only biography, major state newspapers (Deseret News), a book published by Harper. Which of these sources is "largely primary and poor"?Vermilioncliffs (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm?
@Materialscientist: "Materialscientist (talk | contribs) blocked NeilN (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 12 hours" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked, thanks everyone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was blocking the IP you reverted, and hit a wrong line. Materialscientist (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, you may be interested in: {{User accidentally blocked}}. Happens to the best of us (she says knowingly).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 03:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Materialscientist, before you made this edit, I was in the process of asking: "Why have you blocked NeilN for a WP:BLP violation, when he is one of the best editors when it comes to upholding the WP:BLP policy (among other Wikipedia policies)? I know that blocking mistakes happen, but they are such a stain on a person's block log." Then the WP:Edit conflict happened. And then more WP:Edit conflicts happened.
I'm glad that this was quickly resolved. And, NeilN, it's a shame that you have been wrongly blocked twice now. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist:, no problem. I still prefer Bbb23's block reason, though. More flair. Thanks Flyer22. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, despite all my efforts to prevent this, it happens [12][13]. Materialscientist (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(snickering a bit) Is this worthy of the village stocks?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should block Neil more often. That way we can award him {{User most accidentally blocked}}.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
interference
Neil n who the hail r u? Please don't interfare in my works . otherwise I have to take strong action against you. Arindambose 999 (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Arindambose 999: Please do not use your user page to host a POVFORK of an existing article. See WP:FAKEARTICLE. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accidentally blocked, heh, heh
Actually, that isn't what I'm leaving you this note about. It is about the Armenian Genocide article. Obviously a Very Hot topic. That article seems to me to also be a prime candidate for the "two arguments fairly presented" policy that I am proposing. While the Turkish viewpoint is clearly a small minority view, still, to completely ommit it from the article alltogether seems to me to be a disservice to the readers. Why can't the Turks have a "proportionate" paragraph or two to represent their own views on the matter, or at least a small section where a responsible (neutral) editor is given two paragraphs where he can freely advocate for the Turkish view without getting his argument chopped up in mid-sentence? I am no Turk, but I would be happy to try that if it were permitted. Obviously including such a section would be a harder thing to do than to write what I call a "whitewash article", but still worth it in my humble opinion, and still enhancing the quality of the overall article, and of Wikipedia indirectly. Let facts speak for themselves. If the Turkish view has no merit, then it should be easy to provide counter-facts that quickly prove this (but only after first having presented the Turkish view in a "fair" manner). Scott P. (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Scottperry: I actually have that article on my watchlist and the Turkish position is presented in Armenian_Genocide#Republic_of_Turkey_and_the_Genocide. But from what I've seen, the genocide-deniers wouldn't be happy with your proposal as they believe "fair" means "equal balance". More generally, your suggestion is covered in WP:NPOV. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In many cases, significant views means sources that have enough expertise to speak on the topic authoritatively. I'll give you an example. There's a push to add the EU to the Superpower article based on the remarks of one politician. This politician has no background in history or international affairs and was just engaged in boosterism. This is not a significant view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely that true "radical/fringe" views need not be addressed any differently than they currently are. My concern is when they are not true "radical/fringe" views, yet they are treated as such, which is unfortunately often the case. Please check out what is currently going on in the article on Circumcision. You will see that there is a very significant minority view there which is pro-circumcision, which is treated there as if it were a fringe/minority, and I attribute this to poorly worded Wikipedia Policy. Why not fix the policy? Scott P. (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Help request on Indian article
NielN, an editor asked me for help [14] on Dinesh Vaghela. There are copyright issues with the text as it stands but I can rewrite it while I am chopping out all of the dead wood. The issue I have is I am not sure the subject passes notability. I have no clue about Indian politics and what constitutes significant coverage. He seems to only be a candidate and party official but his name pops up, mostly in passing mention, a lot. If you would take a look and give me your opinion I would appreciate it. I would hate to AfD this editors work when they come asking for help if there is a chance for a short article or a even a stub but my initial assessment is the subject is not notable. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbhunley: He doesn't meet WP:NPOL so we're left with WP:GNG. He's quoted somewhat often in passing but I couldn't find any significant coverage of his life. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Pinging Sitush for a third opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Jbh (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find anything substantive. The AAP National Executive is quite large but he is not one of the big names. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: Thank you for looking into it for me. I asked the author of the article if they had any other material and earlier let them know an AfD might be in the offing. I will wait a couple of days to see what they can come up with then AfD it. Jbh (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for suggestion. And how do I file an administrative conduct-complaint regarding egregious violations of wikipedia policies by another editor?
Hi--
Alright, instead of my announcement that the formulas are of unknown origin, I'll use templates. ...I'll have to find out how to use them. Can you suggest where I should look for that information?
Clem Rutter has just deleted the templates that were already there, to give some warning information about the unsourced formulas.
First he reverted my deletion, when I deleted his unsourced false statements, and unsourced formulaa. And today he deleted the templates that were there to warn readers about his unsourced formulas of unknown origin.
I've tried discussing these matters with Clem, and offered him various compromise proposals, all of which he rejected or ignored.
He refused mediation when I requested administrative mediation.
Now, with today's revert by Clem, he's shown that this is a conduct issue, and not just a content issue. Clem knows the wikipedia policies, and is violating them knowingly, intentionally, blatantly and egregiously.
What's the best way to file an administrative complaint about an editor's conduct?
I appreciate any help you can give in this matter.
Thank you, --MichaelOssipoff (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]
Hi MichaelOssipoff. For sourcing issue templates look here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles What I would do is add {{cn}} tags to the statements that you feel need sources. Give it a week and if sources are not found, remove the material. If the other editor reverts back in unsourced material without discussing, then warn them (I'll keep an eye out too) and go to WP:ANI if the behavior persists. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information and suggestions. And thanks also for putting up the lack-of-citation template for the Reclining-Declining article section, and the Original-Research tag on the formulas.
Clem reverted you almost right away, restoring the article to a much earlier form, in which none of the problems had been fixed.
He said he was doing that because he was restoring a "stable" version. ...as if "stable" means "early". But, as is surely typical, the early version is also more faulty, and that makes it less stable, not more.
I restored the version with the warning-template and tag.
If Clem plays revert-war, restoring his version, the one without the warning template and tag, and with the earlier un-sourced and false statement that Mayall & Mayall were incorrect, then that won't be his first revert that restores that deleted and un-sourced text. Because he's been perpetrating that conduct for some time, repeatedly reverting that section in that way, maybe I should go right to WP:ANI if he does it one more time.
My understanding was that it is not permitted to restore deleted un-sourced material.
I'll take your advice, and add a "citation needed" tag to the first formula, and then wait a week.
The un-sourced controversial claim about Mayall & Mayall is particularly egregious.
Because Mayall & Mayall are a respected classic authoritative source, any claim that their formulas are wrong surely especially needs citation.
I checked out the Mayall & Mayall formulas that that article section had in its note (b). Not only were Mayall & Mayall's formulas correct for horizontal dials, but they gave the right answer for an example with arbitrarily-chosen latitude, recline, decline-direction, and time-of-day. ...the right answer right down to the last decimal place on the calculator.
...when a few copying errors, and incorrect variable-definitions in note(b) were corrected.
...and, given that original section-author's copying-errors with Mayall & Mayall, how likely is it that he correctly copied the more complicated, longer and more numerous formulas that that article section represents as correct?
Clem's version also says that not till the last decade was there agreement on how to mark a Reclining-Declining dial. Mayall & Mayall go back to the '30s, and Reclining-Declining dials have been made for centuries. Of course Clem gives no citation for that statement either.
Anyway, you've been tremendously helpful, by putting up the template and tag, and also with the information and suggestions.
By the way, I don't know if Clem still has those references in the article, but his Ref #42 and Ref #43, purported to support his Mayall-statement and his formulas, actually did neither, upon examination. If Clem still has the brazen gall to call those "supporting-references", he should know better by now.
Clem is a longtime wikipedia editor who knows wikipedia's rules, policies, principles and guidelines, and his brazen, repeated,large-magnitude violations of them can only be intentional, and done knowingly.
--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]
What happens?
You have something against the reggaeton ? Please do not keep eliminating the information pages related to Don Omar or Nicky Jam, you are not the owner of Wikipedia. Are you a racist ? and do not agree with Latino singers color? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepelugo (talk • contribs) 00:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pepelugo: I removed two copyrighted photos you uploaded to Commons and added to Don Omar. Please be more careful when uploading photos taken from the web. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Summary Description English: MIAMI, FL - APRIL 25: Don Omar performs at Billboard Latin Music Awards 2013 at Bank United Center on April 25, 2013 in Miami, Florida. Rodrigo Varela/Getty Images/AFP. Date 25 April 2015 Source https://www.flickr.com/photos/diariocriticove/8683216097 Author Diariocritico de Venezuela Licensing[edit] Checked copyright icon.svg This image was originally posted to Flickr by Diario Critico Venezuela at http://flickr.com/photos/89374726@N02/8683216097. It was reviewed on 26 April 2015 by the FlickreviewR robot and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0. w:en:Creative Commons attribution This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. You are free: to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work to remix – to adapt the work Under the following conditions: attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepelugo (talk • contribs) 00:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pepelugo: "Rodrigo Varela/Getty Images/AFP" and the EXIF info (Source - GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA Copyright Notice - AFP ImageForum) indicates Getty holds the copyright. The owner of the Flickr account has no right to change the license terms. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is very unfair. Injustice for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepelugo (talk • contribs) 01:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
can you please stop undo me.
i said that is IN THE TORAH and the torah said that why does i need secondary source when i said it is in the torah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.175.204 (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, WP:PRIMARY: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok but i didnt said this is true i said according to the torah i didnt said this is true i merely said the torah said that and i even gave verses from the torah itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.175.204 (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Torah is not written in English and you are interpreting what the text is saying. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the torah has many translations to many languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadsadsdaA (talk • contribs) 15:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SadsadsdaA: Please stop evading your block. Again, the Torah like most religious books, is filled with symbolism, metaphors and passages that can have different interpretations. We need a secondary source to interpret the meaning of a passage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i already gave you the interpretations of that verses and you still undo me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egtfsdsad (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is your third account today you're using to make changes that should probably be discussed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please fix...
Hey Neil, this is still a redlink, could you please fix? Thanks... Zad68 14:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Zad68: Ha. One article creation to my name which is a big strike and not my thing. I like doing gnome work, checking edits, and helping other editors with content and policy/guideline issues. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard you say that before, I don't think for you it'll be a serious problem. If you have other reasons against, up to and including "I don't wanna," that's OK but consider putting some appropriate icon up on your User page. If that one thing really is the only thing you're concerned about, please reconsider, seriously. Zad68 14:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Zad68: Let me think about it and get back to you next week? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, no problem. And as you know I'm not the only one who's knocked on your door wondering when you're going downstairs to the "custodial lounge" to pick up your key. If you have other concerns, my email is enabled. Zad68 14:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Walker (politician)
NeilN, An editor (PrairieKid) has made massive changes to this article. Multiple editors have objected to the edits. I'm proposing that the edits be rolled back (to the last edit by Eeyoresdream on April 26) until consensus has been obtained. It appears that you have rollback privileges. Can you please take a look? Thanks very much.CFredkin (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Care for a short period of semi?
Happy to do it if you'd like. Zad68 16:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zad68, probably a couple hours? I'm headed out anyways. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done for 6 hours... feel free to stop by for your own key at any time... :) Zad68 16:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About Undead and Ezekiel
Thanks, and see Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Undead_and_Ezekiel. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kent Hovind opening article deletion
I recently have been posting an introduction paragraph for the Kent Hovind article and it seems to be taken down no matter how reliable my post is. I provide a reliable recource/cite (something that the original article lacks), I provide what others think of Kent Hovind, and I use an unbiased stance. The article also only uses vast amounts of criticism towards Kent Hovind, this is in violation to Wikipedia's policies and guidlines neutral point of view policy. Along with this, most the Wikipedians in the talk page of the article say to remove all the false information that is provided in the article as well as the personal bias. Kent Hovind himself has also requested that this article should be corrected and/or deleted for correction. Here are the links: 1. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caJLCZ66WVw> 2. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32UhmNMaoI> Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jacob A. Henderson, have you not read one word of what people have told you on the talk page? And no, Hovind doesn't get to turn a Wikipedia article into his personal promotion platform. He can do that through his own websites. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN The thing is, about half the comments towards me are from you. Okay so you say that I am saying that him providing scripture is not scientific evidence and I do agree, because I never said such a thing, I said that he uses science to back up his claims that are from the bible. If you were to look at his videos he uses science along with cites to support his claims. Also me provivding a cite is much more reliable than was is already existing. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jacob A. Henderson, no mainstream scientist is going to say Hovind uses science to support his claims. That's what we need - a mainstream scientist working in the field or a scientific organization saying Hovind uses science. Not Hovind's self-serving claims. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN I never said Kent Hovind said that he claims that he uses science I said that he mostly uses science in his videos. I also never said that a mainstream scientist would say that Kent Hovind uses science to back up his claims, if you just look at ANY of his videos you will see that he uses scientific laws and facts to back up his claims. What I said was that he provides the facts that disprove "mainstream" theories of evolution, cosmology, and geology. I can them "mainstream" because they are widely accepted in those fields but are not really backed up by much evidence, if not any evidence. Can you please repost my edit, I don't see what the big deal is. I didn't break any wiki rules and my post is up to code. Even if my post somehow wasn't "up to code", it would still be better than the previous paragraph.
Also as I said earlier I will say again; almost all of the talk page says this the Kent Hovind article is not neutral. Either correct it or delete it. Again, Kent Hovind himself wants this article deleted or corrected. 1. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caJLCZ66WVw> 2. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32UhmNMaoI> By this article maintaining its current flaws, it is violating the Wiki guidelines and policies on neutrality. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jacob A. Henderson, you're repeating and contradicting yourself. The only ones complaining about the article are Hovind acolytes. The current lead is fine, free of your attempts to confuse readers, and we don't care what Kent Hovind himself wants. You don't seem to understand his opinion and your analysis of his videos doesn't matter to Wikipedia editors. Only what independent experts in the field say matters. You might as well stop posting here as you'll not get what you want from me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Robert L. Gordon IV
I've been working on this for a few days and while there are a lot of things that need to be cleaned up, I took an initial crack at this after seeing an article on him. As with most articles, I scrounged everything together in one place and meant to clean it as I sourced it up.

[1] ttp://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2015/02/03/ark-park-officials-sue-tax-incentives/22800003/

[1]