User talk:Neil Brown

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Grsz ^talk 02:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T remove POV} and BIAS Flags until the conditions are resolved. It takes two to edit war - so stop it. --Neil Brown (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say that Peck mentioned chickens, so stop adding that. Also, you're pushing 3RR. Grsz ^talk 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims he was relating Pecks opinion. Obviously chickes were part of what Wright said so stop removing that. --Neil Brown (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you think, you can't try to validate or disprove a quote with no source, otherwise, it's original research. Also you've broken WP:3RR and should stop or face action. Grsz ^talk 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, where is your source that Cook is a preacher? Grsz ^talk 00:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long are you going to keep ignoring the Georgetown Law link I have provided and you have deleted numerous times? Please pay attention.

http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/cooka/

--Neil Brown (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that isn't the one you had been adding. Stop your POV edit-warring, you've been reported for doing so. Grsz ^talk 00:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullsh!t. I've added it several times. You'v e deletd it several times. --Neil Brown (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is what you added, which is a different biography that doesn't say he's a Baptist minister. Grsz ^talk 01:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. seicer | talk | contribs 01:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just what are you claiming I did to earn a blocking beside try to remove POV and bias from an article? --Neil Brown (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring for starters. Surely you know how to resolve disputes better than taking it to pointless edit warring. seicer | talk | contribs 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It takes 2 to edit war. And while my fight was to remove POV Graz' fight was to maintain it. I expect you've blocked Graz as well if that is your criterion. If not, why not? --Neil Brown (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was undoing your unexplained removal of content, your additions of POV that lacked sources, etc...and it didn't violated a policy. Grsz ^talk 01:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grsz11 has also been blocked (by Seicer). Coppertwig (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added yo POV. I removed your POV. You instead removed my sources then whined to Admin. That is hardly the Clean up of the article that was needed. It remains one of the most replete with bias and POV in all of Wikipedia. I now know it is your aim to keep it as foul as it is. --Neil Brown (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's really my agenda. seicer | talk | contribs 03:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your admission. Again it takes 2 to edit war, what was your motive for blocking only one of the two and at that blocking the one who was removing POV and bias from the article? --Neil Brown (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama

Regarding your edit to Auschwitz, it isn't appropriate to mention Barack Obama because not only is he not notable enough in regards to the given article, the camp was liberated by the Russians, so regardless of which American Brigade he was in, Barack Obama's father had absolutely nothing to do with the liberation of Auschwitz. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was liberated by Russians is precisely why Obama's claim is noteworthy. It follows a long line of Obama's gaffes during his campaign in the "57 states." --Neil Brown (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

I've posted a question about your edit to the talk page. Please respond there. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007#Gas prices. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer

I've added you as a reviewer, allowing you to confirm edits made to review-protected articles. We're giving it out as liberally as possible, and it appears to me that you have put the difficulties of 2008 behind you. On an unrelated note, I've never run across the etymology of "seaboard", except that it obviously areas relates to the coastal areas bordering the sea. It does seem to be most widely used for the areas you've described, and the name of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad is an obvious product. Thanks for adding that article. Acroterion _(talk) 13:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of Obama first family vacations

I have nominated List of Obama first family vacations, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Obama first family vacations. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mid-Atlantic seaboard for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mid-Atlantic seaboard is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mid-Atlantic seaboard until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Prisencolin (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wayne Perryman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wayne Perryman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Perryman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]