If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and 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

Archives

Archive 1: Aug 2005 - Oct 2007 Archive 2: Nov 2007 - Jan 2008 Archive 3: Feb 2008 - Mar 2008 Archive 4: Apr 2008 - Jun 2008 Archive 5: Jun 2008 - Oct 2009 Archive 6: Nov 2009 - Dec 2009 Archive 7: Jan 2010 - Mar 2010 Archive 8: Apr 2010 - Mar 2011 Archive 9: Apr 2011 - Apr 2012 Archive 10: May 2012 - June 2012 Archive 11: Jul 2012 - Jan 2013 Archive 12: May 2013 - Jul 2013 Archive 13: Aug 2013 - Sep 2013 Archive 14: Oct 2013

See reply in Bernhard Goetz TALK section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.212.230 (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Since Wukai appears to be intent on blocking my edits to John Kline (politician) and not participating constructively on Talk:John Kline (politician), I was wondering if you might engage as a neutral 3rd party. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You`ll have to excuse me as I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I am looking to create an entry for myself. I am a radio broadcaster. I was using the sandbox to develop the entry, yet you`ve deleted it. Is this not the purpose of the sandbox CashConners (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) CashConners, please read the message I already left at your talk page. You have misused your user page, because it is only meant for basic information about you and your Wikipedia-related activities. It is not an encyclopedia article, which is what it appears you are trying to write.

Anyway, you should not be writing about yourself - Wikipedia has a clear guideline against users writing autobiographies. If what you have done in your life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to the policy for articles about living people, someone else will eventually create an article about you. You are not the best judge of your own notability.

If you really think that you can meet the inclusion criteria and are willing to accept having a neutral, non-promotional article, make a proposal at Articles for creation containing the text you want and seek the consensus of the community through discussion. --Drm310 (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@CashConners - Drm310 has given you excellent advice regarding using the Articles for creation process. Be aware that you'll be expected to provide independent sources establishing your notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, all I did was summarize the definition stated at length later in the article. Starting off the article with its origins and prior movements is stylistically okay, but is confusing to the reader if the very term itself is not at all understood. A very brief definition orients the reader and later a much more elaborate definition with expert quotes is provided already in several paragraphs. I think you'll agree that the one sentence definition is accurate (to the subsequent definition) and helps the reader make better sense of a complex topic by giving them a toe hold right up front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.137.51 (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil,

you may aware that drawing "images of Muhammad PBUH" are forbidden in Islam, there for i kindly request to remove them, and i believe the subject image is not necessary for Islamic Calender article.

thanks and regards

frequent visitor of wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.74.62.182 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but while the images may be forbidden by Islam (and there is some debate about that), Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia so the images will not be removed for religious reasons. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images has more information on this as does Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do about the IP messing around on Talk:Johnny Depp? George8211^{what did I break now?} 10:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeilN,

I appreciate your feedback on my revisions additions to the article on homesickness. I wish you had suggested edits on my Talk page, rather than executing a wholesale deletion of several days of work. It's my understanding that such disruptive editing is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. That said, you clearly have more Wikipedia editing years under your belt than I do. I'm sure you can help me answer the questions below.

Regarding several of the images I posted: As a clinical psychologist and academic, I adhere to the highest standards of ethical practice. Therefore, I secure minor model releases from all subjects I photograph. Although I indicated, during the photo upload process, that I had permission for these images, they have been removed. You can learn more about minor model releases from a copyright and trademark attorney, from a professional photographer or from a university IRB (internal review board). Naturally, I wonder whether the person who uploaded the camp photo (still posted) has minor model releases for the minors depicted in that photo.

Regarding the copyrighted image of the DVD-CD set I posted: Although it is copyrighted by the ACA, it is my own design and, as indicated during the photo upload process, I have permission to reproduce it. The posting of "The Secret Ingredients of Summer Camp Success" may seem self-referential, but it illustrates the only empirically validated homesickness prevention program for children. If the choice to remove it was based on commercial concerns or the appearance of a conflict of interest, I understand that and I appreciate your adherence to those guidelines. However, if it was based on concerns about the copyright, I can allay those concerns.

Regarding the removal of several bullet point lists of suggestions for coping with homesickness in different populations, I'm unclear why you felt this was helpful editing. I have published versions of these clinical guidelines in peer-reviewed academic journals. According to Wikipedia guidelines, this is an appropriate re-purposing of directly relevant content by the author. It appears that your objection may have been, in part, the fact that I cited my own published work (done in collaboration with Dr. Edward Walton). To date, no other researchers have published clinical guidelines, but I would welcome their contributions to this article. I have, as you can see, referenced many other researchers in my revisions.

In sum, I'm happy to engage in a polite, scholarly conversation about revisions. I look forward to your replies. In the future, I would rather bring questions to Talk pages rather than summarily redacting entire sections of text. Thank you for your consideration.

Christopher Thurber (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this deals with article content issues, and I raised my points on the article's talk page, I will be copying the above to Talk:Homesickness and replying there so that other interested editors can participate if they want. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I PUT THE REF IN AFTER I FOUND IT MINUTES LATER, I WAS JUST ADDING IT. :) VC 14:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcorani (talk • contribs)

Sigh... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons to Venus or any other planet are irrelevant to this section, and is an odd way to introduction this section. My version is more straightforward and written for a larger audience.

But it seems that, since there is not an introductory statement for the "Differences" section, there probably shouldn't be one for the "Similarities" section. But comparisons to Venus are completely irrelevant, anywhere on the wiki page. As far as "bulk composition," that would be a similarity, so might be included as a bullet point. In fact, the simple fact that Mars has a hard surface is an obvious prerequisite for going to Mars, and I'm surprised this point isn't included in the "Similarities" section as a bullet point.
WikiEditor2563 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, NeilN, for clarifying: (1) that photos should not be used for beautification purposes, but rather for explanatory purposes (2) that articles should not contain advice or how-to content

I'll reflect on how best to conclude this piece.

Christopher Thurber (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor put it in the article but didn't properly add a date tag or place it with the main table, I moved it further down and added said date tag in. – Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nohomers48 Thanks for the clarification. I will ask the IP why they added it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is JFK. The link I was posting was to photographs of high school students in a small Midwestern town watching the assassination news on a TV that had been pulled into the school gym. It was taken by a high school kid (me) who rushed the photo to the local paper in time to make an EXTRA edition. I think it adds a dimension to the JFK story because it shows the impact of the shooting on a generation that had just lost its innocence. It is relevant enough to the topic that it has been requested by national media for their upcoming specials.

In other news: I received a message "Your recent editing history at John F. Kennedy‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war." It must be a unilateral war because I keet getting a message from Wikipedia that you are having server problems and to try again in a few minutes. THAT'S why there have been multiple submissions.

I AM a relatively new user, although I have successfully added links to other topic in the past.

So, if war has been declared, I surrender unconditionally. Post the link or don't post the link. I don't care at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksteinhoff (talk • contribs) 17:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ksteinhoff, if you look at the history of the article here, you'll see your edits to add the link were successful but each one was reverted by different editors. We very rarely add links to blog articles, especially on subjects as well-covered as JFK, as that would result in a mess of links as everyone would add links to their own posts and photographs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You edited my reference to Mark May stating that the announcer had a preference to the SEC and had negative viewpoints on the Big Ten. While I welcome criticism of the paragraph I added to his Broadcasting career I would prefer that rather than removing the addition I believe you should feel free to write it with less of a personal opinion to the statement. Mark May has admitted, and been called out on on broadcast television, his preference for the SEC conference and disdain and lack of respect for the Big Ten. Please let me know how to proceed before I re-edit his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redjet04 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redjet04, you need to cite multiple reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) that say that about the subject. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and re-type everything for me more appropriately to the Wiki standard. You can reference multiple mentions on ABC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redjet04 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redjet04, no, sorry. Find proper references and I'll have a look, If I think it's worth putting in after you provide references then I'll help you come up with appropriate text. If it's just a casual mention, and you still want to add the text, you'll have to do it on your own. Reading Wikipedia:NPOV#Impartial_tone might help. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked before for personal attacks and harassment. I suggest you remember that before handing out edit warring warnings for one revert that removed your controversial language and unsourced addition. [1] --NeilN talk to me 08:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Neil: There was at one time a controversy as to whether Napster constituted file "sharing" or file "copying." That was settled by the Courts, including the United States Supreme Court, which determined it was an infringement of copyright, i.e., it's illegal copying.

From an accuracy standpoint, it's wrong to call it "file sharing" because you can't "share" something you don't own.

My experience in the kinetic world has been that people who stole copyrighted music using Napster are very ideological and arrogant and highly sensitive to calling it "copying," even though that what it is: Mr. A has a copy of a song on his computer, and he allows Ms. B to copy it. A didn't "share" because he still has his copy. By increasing the number of copies by one, A and B copied.

So let me pose the same question to you which I posed to your predecessor/censor who first deleted my Napster edits. Among other things, I am a writer of copyrighted works, and I also represent composers and filmmakers who have been the victims of file-stealing. So I'd like to know: Are you a copyright thief? Did you steal music using Napster? Have you done so using Grokster or Bittorrent, etc? I knew it. You have.

Don't you have a conflict of interest when you engage in an edit war, insisting that stealing is actually "sharing" and making threats against somebody who challenges your dogma?

As concerns your ad hominem attack on me for my past suspension, I have been a Wikipedian almost from the start, but I have a career, and I write professionally, so I don't have the time to devote to acquiring "Barnstars" and all the other attributes that allow certain individuals to climb the ladder and thereby attain the mojo to "win" an edit war. Perhaps I shall in the future, when I retire. ArdenHathaway 21:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs)

@ArdenHathaway And this is exactly the same behavior that got you blocked. As I told you on Bbb23's talk page, the answer is irrelevant. Actually, you're the one who has a COI and has been making unsourced additions [1]. You'll note my one and only revert was that one so please don't come here with accusations and assumptions. I see you were reverted yet again by another editor so I suggest you use the article's talk page to make your case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ArdenHathaway Also, it seems to me you are attempting to convert an encyclopedic article concerning Napster into an editorial on the topic of file sharing services (or whatever you would prefer to call them). As a journalist, as well as one who "represent[s] composers and filmmakers who have been the victims of file-stealing," this may be understandable, but it is still contrary to Wikipedia's principles and policies. See WP:What Wikipedia is not, among others. There are other forums for you to use to advance your distaste for and frustration with file sharing services. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neil: I was in the middle of adding more sources to my discussion about LaMacchia and the NET Act (in addition to the ones already there) when you deleted. On the topic of "think first," let's revisit that cache of illegally downloaded songs, etc., on YOUR computer. Do you have some personal animus toward any intelligent discussion of the interaction between the DMCA and the NET Act? ArdenHathaway 14:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs)

ArdenHathaway, there were zero usable sources in what you added. You need to read WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY again - Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Legal ruling are primary sources. Finally, any sources must explicitly refer to Napster to avoid synthesis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeilN

I saw your message about my edit on Rodney Lough Jr.. It was about his gallery in San Francisco. I understand you want to see a media or a source. But in this case there is no information about it in media. I personally saw it and thus reported it.

I understand you want to protect the information from wrong people making edits but in this case, I updated what I saw first hand.

BTW - I also reported on Yelp and it has been accepted by them and it shows the Gallery as closed. I am a big fan of Rodney Jr and was sad that it has been closed.

Also now there is no mention of the San Fran gallery on Rodney's website.

I think as a matter of fact and truth, it should be updated that the Gallery in San Fran has been close as of Nov 2013. This will give complete picture to readers, specially that the gallery was opened in 2011 and now it is closed after 2 years...

Pls let me know if you want to see a photo of the closed gallery.

Thanks Ramil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramils1 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramils1, Yelp is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. There was no local coverage of the closure? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN Hi Neil... Thanks for your response. Yes It is really surprising that there is no local coverage of the closure. If you search on google, the only result abt closure is on Yelp. Nowhere else. It is like a secret. All I can say It is Personal and Firsthand information. Maybe the gallery organizer wants to keep it secret but all I wanted to add in the page is that the gallery is closed. And trust me I am a big fan of Rodney and thus sad that it is closed. I went to San Fran and one of the Main item was to see the Gallery again. I was just sad to see that it was closed. To avoid disappointment to other people, I requested Yelp to update the status. Rest is your decision. I just want to keep contribute to Wiki to be the source of truth even if there is no other source. Thanks Thanks

You say: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Repeatedly adding content when other editors have removed it counts as a revert. And I saw two editors removing your addition. --NeilN talk to me 04:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)"

So if I add something to an article, why do you call another editor's reverting a "removing" instead of a reverting? Is I add content, and someone else reverts it, why would I be called an edit-warrior instead of the person who began the reverting process? Now if I repost my addition to make a total of 3 times, & the "remover" does 4 reverts to remove what I posted, who would be the warrior & rule violator? Now what if someone has a team of buddies and they do the 4 reverts across their team? (EnochBethany (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

hello NeilN, I appreciate your promptness. The changes made by me to the Pune wiki page was not to add a link or promotion, it is just a correction. Please let me explain. Pune wiki page displays .... "The Vineyard is a popular place of Christian worship in Dapodi, a village near Pune." where in "The Vineyard" shows link to this wiki page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Vineyard_Churches", which in effect is not true. The Christian worship place "Dapodi" mentioned in the wiki relates to this place of worship "http://www.petersilway.com". As i stay in Pune and very much in Dapodi, i know the details. hence the correction. Would appreciate if you could allow this change as otherwise it would be misguiding and misleading... thank you JesusLives4U (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesusLives4U (talk • contribs)

@JesusLives4U I have corrected the name of the church (an external link is not appropriate). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khucc_-_The_Brave_Dragon was reviewed by you. This is not an advertisement. It is the genuine work of a 7 year old kid who needs to be encouraged. Records are showing that he is possibly the youngest kid who has written and illustrated his own book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijoyvijoy (talk • contribs) 08:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Vijoyvijoy It is unsourced spam for a self-published book. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neil n'?

The content that was added to wiki is NOT unsourced content. please feel free to browse through the references given below. I am hereby contesting your comment that it is an advertisement. The book is published with a valid ISBN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ISBN_of_KHUCC_-_The_Brave_Dragon.png http://www.blurb.com/b/4749661-khucc-the-brave-dragon http://www.flipsnack.com/ABB8D997C6F/fdk3gi5m — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijoyvijoy (talk • contribs) 08:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Vijoyvijoy Claims made on sites designed to sell a self-published book are not acceptable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neil, are self published books information not permitted to be on wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijoyvijoy (talk • contribs) 08:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Child prodigy Section.

A 7 year old child whose photograph is provided. His school information is provided. The book ISBN information is provided. Scanned pages of his book is provided. Online Publication oh his book is provided. He is a child prodigy. How much more proof do you want and what kind of proof would that be???

@Vijoyvijoy Please read Wikipedia:Notability_(books) to see what makes a book notable. And any four-year old can write, illustrate, and self publish a book. This does not mean they are a "child prodigy". If the child is featured in major literary magazines and articles and called a child prodigy, then we can consider it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neil your claim of a 4 year old child writing illustrating and publishing a book is unacceptable without a solid claim. I have a claim which is available on the internet at the verified sources. Even if you as a person decide that Josh Vijoy is NOT a child prodigy, until it appears so in a magazine, which will happen maybe later, if the line child prodigy is removed from the page, can Khucc The Brave Dragon (BOOK)'s details still be online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijoyvijoy (talk • contribs) 10:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Vijoy has published a book. He is just 7 years old. It has to be placed online for the media to decide if he is a child prodigy or not. To show he has published a book, I can send the ISBN issued by BOWKER, INC. To show his age, I can show the Birth Certificate. What other proof do you require to show the details about the book online in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijoyvijoy (talk • contribs) 10:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Vijoyvijoy You're not listening. It does not matter to Wikipedia that your son/nephew/whatever has self-published a book. He could be 4 or 40 or 90. What matters is if the book meets our notability guidelines. It does not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dawkins is a New Atheist. Not a atheist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.215.70 (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources he identifies as a New Atheist and discuss on talk page: Talk:Richard_Dawkins#Atheist_vs._New_atheist_reverts. You've already broken WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching out to you on your talk page. Before you revert it again today, please give your reason(s). 172.250.31.151 (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In almost every Wikipedia article, the article title is repeated in the opening sentence and denoted in bold. There's no reason to make an exception here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As they say "almost isn't enough". The talk page discussion about the page title will be reopened for another review -- at some point. By repeating the term "Millennials" in the lede -- it sounds clumsy. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove "Millennial Generation" from the lede I wouldn't object. That would obviate the supposed clumsiness, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Millennials shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Two reverts trying to apply WP:MOS to your three. Please learn how to count. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I removed the revert warning on my page because if you total it up -- your revert is actually the fourth -- which breaks the rule. Check it out on the Millennials history page.172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR carefully. It refers to individual editors. You have three reverts [2], [3], [4]. I have two: [5], [6]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have only two (2) revert edits there, -- three total-- but only if you want to get technical (about changing the order of the words -- but I don't think that counts). But this brings up another point -- your style is really not in-sync with Wikipedia's goal of collaboration. You tend to jump to conclusions and then try to teach people lessons about the "rules". Maybe try a different, more collaborative approach. I think you can help newbies but when it gets into "your way or the highway" then it's truly counter productive and puts a negative vibe out here. Trying to get people kicked off the site isn't what Wikipedia wants -- read the annual report about losing editors.

Even if a new editor reduces the time they spend because of your style issues then you've actually done damage. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, changing the order of the words "counts" as you are repeatedly putting the phrase you want at the start of the article. And it's not "my way", it's Wikipedia's way. As you are edit-warring to go against WP:MOS perhaps it is you who should be taking a more collaborative approach and discussing on the article's talk page why you want to make an exceptions to the guidelines and waiting for feedback before repeatedly making your change. Finally, Wikipedia does not want editors who constantly do their own thing. It wants editors who can learn and follow the policies and guidelines set out by the community or if they disagree with them, work to change them on policy and guideline pages. Newbies aren't expected to know something like WP:MOS but once pointed out, hopefully they will adjust their edits accordingly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion about the third edit -- I don't agree that changing the order of the words is the same edit. Anyway, the rule is "more than three times" --- not three total times. Based on the numerous arguments you get into (above) with other editors I don't think you understand what Wikipedia's long term goals are. Just curious -- have you ever read the Wikipedia annual report? You are not supposed to try to get NEW editors tossed off the site. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That rather depends on whether the new editors are contributing constructively, doesn't it? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q.E.D. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay Q.E.D., thanks for the description.172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your past posts on your talk page and WP:ANI I didn't expect you would agree. However you can't claim ignorance if you show up at WP:3RRNB where, I assure you, all three of your edits will be seen as the same edit. Basically, if you're making edits that have the same or similar results, that's counted towards edit warring. Example, one editor making these edits: 1) Oswald did not act alone. 2) Oswald was involved in a conspiracy. 3) Owsald did not act on his own. would have three edits counting towards WP:3RR. Taking a look at my talk page, let's discuss the last two sections above yours. One was an editor trying to promote a self-published book by his son/nephew and one was an editor repeatedly trying to insert an unsourced fact in a WP:BLP. Wikipedia does not want these types of editors. Finally, yes, I've read the annual report. You should know that it's written by the WMF (the organization that owns Wikipedia) and that its goals are not always the English Wikipedia's goals. There have been times where one has basically told the other to "take a hike". Later addition: I placed a 3RR warning on your talk page because it's designed to stop you at 3RR. If you get to 4RR then you usually wind up at WP:3RRNB --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this is a great example. My two (you argue three) edits still don't meet the rule. This is exactly what I'm talking about --- you seem to relish the idea of getting editors "in trouble" because "you just want editors to follow the rules". I don't think you're as productive as you believe -- as you're still pushing this discussion about a fake edit war. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All three of your edits were designed to make the first sentence start with "The Millennial Generation..." Pretty simple case really. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't listen. It's not a "case". I'm requesting that you stop contacting my on my talk page unless you have a viable, accurate reason. Thank you for your cooperation.172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. If I have any more issues with your editing I will contact the appropriate administrator noticeboard or an administrator. Please note that I am required to inform you if I report you on a noticeboard. Hopefully you'll stop edit warring so it won't come to that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to contact me if you have a real "case". But I'm sure your case load is huge".172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me. I did get your message. I do understand your concerns. First and foremost, I'm not hiding anything. I stated very clearly, from the beginning, that I serve as Communications Director for Senator Bob Huff, who is the Senate Republican Leader. Somehow, this connection has been made out to be a "bad thing." Nothing could be further from the truth. I reached out to Wikipedia editors yesterday when I discovered that someone had made a complete revision to the Senator's Wikipedia page over the weekend, and the changes were not only incorrect, they were libelous. I wish you, as an editor, had intervened then as you've intervened now. We wouldn't be having this problem, now would we? Instead, nothing was done.

Posting up a Senator's ranking on Planned Parenthood, as was done for example, is as personal of an attack as they come. Like it or not, this is politics. Planned Parenthood doesn't support Republicans. They never have. They have a generally low view of the Republican Party because the party does not share the organization's political viewpoints. This isn't bad or good -- it simply is what it is -- politics. Someone with a clear agenda against Senator Huff made these changes. If you are truly striving to keep Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia, I would hope these things would be caught and prevented. In this case, it wasn't. This wasn't the only agenda-driven item that magically appeared following weekend revisions. There were others. This is just the example I am providing to you.

Some changes have been made on the Senator's page that I do not agree with. However, rather than remove those changes that I find offensive, I'm going to do as you request, and put these changes on a talk page. However, I find that when I do this? These suggestions get routinely ignored. It makes a tad upset because it makes the Senator a tad upset. Since I do work for this person, and the way he is portrayed in public is important to him, I do my best to make him happy. I would hope that you would understand this. Having a close relationship with Senator Huff should not be treated as a "bad thing." As an employee of the California State Senate, I am bound by rules of ethics that govern the Senate. I don't take these rules lightly. Those who do don't last very long in this line of work. One of the first rules of ethics that govern the Senate is that we don't say anything untruthful about the Senator and that we refrain from personal attacks against others. --Billbird2111 (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Billbird2111 Let me address your points one by one. First you claim this version of the article was libelous. Can you please point out the statements that the Senator could have gone to court over? There are some unsourced statements but which ones are maliciously false?

Adding a Senator's ranking on Planned Parenthood is not a personal attack. It is a factual statement like rankings by the NRA, Taxpayers Associations, Industry Associations, etc. We do not only post rankings by groups amenable to a politician's positions.

When you edit on Wikipedia, you should not be doing your best to make the Senator "happy". I cannot stress this enough. That is the very definition of WP:COI editing. Making the Senator happy would entail having his biography showing him in the best light possible, downplaying any criticisms and controversies. This is not the neutral editing we strive for and if making the Senator happy is why you're editing, then you should definitely stay away from touching the article.

Lastly, I do not doubt your truthfulness. That is not the issue. You can have a biography entirely made up of truthful statements written by people working for a subject. But we generally call that a résumé or hagiography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN These latest changes aren't going to make him happy, and I have to deal with that. I don't think this is something you understand. Listing rankings from organizations that do not support Republicans or Republican policy and have clearly aligned themselves with one political point of view is not neutral, third party, editing. It's a blatant political attack. This is libelous. It is an attack. To dispute resolution we go. Billbird2111 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111Billbird2111 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Billbird2111 You obviously have no idea what libelous means. Please refrain from using that term as you have been advised on the article's talk page. And the article lists ranks from all types of organizations. We're certainly not going to cherry-pick rankings only from organizations that support the subject's views and "aligned themselves with one political point of view". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since libel has been mentioned by someone claiming to represent the subject I would like to direct @Billbird2111 to WP:NOLEGALTHREATS and request that he strike through or positively retract those claims on all pages which they occur. As other users have pointed out the senators happiness is not of concern here. If you have specific issues that you wish to address ask on Talk:Bob Huff. If it meets guidelines someone will make the edit. If no one responds at all leave a message on my talk page and I will take a look for you. I would strongly recomend that you not directly edit the page or any page you have a paid COI in. If you have a serious problem that you feel must be addressed you can place a request with OTRS. Jbhunley (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_mechanic one of my revisions has been removed by you with the reasoning that "Please stop adding a link to a commercial service under the guise of a "reference" ". The addition to the page was a genuine and useful piece of information about the phenomenon of the mobile mechanic which is not mentioned anywhere on the page. No mention is made on the page about the different settings in which a mechanic can work. The article up to now has not gone into a workshop mechanic or a mobile mechanic. Commercial service or not, the AA is an established (since 1905) organisation assisting the motorist, with among others, repairs outside of the workshop. Surely an important cultural phenomenon as well as an economic one. I suggest the information should not be deleted again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpentinebelt1978 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Serpentinebelt1978 Your AA reference is a dead link. And your Click Mechanic reference (which is actually the commercial service I was referring to) was again removed by another editor (an admin this time). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im not aware I need to cite something that is fictional. I mean, where do you source the un-sourceable? Your page does state that the Oort cloud is a hypothesis but then leans towards it being unquestionable fact. You are therefore dishonest in the page content. Its fine to state that the Oort cloud is theoretical and actually fictional but you didnt state that. I also see you have many who call you out on your pages. Seems you are a little 'out there' with your ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.26.157 (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "Of course, like many unobservable and theoretical ideas, the Oort cloud remains fictional. Comets are a problem for evolutionary science that claims the Universe is billions of years old. [source needed] Comets cannot fly around the universe for that long as comets always fizzle out. [source needed] Scientists therefore have to theorise around how comets form. The Oort cloud is another theory that is unobservable, unmeasurable and therefore unrepeatable. [source needed] It is thus classified as 'Unscientific.' [source needed]" I have marked where you need sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need a source to tell you that comets can't fly around the universe for billions of years? Are you serious? You need a source to tell you science must fit observable, repeatable and measurable data? Does Father Christmas exist because people have turkey on Christmas day? OMG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.26.157 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comets flying around - yes, a source is needed. And the rest of the text is your poorly written opinion, not "science must fit observable, repeatable and measurable data". See WP:SYNTH. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you do know that "hypothesized", "fictional", and "unscientific" are not synonyms, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the images I added are worthless, what are other images must I add? Besides the image of the living person? --George Ho (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George. I did not say the images are worthless, merely irrelevant. They can be also somewhat misleading. Besides the obvious images of Goetz or the men who were shot, images of the NY subway system in the early eighties (not the cleaned up system they have now) would be useful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the picture of the bullet and the map? --George Ho (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: The picture of the map has this description: "map for 2 weeks roundtrip thru New England". How does this relate to Goetz's flight at all? The bullet pic I think is a bit gratuitous, but this is only my opinion. You may want to post on the talk page to get more feedback. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: The map has nothing at all to do with Bernhard Goetz. It was prepared for and is linked to a German WikiVoyage page.[7] The highlighted route is not relevant to Goetz's travels (and could in fact be misleading). Dwpaul ^Talk 00:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you very much for the help I really appreciate it. Tracie Hull (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Bob Huff". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure my edit from The Last Airbender wasn't vandalism. 24.176.177.113 (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it didn't have a neutral tone (far from it) which the message on your talk page indicated. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my religion(ISLAM)(ALLAH) that is doesn't allowing any any picture of our all prophets , but why you didn't give me to change only about that. I just want to say Don't be so Secular. PeacE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayourity (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mayourity, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images and WP:PBUH for relevant discussion and guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Mayourity: there is nothing, of course, to prevent you from creating your own Islam-compliant encyclopedic wiki, just as Conservapedia is a wiki compliant with a very conservative version of fundamentalist Christianity; but this, the English-language Wikipeda, will never be like that. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NeilN and Orangemike. There are ways that Wikipedia works and ways that it does not; see WP:NOT. Either follow its ways or stop editing it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You may wish to respond here David in DC (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now on its fourth noticeboard. Note to self: I really, really hate COI editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NeilN, Dear SamX, Dear Jim1138, Son stole the Computer. I am apology for him. His to evil thing. His to bad, not help. I stopped Son. Please, no ban. Son apologyed. Thank you much very greatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.253.244.192 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, before making this revert at the Mariah Carey article, I read the closure for the People WP:Reliable sources discussion for the first time (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 157#RfC: Is People magazine a reliable source for BLPs?). In addition to closing with the note that People magazine can be used as a reliable source, JethroBT stated, "there was also substantial agreement that the magazine should not be used for contentious claims." I don't see that there was "also substantial agreement that the magazine should not be used for contentious claims." Highly contentious claims? Yes. That it would be better to use a different, more reliable source if it's available in the case of a contentious claim? Yes. That it would be better to have People magazine supplemented with one or more reliable sources in the case of a contentious claim? Yes. But not used for contentious claims? As you know, People magazine is commonly used to source birth date material (as in the aforementioned Mariah Carey case), as well as family and dating material; all of that can be considered contentious. So what's to stop people from removing People magazine as a source in such cases if they are basing the removal on that WP:RfC? Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22, I think that sentence was inconsistently phrased. The full sentence is, "Both in the initial survey and its follow-up, there was also substantial agreement that the magazine should not be used for contentious claims, and editors recommended using additional or alternative sources to support such claims." The second part of the sentence modifies the first so it should really read, "Both in the initial survey and its follow-up, there was also substantial agreement that the magazine should not be used as the sole source for contentious claims, and editors recommended using additional or alternative sources to support such claims." Then there's the plainly written opening statement, "People magazine can be a reliable source in BLPs." The way I read it is to treat People as a reliable source for BLPs, including for contentious claims, but contentious and highly-contentious claims outside BLPs need additional/other sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Neil, as may be clear above, I share similar thoughts. But I'm concerned about people applying that closing statement strictly with regard to contentious claims; editors will more often disagree on what is contentious than they will on what is highly contentious (they are usually in agreement about the latter).

On a side note, I have had your talk page WP:Watchlisted for weeks now, so there is no need to ping me when replying to me on it. And of course I know that you have mine WP:Watchlisted. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NeilN, I've decided to delve into editing after many years as a user. I've noticed you as one of the most prolific and fair-minded editors and administrators in a variety of topics which indicates the sort of neutrality check I would like to do myself. If you have time would you mind taking a look at my user page and offering ay suggestions on where to start?

Neutralphrasing (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were the editor who first questioned, and then accepted external links to the Playboy Wiki in the Playmate Lists, so I wonder if you might want to weigh in here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Playboy_Wiki

Whether or not you would currently support their retention, I think your perspective would be helpful to that discussion at the RS/N. Some of the arguments there would seem to call for deleting not only Playboy Wiki links, but the long-established Playboy.com links as well. If those are not relevant to a Playmate List, I don't know what is. Wikilister (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil. Article Bikini is up for GA-status review (though it could be months before that happens, I know!) and one of the top-3 editors has dropped out of the project as a result of taking a general wikipedia leave of absence. Since you had some insightful commentary previously, I'm wondering if you would be willing to take a look at the article and provide pre-review feedback, or even make any bold edits that might be necessary? It would be greatly appreciated as I know how busy people are in general... Thanks for your time. Azx2 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Azx2. I'll have a look next week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers NeilN - thanks. Azx2 00:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that the Lester Coleman page was subject to a gag-order and that I would be subjected to threats of blacklisting for adding content. (Not to mention the fact that you reverted neutral content, supplanting a page of slander)

Discuss. Is auto-reverting fascism? Let's call The Register and discuss. Sure Footed1 (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop sock/meat puppetting for Coleman and adding false information to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not false information. I was irritated at finding such a biased article and I started editing it.

My but you are aggressive to what should have been an admonition for better sourcing, and in some places I was quite well-sourced.

I don't know the guy. Who do you think you are to make such sweeping presumptions?

I was quoting his statements, and I was quoting some news-press articles which are in the comments of the article, but obfuscated as comments. Beyond this. The man was a refugee. His judicial persecution at U.S. hands is well-documented.

What is your *problem* with writing a more neutral article? Right now, the article is biased.

Sure Footed1 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were not quite "well-sourced". And I am aggressive because for years that neutral article has been the target of editors such as yourself adding false and unsourced information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's it to *you* User:NeilN that he remain libelled? Or, who-else on Wikipedia benefits that Lester Coleman remain libelled?

Maybe this is something that The Register or The Guardian needs to take a look at, and it's pertinent news, in light of the threats being made to Guardian reporters whistleblowing in 2013 on intel activities (as was Mr. Coleman in 1989).

Sure Footed1 (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libel is a serious charge. Either prove the accusation or withdraw it. If his persecution was "well-documented" you should easily be able to find newspaper/magazines saying so, no? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libel is a serious thing, that's right, and that article is vastly misleading. But this is a guy that suffered such persecution that a government gave him (and his family) shelter (in Sweden) for five years, after which point (according to his allegations, and if you read the history, it supports his allegation) he suffered severe judicial persecution for ten years, until he left the U.S. for Cairo and Beirut.

For what it's worth, new press can be manipulated. You can get a newspaper to print just-about anything these days (highly subjective), especially when it's about an intel whistleblower. Sure Footed1 (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I thought. No reliable sources given that discuss this "persecution" and "asylum". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Coleman published a book on his persecution, and subsequent passage through the judicial asylum process in Sweden "The Trail of the Octopus" the contents of which which you can browse online), which is full of Swedish newspapers clippings about his persecution. He filed civil suits against the Government to retaliate. He didn't win, (they were dismissed) but they were dismissed on grounds of immunity, without examination of the merits. Sometimes that's the only way to get such situations to calm-down, i.e. to bring it before a judge, and whatever the outcome, the government will back down.

You must be very young, and idealistic, to believe "sight unseen", and prima facie the government's side of the affair, and "ps" such a belief is hypocritical, considering your accusations of me.

Sure Footed1 (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of persecution to satisfy User:NeilN

There's not much online anymore from the early 1990s news press, but a few bits remain, notably:

• Death fears as author of book on Lockerbie seeks asylum, Herald Scotland
• Loose ends in the PanAm bomb inquiry, Herald Scotland
• Lockerbie row. Plea to Lord Advocate fails over former US intelligence agent , Herald Scotland
• Numerous Swedish newspress clippings, in Trail of the Octopus.

As for the U.S. press, the U.S. press has labelled him a conman. But if Snowden didn't have Greenwald, Poitras, Assange, (not to mention "Latin America and Russia" batting for him, he'd be in the same bucket, I can assure you. As for me, I'll edit the article later. It clearly will involve a lot of forensics, and time to battle Wikipedia administrators like User:NeilN who are keen to defend the U.S. government's position, I'm sad to report. Sure Footed1 (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing your line of logic: Or are you willing to "take it as fact" that Santa is white, because Megan Kelly said it was true, on Fox^[1] Because she had a whole PANEL of journalists on Fox validate her claim. Discuss.

Sure Footed1 (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I see your reference to Mandela's SACP membership in the MK 1961-1962 African Tour section, but this deserves far greater prominence, having been a major point of argument and discussion for decades. For that reason, I would suggest that it be expanded into its own section, which also allows for the full latest quotes from the SACP spokespeople. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFallenCrowd (talk • contribs) 16:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, I semi-protected your talk page for one day because of the recent sock edits by the IPs. Let me know if you want me to change the duration (remove it, shorten it, lengthen it).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a response for you here. Sure Footed1 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN - I have not added any link to my Jeff Bush and sinkhole death entry, since I have provided the person and place name and type of accident and any internet user can verify the info him/herself. As to the adjective "unusual" - I have not found references to his death, stating the death was unusual, but there is talk of "an unusual sinkhole". Besides, if you regard this type of death, when one is in bed and suddenly your very private and precious bed is swallowed up by the ground as usual... strange. Have you deleted all of my entry? Would I have to write all of it again? Ivonna Nowicka

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you saw my post at FTN. I've just removed some fringe stuff at Maya peoples also, I think there may be more than the new editor and his IP editing. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: Thanks for the note. I didn't have FTN on my watchlist so that's been added now. I noticed a lot of really questionable "See also" links added to Mayan articles today so was reverting them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. felt_friend 01:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Santa Claus". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Coal in my stocking next year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the talk of the page of the article of Potential superpower it's full of people and citations declaring that Russia and Brazil can't be superpower.Russian president said Russia isn't and won't ever be a superpower.That article is totally dated.Now people all over the world heard Putin's words.Media were clear about it.151.40.107.93 (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear on what changes you want to make to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not me,many people (the clear majority) want to delete Russia and Brazil.The balance is totally moving towards a side.Just russians and someone else are defending an impossible position. We've tons of citations,even the most important one that are last Putin words.He declares that Russia isn't and won't ever be a superpower.All people heard it.Perception of people in the world is changed about Russia.A lot.151.40.107.93 (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. My stance is there are enough cites that consider Russia a potential superpower (which is what the article is about) so it shouldn't be removed from the article. Putin's views can go in the Contrary Views section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are inventing an article with Russia and Brazil.I don't write there anything because it'd be like to recognize Russia.And like me other people decided to do so.You'll be isolated.151.40.107.93 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "inventing" anything. Other editors have provided plenty of references to sources that consider Russia and Brazil potential superpowers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If i well remember some people tried tot change the article in the right but were stopped by an irish guy that had a real low level culture named Darknesshines .The old editors must go again to school of economy and not only.I'm sorry.151.40.107.93 (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize but I still don't understand if you're advocating keeping Russia in the article or removing it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russia must be immediately REMOVED.Brazil mustn't be neither considered,it's already out.Antiochus the Great did a good job.Contact him.He has very clear ideas on how bettering the article.Now article is awful.Same thing for the article "Superpower" where Russia is set with some citations.It needs reality,official words (like Putin did) and data not citations.151.40.107.93 (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree (and the very first country listed is Brazil). Putin can say whatever he wants but he's just one opinion. For example, he can say Russia is the best country in the world but we wouldn't add that. If you want Russia out of the article, you must provide references that no expert in the field considers Russia a potential superpower any more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,it means that you must go to school you too.You aren't an Encyclopedia.I'm sorry.151.40.107.93 (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, we are an encyclopedia because we don't base article content on the opinions of random, anonymous editors but instead summarize the (sometimes differing) views of reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that is common believed above all in the most developed areas that you are at a very low level.Without doubt not mine.I've no time spend in places like this one.Bye.151.40.107.93 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

151.40.107.93 you are using multiple ip's allover wikipedia, these ip's are all yours 151.40.60.108, 151.40.54.32, 151.40.64.77, 151.40.27.25, 151.40.9.139, 151.40.41.170, 151.40.24.9, 151.40.120.19, 151.40.34.218, Glc72. Everyday you use a different ip addresses all relating to the same ramp. Your not helping here but creating more problems pretending to be multiple users saying the same thing when it's all you.--61.220.119.137 (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is using a dynamic IP. As long as the editor is not evading a block or actively pretending to be multiple people, this is tolerated. Be helpful if they registered, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well one day he's Wendy, next day he's Dave, tomorrow he's Jeff. So with that, it's a problem pushing pr's on the articles.--61.220.119.137 (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Did you know that User:Glc72 and IP's of 151.40... is suckpuppets of Mediolanum (talk · contribs). See also: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mediolanum and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mediolanum. Regards, Subtropical-man (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Subtropical-man: I saw you just tagged Glc72. Prior to that, I had no idea who Mediolanum was. Thanks for the heads up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need clarification for your message on my talk page. --Anton^{·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠·} 03:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your reply. Please clarify my question. I feel bias. --Anton^{·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠·} 04:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

As you might be aware, I proposed the creation of a Miley Cyrus WikiProject back in August, although there hasn't been much of a response at the nomination since. I see that you've edited her main article a few times recently, and I thought that you might be interested in joining in the discussion. If you have the opportunity, it would be appreciated if you left some comments to help revive the discussion. Thanks, WikiRedactor (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You rejected my edit, claiming that I failed to provide a source. Bafflingly enough, after I did indeed re-edit my contribution so that it would include a source, it was inexplicably removed once more. I have gone over other sections of the article to apprize myself of the writing standards expected in the article, and I can't see how my contribution falls short of them in terms of quality of research or validity of claim. (Of course, I am slightly biased, but this is after all Wikipedia and who isn't?) I am hereby adding my contribution once more, edited another time (additionally) to include only the most vital information relevant to the topic at hand. Its contents speak for themselves. Please authorize. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinging benjaminite (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slinging benjaminite. If you look at the edit history of the article, you'll see your subsequent addition was removed by Andrew Lancaster and not I. Andrew asked you to discuss the change on the article's talk page as he felt the addition had undue weight. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello it doesnt make sense to say it may refer to: and then not add a list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckymayt (talk • contribs) 14:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beckymayt. The lists are in the sections. This is standard wording and formatting found in our disambiguation articles. See for example John and Sarah (disambiguation). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here; I'd do it myself, but I'm not really sure how. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a true wish. Anyway regarding the following: creating users to become more than 4 days old for editing semiprotected, having unlimited protocols from our friend internet, etc I have knowledge don't worry about this, but most of time I want to be a nice guy. Creating chaos is much easier than Twinkle and other tools. From 13 January 2014, 1 hour everyday, i will start improving your and Favonian work. I will send a resume everyweek with what you must revert :) Cheers my friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.77.230 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NEVER tell me what to do. Ever. I know you love trolling around to make sure your ignorant, vitriolic agenda is maintained but stop spamming me with your nonsense. If you have a problem, use the talk page to sort it out. Do you understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breenhill (talk • contribs) 05:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using talk pages is an excellent idea. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since that is my comment you linked there, I'll say that Breenhill did indeed start communicating on talk pages since I left that message, but since he continued edit warring in spite of that, he's now blocked for a week. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, someone beat me to it! Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't without sources, here they are [8]and [9]

Replied. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your quick reply in Talk:India...had an edit conflict! ...Advanced Happy New Year! ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 09:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Strike Eagle: Thanks! Happy New Year to you too! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For his latest round of WP:DE WP:IDHT, see [10] and [11]. You, I (and others) have tried to educate him on WP:BLP and WP:GS/BO, to no avail. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So now I'm in violation of WP:Biography_of_Dead_Persons?--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I would: ANI --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article telengana is affected by Vandalism. some editors are aggressively trying to insert non nuetral arguments into it. Plz ensure page protection for the article. Sorry if I used the word incorrectly in any situations.Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rameshnta909. TheRedPenOfDoom, who is a very experienced editor, disagrees with your assessment. Please use Talk:Telangana to discuss why you feel content should be removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with the opinion of TheRedPenOfDoom on this particular edit but there are lot of instances of vandalism in the page like blanking of page and aggressively inserting non nuetral arguments. plz ensure page protection for the article.Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rameshnta909 - I'm not an admin so I can't protect an article. Please make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rameshnta909: I have fully laid out my rationale at Talk:Telangana#Tehelka_as_a_source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i added page protection tag in the article telangana by mistake. Thank u 4 reverting.Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

just what "situation resolved" (or something) at the Talk:Toll Brothers page means? I believe that I was the first editor to stumble onto the "threat" and I am curious as to what finally happened. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carptrash. The IP and his socks were blocked either indefinitely or for a year. There's nothing further for editors to discuss or speculate on. WMF Legal was given a heads up but I doubt they'll hear anything further given the specious nature of the threat. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. thanks for getting back to me. Carptrash (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the IP at Potential superpowers is none other than this guy. He was temporarily blocked for his unconstructive edits, POV pushing, personal attacks and harassment. The administrator who blocked him made the observation that hes using proxies (thus the reason why he edits under many different IP addresses). If he continues his behavior on Potential superpowers ill report him. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a talk discussion to further talk on this matter on Potential Superpowers. I reverted back because there was no discussion on January 1st[12]. Since there was no discussion on these edits, I reverted back simply because

I felt there no proof on the article was done in good faith as good sources were removed with using talk.--185.35.164.107 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see participation on the talk page by both Antiochus and Arnoutf on January 1st. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was only population, that wasn't on other matters. Sources were removed without talk{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Potential_superpowers&action=history] So I ask we talk about those matters. I placed a discussions on talk, you see what I added there.--185.35.164.107 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three editors have reverted you and you've been reported for WP:3RR. You need to stop reverting and discuss as this is not just you and Antiochus reverting each other. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

can I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:22FF:3EF0:0:0:0:3B (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I recommend reading at least Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines before you get started. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Ok.[reply]

I changed the Gandhi starting to Rahul Gandhi. Because in that article lot of references to Rajiv Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Nehru-Gandhi Family etc.. This will confuse with Rahul Gandhi by simply saying (Gandhi). Also in India if you say Gandhi then it normaly refer to the Mahatma Gandhi, Father of the Nation. If you go for a google search just "gandhi" then you will get the pages of Mahatma Gandhi. Ok this article is about Rahul Gandhi but I think it is better to use Rahul Gandhi insted of just Gandhi. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjithsiji, the references to the other Gandhis are very minimal. In fact, I took a second look at the article just now and found there are already way too many instances of "Rahul Gandhi" right now. I will be shortening most of them per our other articles like George W. Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I opened an RfC at the talk page of the superpower article. A particular IP has been making some rather unconstructive edits (pushing POV material and undoing mine and others edits). I would appreciate it if you could join the discussion with a brief comment expressing your opinion, or something like that. Thank you. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I need your help... is there anyway I can get in direct contact with you in private? such as email?

Thanks.

@WebsiteTalent If you click here, you'll be taken to a form where you can send me an email. Please read the notes carefully. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, I have messaged you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebsiteTalent (talk • contribs) 00:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...Yess....vhat did you think?...--98.16.129.220 (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not much. Please contribute more constructively. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ross Miller shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --2602:304:B0FD:BF10:DC61:8E1E:22A1:B638 (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. Try reading WP:BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If under attack attack meant that your opponent has a move to that square, then a king would be allowed to threaten the other king if it was protected because the square the king moved to wouldn't be under attack because the other player couldn't put their king in chack to capture your king and I know that that's not allowed in chess. I sometimes attempted to move my king right beside the other king in Chess Titans when my king would have been protected and Chess Titans said that square was under attack so I know what under attack means. It might have been better to wait for somebody to modify what I added in to have it state what I was trying to say more clearly. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackbombchu, That, along with "A square is under attack when by a player when that player would have a move to that square, even if it weren't for the restriction that they can't put their king in check." is completely unclear and I play chess. The current wording leading off the Check section is accurate and concise. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi, im new to this, im attempting to present factoids of songs written about people on their wikipedia articles. however, the best references I found were links to the amazon pages for said songs. any suggestions for alternate links I can use as reference to avoid deletion for "spam", which is not my intention ..would magazine reviews of those records suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozfanboy (talk • contribs) 05:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please do not black list me

i added a whole lot of stuff with similar links before i realized i had messages, alright? im not spamming, just did not realize those links wouldnt work as references. I will have to do better research for references. I am sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozfanboy (talk • contribs) 05:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry!

I'm a newbie at this. Thanks for letting me know. Was not trying to spam or shill. Just being overly OCD thorough. I see your point now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozfanboy (talk • contribs) 05:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're good. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tataral inserted that "mafia state" nonsense/false information again, can you please do something about that Kalix94 (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalix94, while I am somewhat sympathetic, your edits, edit summaries, and potential sockpuppetry have me unwilling to do more than I have already done - a couple of attempts at removal and pointing out on the talk page that the sentence was to be removed as per the RFC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why did you revert my version, it was according to Template:Infobox_former_country/doc Kalix94 (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalix94, Because there is an ongoing RFC discussing it. Wait for the outcome. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so you mean we shall just ignore wikipedia policy? no you cannot do that Kalix94 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalix94, What policy are you referring to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this: Template:Infobox_former_country/doc#Preceding_and_succeeding_entities Kalix94 (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalix94, That's not Wikipedia policy, that's template documentation. About as different as an elephant and a mouse. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The intro as it stands now is historically inaccurate and highly POV. Different governmental and private studies have indeed come to widely differing conclusions about the significance of UFOs (including the USAF, which has produced both), whereas the current intro states that the conclusions are all negative. That is simply FALSE (in caps, because it is without question factually inaccurate).

I linked to the list of various studies in the Wiki Ufology section as a reference, because that would demonstrate the point (studies both positive and negative), provide further links for further reading, and simplify the intro by removing a list of links to various studies within the intro itself.

I don't understand the rationale for removing this (self-referential Wiki link), since the rest of the article and all of Wikipedia is full of cross-referencing Wiki links. In fact, the intro you reverted to uses three self-referential Wiki links, but only to negative UFO studies. Would you prefer a list of studies, positive and negative, within the intro, all with links outside of Wikipedia?

The key point, however, is that the intro as written is currently factually incorrect.50.0.95.136 (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in with your account and use Talk:Unidentified flying object to discuss. Also, please see the sourced Unidentified_flying_object#Scientific_studies section. Finally, you are factually inaccurate (do I need caps?) in saying the "intro states that the conclusions are all negative." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now know that you made a comment on the talk page, but I can't see it. There must be something wrong with my cache.--NK (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it - it was a unclosed tag from a previous post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her page is being edited by political enemies to distribute lies about her personal life. I've tried to edit the page to remove them but I was told I didn't leave an explanation. What can be done to stop the personal attacks on her life on her page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoolsbelly (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is User NazariyKaminski telling blatant lies about Wendy Davis on her page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoolsbelly (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Schoolsbelly I've been checking over the content and have not come across any falsehoods. What are you referring to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about the article they keep referring to is full of blatant lies http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20140118-as-wendy-davis-touts-life-story-in-race-for-governor-key-facts-blurred.ece

How about if I just donate to Wikipedia and you keep user NazariyKaminski from editing her page. He's works for the GOP in Texas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoolsbelly (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Schoolsbelly You're just going to get yourself blocked if you keep editing as you have. Wikipedia treats the Dallas News as a reliable source. If there are errors in the article, you need to provide other reliable sources that point them out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a legitimate CNN reference by A Killough And you removed "under oath". I can see you removing "under oath" but the reference to her being supported by her husband etc, which is still in the article was in the CNN article. That is why it was cited. You should not have removed the citation.

I will add the Federal court transcription record as a link showing her taking an oath and showing her stating that she received no money from her husband.

The citation to CNN and the Washington Post are reliable sourcesa nd are ubiquitous in the media.

The citation you removed will be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/4am.pdf These are the records of her testimony. These are court documents.

I will add to article as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of Undo is wrong. The phrase "did not want custody" did not appear in the edit by NazariyKaminski 17:14 jan21, 2014. If you would simply read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then make your case on the talk page why your version is better instead of falsely calling something as vandalism. Wikipedia has a strict definition of vandalism is and what it isn't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great job liberal denialist spinbot. You do not like, so you edit out obvious encyclopedia content, presented by neutral sources are you 12yo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing deters users greater than endless spin from agenda ridden editors and their gangs. Not performing any service for anyone by attempting to revise history.

I complete agree, but alas, we still try to guide you into becoming constructive editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For numerous reversions of vandalism, especially over the last few days. Green Giant (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Green Giant. I really appreciate that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I received your message that you removed my citations on the Review Management page because you were concerned they were promoting a business - this was not my intent. The article is listing services that review managing companies offer - my company offers several services that are typical to online review managing so I was trying to show that was the case. I totally understand that it does lead to my business site though, so if you need to remove it, I understand that as well. Thank you for your consideration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impressionsrm (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Princess Daisy going to be on Super Smash Bros 4 for the Nintendo Wii U? 173.59.11.76 (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. Don't really care. If you do, that's great but you need some reliable sources stating that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I read you post about reverting the Invicta article. Unless one looks at two links posted from a known watch forum and a blog owned by a respected member of the watch and clock association, almost every thing related to Invicta is put out there by the current ownership which has been caught in many,many lies. I have seen something similar with Doxa watches. A brand which went out of business and then was re-invented by the new owners. I know someone who posted on the largest watch forum in the world, owned by a magazine in fact who exposed Jacques Coustea as a man who forsook his country during WWII. He posted the information because a watch company was touting the relationship. That person was banned for telling the truth.

Wiki has become almost a advertising site from business rather than an objective site.

Granny lalo (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Granny lalo. As you noted, I reverted to a much, much less commercial version of the article. Is there particular text still troubling you? Or do you have reliable sources we can use to add new information to the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-) Deb (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, can I get your temporary or long-term help watching the Breast article? I just reverted a mostly odd edit there. And that editor is likely to revert and/or object on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted. I'll probably ask on the talk page for the editor to explain if they revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And notice that the source about orgasm from nipple stimulation only claims that some women can orgasm that way (the orgasms are still genital orgasms, regardless); it mentions that a few men have similar response with regard to how the brain reacts to breast stimulation, but it doesn't state that those men achieved an orgasm from such stimulation.

Anyway, thanks again. And on a side note, I was going to state that, if you're interested, there is a move discussion at the newly titled People (American magazine) article. But now I see that the article has been moved back to its current title (moved back minutes ago). Not sure how you feel on the subject, but I felt that you might be interested in that discussion, given our past involvement in "People magazine as a source" discussions. If a new discussion about that mater starts, I might ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines (though it's generally inactive) and the people at Wikipedia:Disambiguation to weigh in on it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you ignoring the clinical research that I have presented? I am presenting facts. You have no right to ignore facts and distort the truth for the sake of for-profit corporate interest groups who make a big income by NOT curing cancer. I am going to provide you with the clinical research that I suggest you take a look at before you sensor the truth. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304383595038873

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-46401-5_21#page-1
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/10/20/6847.short

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/7/7/1894.short http://repository.ias.ac.in/5196/ I have much more, and I suggest you review these clinical research articles before you are so hasty as to censor the truth. You can't argue with science. You seem to be more interested in propaganda than facts, so I am going to research what actions I can take against your refusal to allow my first ammendment rights to be infringed upon. It is one thing to censor false information. It is quite another to censor facts that are backed up by science. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased,therefore, I took out information that was not based on facts, and I added information that was based on facts. I did not remove all information that represented the corporate biased allopathic view, only the information that was not fact-based. I allowed for the corporate allopathic view to express their opinions, as well, but countered it with the facts of scientific research. I intend to dispute your actions with all of my time and power. People like you are why misinformation runs so rampant in the world. I hope you can sleep at night knowing that millions of people are dying from a disease that allopathy has no cure for, thanks entirely to your closed-minded, corporate sponsored, unscientific censorship of the the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.245.114 (talk)

You need to understand the studies you're citing. They do not study if curcumin has the potential to cure cancer. They studied if a regular dosage resulted in any "discernible toxicities". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please published the proof about telexfree is working with ponzi scheme to talk about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Segago (talk • contribs) 03:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Segago, I replied to your post on the article talk page and listed four sources the article uses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is conform that Saraiki is a language. Also Jhangvi dialect is dialect of Saraiki. Riasti dialect, Shah puri dialect,Multani dialect, Multani language, Thalochi dialect, Thalochi ,Derawali dialect are same. I suggest merging these articles , as the all these are same. And also be Redirected to Saraiki language.

182.186.111.216 (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far you and your past IP's have mostly added links to blogs and tumblr pages. These are not reliable sources. Find academic papers or newspaper articles that specifically back up your changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may check the reference as given above, and do the request to write Saraiki as languge.182.186.111.216 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I decline to become your meatpuppet. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhural/Archive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also Sorry, on What you are writing. You must do the same as I am requesting. Because I am giving correct information. my account is not that you are understanding. I am other person, mind it.182.186.111.216 (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can make your arguments on Talk:Saraiki dialect as has been done before. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the same but in vain. you may see,182.186.111.216 (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DR, specifically WP:CONTENTDISPUTE for steps you can follow. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted only one, two editions is bold (see Wikipedia:BOLD), . Kwamikagami make 2 clear reverts. Please, rebuke him. Franek K. (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franek K., WP:BOLD is is no way a free pass to edit war. Whatever gave you the impression it was? These are the only exceptions: WP:3RRNO. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeilN. You said on Talk:Justin Bieber#Legal troubles section that you have "no objection" to trimming of the removed section to three or four points. I have posted a new trimmed section in purple near the end. It is five sentences, compared to the previous sixteen or so. The first of the five sentences is the topic sentence, half of which is already in the article already. I would like your further comments on it. Thanks. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: What's wrong with the current paragraph? It adds the Canadian charge. I do think the Style, image and fans section should be updated though, with sources like [13]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that there's something inherently wrong from the content in the current paragraph, but I believe something is missing. Which is why I am proposing some elaboration of his troubles before his first arrest, which were profiled in many reliable sources when his first arrest was reported. This demonstrates long-term notability. I am not trying to change the content currently in the article, but I am trying to add more information. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 01:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment, I see your point. The content on his image change (I do have more source for that, and can use your source also) can go to the Image section, but the actual previous incidents I am proposing should go to the Personal section. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 01:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeilN, I'd just like to say that I added your provided source to the article to the Image section (with content from that source). That part has since been reverted / removed by Collect. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! Caden cool 23:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the condescending comments on my talk page.

Please read the second to last paragraph on the NY Times article. The quote I provided was directly lifted from there.

Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.184.132 (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I said. You need to read the sources you're providing a lot better. [14] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Just to let you know that no good contributions to the wiki ever goes unnoticed. In which case, I will present you with this barnstar! I found it lying in my attic, no clue how it got there. Well, since I look bad giving myself a barnstar, here it is. K6ka (talk | contribs) 04:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Anil and I want to know that those Ayurvedic books was not promotional, and you should read the Wikipedia guidelines It says "If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, " . If you want to verify you can sure check the website and download those books and read them, then take any action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Singh Pokhriyal, the "fact" you were referencing by adding a link to a book was that the author wrote what looks like to be a self-published book. Wikipedia is not the place to promote such things. The only way the book would merit a mention in the article is if it is widely considered an influential and historically important work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First you should read about the author in Wikipedia and then see there he was died 4 years ago how can he promote his own books he didn't even copyrighted the books he dedicated his whole life for human kind he was very well known social activist in India and you are saying it was not influential and historical. Please read about the author Rajiv Dixit and please don't make this place hard

Anil Singh Pokhriyal, you are advertising his books. And please read what I wrote carefully. The book must be widely considered an influential and historically important work. The author's bio doesn't even mention any work in Ayurveda, besides noting he wrote a book. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia welcome page says "If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, or suggest them on the article's discussion page." If you want to verify you can go to website and check books. How can you edit a page like ayurveda when you don't know anything about it or hindi language. Please after verifying the books undo my editing yourself.Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Singh Pokhriyal, you're still not reading what I wrote. Here it is in a different way: We do not add text about non-notable books to articles. We're not interested in advertising "facts" about such works. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But everyone who reads article about Ayurveda wants to explore more on this topic and want to read a book which is not written by some hobo the author was expert in his field he even cured a person effected with radiation which is not possible any other place. What else you want and next time please mention me to the line where its written in Wikipedia guideline that a reference should be world famous.Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Singh Pokhriyal, you have provide no sources indicating the author was regarded as an expert in the field. You have provided no sources showing the book is notable (Wikipedia:Notability (books)). And you are not using the book as a reference. You are essentially saying, "hey, this book is important enough in its field to have a specific mention in the article" without providing any proof that it is considered significant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you want a proof I will give you. Read about Ramdev and then see the video of Rajiv Dixit giving lecture with Ramdev on health topics. See youtube video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY67VAMZqeE. This time if you won't revert it I will assume you are being racist because all the lectures and books are in Hindi language.Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Singh Pokhriyal: Doesn't even come close to establishing that the book is influential or historically significant. See WP:SYNTH for starters. And I would keep your assumptions to yourself - WP:NPA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me your email Id and how many emails you count as significant, a million would be enough or moreAnil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go to google keywords research tool and enter Rajiv Dixit there and see Rajiv Dixit has more 50,000 searches per month and Ayurveda has 160,000 per month.Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Singh Pokhriyal, doesn't matter. We rely on published reliable sources that state if a work is significant in the field (in this case, probably academic sources), not email and google search counts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer These Questions:

Do you have knowledge of Ayurveda? Can you read Hindi? Do you know anyone in India?

If none of them is yes, then how can you verify that he is a notable person or not. I have given you video link where he is giving speech but you can't understand because its in Hindi. First find someone who know Hindi than research on that person and don't throw random links at me. Read 1st, 3rd, and 5th point of (Wikipedia:Notability (books)). And this time if you won't revert my changes, tell me how can I report to the Wikipedia support that you are trying to harassing without even having the knowledge of the topic.Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Singh Pokhriyal - Answers: No (besides what is in the article), no, and yes. And per WP:BURDEN, it's up to you to provide references explicitly stating the book is significant enough to mention in the article. If you want to escalate this content dispute, see WP:DR. If you want to report my behavior, see WP:ANI. I think you'll be disappointed in the responses you'll get in both places, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For listing Valentine's Day at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the dispute going on with regard to Pass a Method, StAnselm and Sportfan5000 across various celebrity articles, such as here and here at the Brad Pitt article? Quite trivial information. I would have already reverted Sportfan5000 at the Brad Pitt article, but I was busy with other matters and was waiting to see if anyone else would revert. Still waiting. Sportfan5000 was reverted at other articles on this "best friends" material, such as here at the Jennifer Aniston article by Lady Lotus and here at the Justin Timberlake article by XXSNUGGUMSXX. We certainly don't need a "best friends" precedent set for WP:BLP articles. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: anyone else smell sock puppets? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? Are we going to add, "Her favorite color is purple and her favorite food is pizza" next? All reverted. This is an encyclopedia, not Stars Weekly. The only reason why that kind of relationship would merit a mention is if sources wrote about what kind of notable impact it had on the subject's life. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. An example of actually notable friendships I can think of that had impact on career and such would be Matt Stone and Trey Parker since they frequently work together on projects (notably South Park). StAnselm also reverted the addition of Rihanna being the best friend of Katy Perry. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is still Courteney Cox and George Clooney to go, and then I think we've cleaned it all up. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Lotus, Sportfan5000's editing style is completely different than Pass a Method's editing style...generally anyway. Sure, if you look at Sportfan5000's earliest Wikipedia contribution, it's clear that Sportfan5000 was not completely new editing Wikipedia, but that's likely unrelated. For example, Pass a Method generally never types as much as Sportfan5000 did in that first contribution. And I'm comparing those two because StAnselm was the one trying to remove the "best friends" material.

Exactly, Neil. Thanks for reverting the rest. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sportfan5000 actually provided references, dubious though they might be. Pass a Method added them all in with no sourcing whatsoever, and then seemed outraged that I reverted him. StAnselm (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok those two are gone (did 11 by my count). To be clear, I have no issues with editors re-adding the material in an encyclopedic context. Say, for example, how the friendship of Cox and Aniston has affected their careers or made an impact on their personal (and notable) views. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fair to mention "with friend ______" if involved in an organization or project of some sort, but to say "is best friends with ______" is rather unnecessary except for friendships like the one between Matt Stone and Trey Parker. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of stuff is also used by publicists so watch out for that. Adding {name of famous celebrity) is best friends with (name of less famous celebrity) in the former's article to drive traffic to the latter's article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could make an exception for Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, but it'd need to be covered well...like Neil and XXSNUGGUMSXX stated. Not like this piece, which Gareth Griffith-Jones reverted. But then again, the Damon and Affleck connection is covered well enough in their articles. Also, if we were to cover such relationships in WP:BLP articles, and in an encyclopedic way, then do we duplicate that exact material in both articles? Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so as the effects of the friendship would likely not be the same on both parties. Hypothetical: Celeb A credits best friend Celeb B with getting him sober after a long stint of alcoholism. That would appear in A's article but not necessarily in B's. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't saying StAnselm was a sock, it just seems convenient that Pass a Method and Sportfan5000 are backing up this kind of edit so hard. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We knew that, Lady Lotus- no worries XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that for sure; wasn't sure if Lady Lotus was aware that StAnselm was doing the opposite. So that's why I stated above, "And I'm comparing those two because StAnselm was the one trying to remove the 'best friends' material." And then Lady Lotus responded to that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, Sportfan5000 has called my reversions "disruptive". StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm When I revert something like that, an edit summary of "unsourced trivia" covers both bases :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; the way i'm reading some responses is that the only thing that is notable about BLP's personal lives should be a) their spousal relationships b) their religion and c) any family members they may have. I mean i know a lot of people who attach more importance to their friends over their family members so why shouldn't wikipedia reflect real life? Pass a Method talk 04:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I know people who love their pets more than their family members. The fact remains we need reliable sources covering how important the relationship is and its impact. Marriage/kids have implied importance and are standard biographical details. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did the friend(s) play a significant part in the person's career and/or personal life (i.e. crediting friend for helping recover from alcoholism, depression, drugs, etc.)? If not, then the friendship is trivial. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion in the Talk of Italy article is just a "theatre" to close the discussion on Italy as great power .3 people that agree to do it.Easy to realize.We are talking of Italy and italians can't talk.Really strange.Russians and brazilians talk about them when they have to defend their really original positions in the Potential superpower article.It's really just a ridiculous theatre.The discussion should be done on great power article where are already references posted. 151.40.94.28 (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]