User talk:NeilN/Archive 12

Ubi CANVASSing

I note that you agreed with my edit at Thomas Blake Glover -- Ubi then canvassed a slew of people (8 to be precise - telling each they were "involved" or might be "involved") for his AN/I complaint [1] that the edit was personal harassment of him which made precious little sense if any at all. You might note the posts at that closed thread - I have no idea where Ubi gets the idea that his "sources" meet WP:RS at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree raising the matter at ANI made no sense. At least it brought more scrutiny to the article and questioning of the sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding recent Energy Medicine Edits

Hello,

Thank you for your reply. This concerns edits made by 76.121.150.157 All but the one edit regarding reference[24](Jonas a& Crawford) are entering discussions with other editors (which I support you joining if you feel so moved). I am new to this interface--the many types of pages and protocols governing them-- so please be slightly more explicit in general than you would with more experienced users...

the edit regarding the History section of the Energy Medicine article describes a misused citation. The first sentence of the History section contains a reference to article [24](Jonas & Crawford) that is supposed to account for it. However, there can be no mistake that no such sentiment exists in this article, having read it twice myself. Therefore, please also uphold the removal of that reference from the support of that sentence. Or, at the risk of cynicism, perhaps there is some type of committee where this type of issue gets belabored...

Thank you for your consideration, Kmpentland (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Tropes vs woman.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tropes vs woman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Radha Madhav Dham

I am in charge of promotions at our Hindu Temple. Our temple is under the management of our Board of Directors. We are legally under a new name. You are inserting comments about an individual that have nothing to do with us. You are trying to damage and defame are Hindu Temple unfairly. We do not appreciate this. Please stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dktaylor2013 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

@Dktaylor2013... I agree, this user (NeilN ) is being very insensitive to Hindu or Indian culture! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sou Boyy (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Was that a bot message to me?

I added several sources in my edits to Peking University, from within Wiki articles for the most part. Did you really have to remove the entire section, or could you have marked some of it as needing more work? As it is, I only see your repeated reversions of cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriksq (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

False allegations and vandalism

I made an edit to Martin Narey's profile and you vandalised it without justifying your reasoning. You state my edit was 'poorly sourced' yet is was taken directly from the UK Parliament's website and based on his own words. You also removed large sections of the profile without and explanation whatsoever. How would I report you for vandalism as your actions where wholly unjustified. Please provide details for why you removed well-sourced and cited material for the page. I will add the section again and if you disagree with it then raise it in the talk section. Do not just remove and destroy pages without good reason. Be a good Wikipedian. Newuser2111 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied here (removed copyright violation and editor's "reference" did not match their soapbox text). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Martin Narey uses the term 'forced adoption' to describe the practice here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16157124. On page 77 of this document: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmeduc/137/137ii.pdf Narey calls for the increase of such adoptions by 50% or more. Is this satisfactorily sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newuser2111 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No. He answered this question, "It is clear that you lament the reduction in the number of adoptions and you have actually said it should be radically increased." The question did not refer to forced adoptions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And what's your source for "Martin Narey is a one of the mots staunchest and vocal defenders of the Forced adoption in the UK..."? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue of adoption raised in the document stems from the issue of forced adoption, it is clear from reading it in it's entirety that they are discussing forced adoption. I'm sure Narey would admit that he was one of the most staunchest and vocal defenders of the policy, in fact I am sure he is very proud of that fact. You removed the section for being 'poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content'. I have provided the source for the material and there is nothing defamatory about it. The issue of forced adoption is controversial but there is no controversy about Narey's support for the policy. Suggest a rework of the section rather than complete removal. Newuser2111 (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not clear and the fact that "you are sure" does not affect what gets put in the article. You can propose a rewording on the article's talk page (with sources) and others will comment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I propose the section is added as follows: 'Martin Narey is a staunch and vocal defender of the UK's policy of forced adoption and has suggested that he would like to see adoptions, particularly of new-born babies, increase by 50% or more. He is in favour of forced adoptions of children who have not suffered any kind of neglect or abuse.' This is fact and is cited in the source I provided. Newuser2111 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not, per above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There are ample sources that show that Narey is a staunch and vocal supporter of the policy. I can provide multiple citations to show this. The document I linked to clearly states that he would like to see adoptions increase by '50% or more'. What point do you disagree with now? It feels like nitpicking. Suggest a constructive alternative rather than dismissing any mention of his support for the policy. Newuser2111 (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Find sources that claim he is "a staunch and vocal supporter"
2. Reword to make it clear the 50% applies to adoptions, not forced adoptions.
3. Page in source for "He is in favour of forced adoptions of children who have not suffered any kind of neglect or abuse"?

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

1. The fact that he is a defender of the policy is self evident. I have provided more than enough citations to support this sentence.
2. It is clear from the wording that the 50% refers to adoptions and not forced adoptions.
3. Reference to "He is in favour of forced adoptions of children who have not suffered any kind of neglect or abuse" removed for now.

Newuser2111 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You have again maliciously edited the article despite ample sources being provided. You are promoting your own POV and have shown an unwillingness to reach a reasonable compromise on the matter. You will be reported. Newuser2111 (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Do note that as a WP:SPA your own edits will be scrutinized as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that NeilN is a repeat offender. He also maliciously edited the article on Julia Mulligan despite ample sources being provided simply becuase he did not like the facts presented. I see little point in reporting him. He is typical of the people running Wikipedia.

88.117.45.248 (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm sure my fellow Wikipedians will be happy to know we're succeeding in keeping people like you from turning articles into personal soapboxes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Pi Day

The source is no longer affiliated with the University of Florida and is now called The Independent Florida Alligator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent_Florida_Alligator The source has been independent since 1971.

If this source still does not suffice, I have found another source. http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120314/ARTICLES/120319769 Please let me know if I can reapply my edit. I am new to the Wiki editing process. Thank you! --Jveingrad (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

bikini - external links edit

Hi - I saw you made a couple recent and proper edits to the external links for the article bikini. I don't understand how it is that extremely experienced editors know how to go make small edits to lots of different articles, but it seems like that's what you did here - which is cool. I just wanted to know if you would be willing to spend a few mins on the bikini article assessing the image selection throughout the article and provide any feedback (even if it's just a short "imo it's fine as it is")? I haven't been able to rally any other editors around the article during the past several months but think that it would be good for there to be at least one person critiquing or applauding the image choice and layout. Anyway, thanks for your time. Azx2 08:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Arts Administration

Hi NeilN. I'm new. You reverted a post, i'm sure it was warranted but I'm not sure I understand why.

You recommended I use twinkle and included the link, however, after redirecting to the page and attempting to follow the directions (going to the gadgets section and enabling twinkle) twinkle wasn't availabel as an option. I'll give it another look but is there another work around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwgreer (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jonwgreer. It looks like you're pretty confused. Have you read your talk page here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes on all fronts. Doing some more reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwgreer (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

regarding removal of my articles

i am extremely disappointed as my edits were removed without prior notice. i agree that i should not give my inputs as as personal remarks. The matter on reliance infrastructure was fully trustable as i am very close to that company since tose facts are available on their website rinfra.com. Even my edits on reliance power was removed . Even Mr. Anil Ambani is a graduate from university of Pennsylvania. once again im very disappointed for this rude behavior. i'll deactivate my account if my queries are not solved immediately.

Aakash Singh

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

ok alright i am going to deactivate my account right now . good bye and thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakash Singh India (talk • contribs) 16:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden Infobox "disclosure" reversion

Reversion of my change … "whistleblowing" replaced with "disclosure" … is inappropriate. The Whistleblower Protection Act excludes members and organizations that are part of the intelligence community, and the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act specifies that report and disclosures must go to members of Congress, and members of Congress only. Accordingly, the actions involved are, at least from a legal standpoint,the use of the term "whistleblowing" is open to dispute on the basis of law, while the use of the word "disclosure" is not disputable on any factual or legal basis. I should think that the Infobox content, in particular, ought not contain information whose veracity is debatable. My change should be restored. ~~Bruce Wheelock ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucewh (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit summary, "whistleblowing" is a common English word and American laws or Congress do not get to decide the definition of the word on Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hovind picture

Please explain how [2] is a copyright violation? You are assuming that it is a copyright violation, when you have no proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feefeefee3 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to provide proof permission was given. Do you have any? If so, please see Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

my links had been removed,I'm HOBOBE

I specialize in helping English-speaking users to understand China local information, and there is China National Tourism Administration of the information support, I have collected information about China network blind spots, only Chinese local talent to know the information in hobobe.com to synchronize to the exception of China users, such as: the latest route, schedule, price lists, etc. I hope that through wikipedia show to more people, I do not know why they had been removed, please give me a reasonable explanation, or provide standardized criteria, I will be based standards established information index. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panguozhang (talk • contribs) 02:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Panguozhang. Links at the bottom of articles are supposed to go to websites with encyclopedic information about the topic, not travel information. If you wish, you can bring up the matter at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Help with Vandal

Help! What can a relatively new editor do when a longtime editor with a clear bias keeps stripping a page of all content? I've directed the editor user:quac to Wikipedia's BLP policies, which read, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." User:Quac's actions are clearly illegitimate blanking.

First of all, you've be warned a number of times not to call Quac a vandal. Continuing to do so will probably result in a block. Second, it's not just them. Collect, who is a very experienced editor, has been taking out excessive detail. If you feel that the material removed is important to the biography, discuss it on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope that wikipedia will allow me to continue to allow me gather more information on the topics.

I am currently working on having more information for the current topics , so that it can be more informative, with real facts on top of travel services. The examples I mentioned are not exhaustive, currently, I am able to provide the history of the current topics, information about the current situation and other graphic information. It is more than just travel information. I hope that wikipedia will allow me to continue to allow me gather more information on the topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panguozhang (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My user page

Just wanted to say thank you Neil SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully the IP read the warnings before deleting them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Obama article

I've been watching these discussions for years now, and there's some pretty deliberate intransigence about the sources in this article. If someone challenges the "Orator" sources, then it's discarded instantly: "How can you question anyone on the paycheck of high-profile publishers?"

But if someone presents some other position proffered by a mainstream academic, then WP:RS is followed to the T: "what makes this source reliable?" Well, of course, there's never an answer, really. If we really want to ask on every single politician's article why the Huffington Post or the Toronto Whatever meets WP:RS, we'd have to re-evaluate the policy—because as the policy's written, they're not. But these discussions are always closed because they're fringe and disruptive, etc.

Nobody wants to have the obvious conversation when it's so easy to declare everything out of procedure and insincere.

Just taking a step back, the sniff test clearly puts Noam fucking Chomsky above any trivial Canadian journalism major when it comes to subjective judgments of state leadership. I'd be happy to take it all out or throw it all in, but the double standard is just silly. —Designate (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

tina ambani

As per box-offcei india.com only 2 hits Tina has with rishi kapoor - karz in 1980 and katilon ka kathil in 1981 and rest 4 movies were disasters and so not mentioned even in the site in top 10 or 20 list in respective years.Lionbase1234 (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to add a source a stating that only two of her films were box office successes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Just see now I have provided.

Now you see.Lionbase1234 (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The source isn't great, as it only lists the top 25 films. I think you need something that actually says, "only two of her films were box office successes". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

talk page stalker Yes, NeilN is right. Making the inference that a film that is not on the list is not a box office success is original research at best and speculation at worst. --bonadea contributions talk 13:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Which source told you that Aap Ke Deewane or Yeh Wada Raha were successful? Why is there a need to mention the names of film Yeh Wada Raha. The films Karz and Khatilol Ka Katil deserved to find a mention only because they were successful moreover NeilN earlier you had told me in my talk page to show whether these 2 filsm Karz and Katilol Ka Katil were successful - so I have showed that.

Still I have gone ahead and found out refs to prove Aap Ke Deewane was flop - http://www.insidestorymedia.com/life-history-of-bollywood-actor-hrithik-roshan/

and the google book proves http://books.google.co.in/books?id=l3heZ8I-k9AC&pg=PT276&lpg=PT276&dq=Yeh+Vaada+Raha+(1982),+based+on+Danielle+Steel's+novel+The+Promise,+directed+by+Kapil+Kapoor,+wascritically+appreciated+but+commerciallya+flop&source=bl&ots=-7NOEEJ79y&sig=j0lBSEptjXpZxpKfoyEFYceWHYA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MQ7RUbCKJsSH4gSal4HoDg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA says Yeh Vaada Raha (1982), based on Danielle Steel's novel The Promise, directed by Kapil Kapoor, was critically appreciated but commercially a flop.

Another reference http://www.boxofficeindia.com/cpages.php?pageName=top_actors and an interview - http://www.mid-day.com/entertainment/2013/jun/070613-from-action-to-production.htm says Deedar E yaar was a disaster. I have proved my point - that the other 4 were flops.Lionbase1234 (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you copy this to Talk:Tina Ambani so other editors can comment. I'm not really interested in the details. All I care about is that "...in six films of which only 2 were commercially successful" is properly sourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I did what you asked me to but some other user named bonadea is reverting it and did not respond to the same questions which i asked you. You at-least gave me reply but that user just reverted without any discussion. also observed today another user Hijnaas has incorporated same details in wikiedia article of rajesh khanna and mentioned reasons for why khanna refused to marry tina and how Tina was fan of rajehs since her childhood. but bonadea has reverted even that in article page on rajesh khanna. http://www.bollywoodmantra.com/news/the-unheard-and-untold-tale-of-rajesh-dimple/9374/ - this link has been used to show the reason as to why Khanna refused to marry Tina.Lionbase1234 (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The best way to engage Bonadea is through the article's talk page. That way, all interested editors can see the discussion and chime in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ya I have done that.Lionbase1234 (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Manny Pacquiao edit

It's not really undoing "someone else's work" when your the one that put it there to begin with. What I put wasn't entirely accurate. So if someone tries to put it back I'm gonna revert it --2Nyce 23:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

edit on Rachel

I left no description because I was using the beta editing feature on my phone's browser. The edit was for the lack of NPOV in the description of the two descriptions of Mashiach (son of Joseph and son of David), which were thoroughly influenced by Rabbinic Judaism. Even the Wiki for the Mashiach himself describes him in a more comprehensive way than is presented in the Rachel article. I am biased as a Christian, yes, but that is precisely how I knew the description on the Rachel article was not NPOV. I deleted enough to make the reader have to click through to the Mashiach article itself (with the differing perspectives found therein) to decide if Mashiach ben Joseph and Mashiach ben David are two different figures and if they are future figures or ones who already came. natemup (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Bot Roast

No idea how to find a reliable source for court rulings, but this blog from 2008 says he was sentenced to imprisonment for the crime. --Onorem (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We still have to consider WP:BLPNAME though. If the guy isn't well known, and is only mentioned in conjunction with this case, should we still have his name appear? I'm fifty-fifty on this one and won't protest if someone adds it back in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Anil Ambani

Why are u changing the updated profile of Anil Ambani....These updates have been made by his office...

Because your edits are unsourced, full of peacock terms, and have way too much detail about Reliance Group. Since you have a conflict of interest you should not be editing the article at all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The profile has been updated by the team of Mr Ambani and i therefore see no reason of any conflict of interest. The source has been addded for your info. Pl get in touch with us if you still have concerns or give us your mailid so that we can write to you.

Then I suggest you read WP:COI again. I believe your changes will be removed soon enough. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am new to this. pl help me with the norms and ways to get this resolved. guidance would be helpful

First, stop undoing everyone's reversions immediately. It's going to get you blocked. Second, use Talk:Anil Ambani to discuss what you want changed and why. Tip: stop inserting stuff about Reliance. It does not belong in a biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for your wonderful work in assisting new user Sgatet! Hope you enjoy these strawberries! Regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! It's been interesting... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Dimitri Papadimos

I would like to thank you publicly for being the only person that actually helped me in sorting out the problem with the footnotes...you are the only person who by actually edited the page yourself and explained to a "beginner" how to go about editing the article...I have re-submitted the article and I hope the problem is now solved and it will be published...again if there is something that I ommitted I hope you or the next person will not only point it out but supply me with "hints" of how to go about sorting the matter...again many tks Yani papadimos (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Northfield School Edit

Hey NeilN, sadly, there is no sources available, it was a close in-school fact. If it can't be placed for that simple reason, no worries!

Pad Thai

Hi NeilN, Sorry about that. I'll not make that mistake again. scope_creep (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleting references and Note detail

Why did you delete my references on Miranda Cosgrove? What is your point in doing that? What's wrong with the Note added with the references? Who are you anyway? Katydidit (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Because it was purely trivial. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Tami Erin lives in Walnut Creek, California

Checkingfax (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I know, but adding that bit of trivia is not worth it if you have to reference her arrest. See Wikipedia:BLPN#Tami_Erin for more info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are nothing but trivia stitched together to make cohesive encyclopedic articles. You need to chill. LOL Checkingfax (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

And it seems you're trying to get around our guidelines. [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

See BLPCRIM. Do you consider Pippi Longstocking to be relatively unknown? Checkingfax (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

See the reliable sources policy. TMZ is a tabloid scandal sheet, explicitly not a reliable source acceptable for contentious claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to read the Biographies of Living Persons policy. An anonymous blog article sourced directly to a sensationalistic tabloid Web site is two, two, two unreliable sources in one. Such is unacceptable on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Duarte

The page should still go because she's not even the focus of that article. It's just a passing mention. However, I don't want to piss off a fucking "improve your web presence" group any more than I may have already done. Should we send it to AFD? I've already done the same for two of her co-stars whose pages have also been produced by another company.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have a neutral position on the page that I am working on however you are basing the novels written by the author and denying the information to be placed on the page to be based on self published without knowing the facts. There are thousands of self published authors on Wikipedia and can be referenced to you and to the Wiki authorities for same. This is a biased reason for removing anything around the novels written and published on behalf of Mrs. Martin Duarte. I also consider this revision vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fact reporter1 (talk • contribs)

No. You do not have a neutral position. You have told me you work for Mrs. Martin Duarte and Ms. Martin Duarte. Authors who have paid to have their books published means the book has been self-published. And stating that "there are thousands of self-published authors on Wikipedia" cannot be proven, and if so then they are not worthy of coverage either. Fact reporter1, please do not contribute to Wikipedia in areas in which you have a vested interest.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The specific quote was: Yes I work for the individuals in order to create blogs, web pages and wiki page upkeep. They are television celebrities and have hired my group to oversee all. [4]. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

How is this different from what Ryulong said? As for the books - articles are not here to promote subjects' vanity projects. Are there any published reviews in newspapers, magazines, etc.? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made an AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

High Concept Political Intrigue: Hard Whispers, a Novel by Pamela ... eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20110901005141/.../conspiracy-theory‎ Sep 1, 2011 - High Concept Political Intrigue: Hard Whispers, a Novel by Pamela Martin-Duarte , Star of Style Network/NBC Universal's Hit Big Rich Texas, ... High Concept Political Intrigue: Hard Whispers,a Novel by Pamela ... www.reuters.com/article/.../idUS145054+01-Sep-2011+BW20110901‎

Sep 1, 2011 - High Concept Political Intrigue: Hard Whispers, a Novel by Pamela Martin-Duarte , Star of Style Network/NBC Universal's Hit Big Rich Texas. High Concept Political Intrigue: Hard Whispers, a ... - The Free Library www.thefreelibrary.com › Business › Business Wire › September 1, 2011‎

Sep 1, 2011 - Free Online Library: High Concept Political Intrigue: Hard Whispers, a Novel by Pamela Martin-Duarte, Star of Style Network/NBC Universal's ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noproblemproblem (talk • contribs) 15:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You're joking, right? These are not articles, these are press releases put out by her company. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Powered Flight Day content in Industries section of Connecticut page

Wondering why you removed the content about the newly enacted Powered Flight Day in Connecticut?Tomticker5 (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What does is it have to do with Connecticut industries? The existing two sentences are already one too many. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It commemorates Connecticut's Aviation Industry. Where would you locate it, under a new section titled state holidays?Tomticker5 (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not a holiday. And unless you want to add all the "special" days/months (that act alone added five) it does not belong anywhere in the parent article about Connecticut. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

edit to pamela martin duarte

the edit was made due to the page appearing as if it was written by someone out of haste and not based on facts required by wikipedia or by someone who personally knows the subject. whether someone filed a lawsuit and or did not return for a season of a television show does not accurately cover the material facts about this person who is a public figure and also a published author. (thoughts?) i also noticed that the blossman person keeps coming up on the martin duarte page which leads me to believe blossman or someone close to her (I looked at her page) is editing the page we are discussing which by the way looks like her resume which is not within the wikipedia guidelines and just because someone is on a reality tv show does not necessarily make them a page candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noproblemproblem (talk • contribs) 14:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The sentence is sourced to the NY Times, which is a reliable source for our purposes. Anyways, it is likely the article will be deleted/redirected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

the sentence that i placed on the article was sourced by NY Times however the information about a blogger and a lawsuit is not sourced by NY Times and should be removed as it is a personal statement where aspects of the the situation are not sourced and dont believe we would know the facts unless it is provided by a legal person who is unbiased and actually knows facts and they can be verified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noproblemproblem (talk • contribs) 15:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The NY Times states, "The show received an additional boost of “only in reality-TV world” publicity last April, when Ms. Martin-Duarte filed a defamation lawsuit against her fellow cast members Bonnie Blossman and Dena Miller — who dropped out of the show after a few weeks of shooting — and the blogger Merritt Patterson, who had written critically about the show. (Ms. Martin-Duarte, who quit the show after the second season, has since dropped Ms. Patterson and Ms. Miller from the suit but is still suing Ms. Blossman.)" which is what we have in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Vandalism Pages

I would direct you to the policy, but you seem to be a pro and know exactly where it is. One of the most common types of Vandalism that Wikipedia recognizes is the Intentional and Improper Blanking of a Biography of a Living Person.

It defines it as "removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason . . . Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary."

It is wholly appropriate to warn for such instances, and it would be within my right as a Wikipedian to warn you now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2APatriotCA (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you read what you wrote? "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason..." Reasons were given in edit summaries and on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

User: Will McRoy

Can you please help post warnings on his Talk page and/or report him to the appropriate admin forum to be blocked? He's in a massive edit war to vandalize that Sri Chinmoy article. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reported him for WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Saw that; added a comment. Softlavender (talk)

Sangram Singh's page edit

Dear neil. I would request you to protect Sangram Singh's account as i am from his official team. also let me know the criteria of edits i can make. and can we make it not editable. Hope to hear soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibunties (talk • contribs) 06:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that I've left this user a note on his talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And the page is protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the security situation for women reporting rape in UAE/Dubai

You removed the edit stating that the case of the Norwegian woman sentenced to jail after reporting rape was a one-time incident. This is not correct as there is a least one more registered case of female expats or tourist jailed after reporting having being raped.

Alicia Gail from Australia faced this in 2008 http://www.policymic.com/articles/42367/alicia-gali-rape-victim-who-was-jailed-for-being-assaulted-in-uae-tells-her-story

If you are protecting Dubai/UAE from critisizm you should step down as moderator for this page as this type of censorship is not worthy of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.42.69 (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I've replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Music Video Reference

Sorry I was unaware that imdb was an insufficient source.. and I reposted it it because I thought I had accidentally deleted it.. I hadn't noticed your messages yet - There's several hundred sources to validate my addition, so is this one sufficeant? http://www.mtv.com/artists/floria-sigismondi/biography/ Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxtbuff (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fxtbuff, thanks for taking the time to ask. If you look at the link you provided, at the bottom it says "Source: Wikipedia Text from this biography licensed under creative commons license". So the content was copied from here. Content that copies Wikipedia cannot be used as sources per WP:CIRCULAR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Neil, Haha ok.. I apologize again then. I will check that next time. The ref guide page seems a bit vague or unclear to me, so may I ask one more question? Can a sufficient source be an article from a credible publication, or can it be a bio from the website of a production company (Ridley Scott's production co. to be specific..) ? Thanks again. Fxtbuff —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize. If you're new to Wikipedia, finding good sources can be a bit of a challenge. As to your question, the key thing is to make reasonably sure the source is not self-published. That is, a bio of a person does not just come from person themselves or their PR team. It needs to be fact checked by an independent third party. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Daufer

It's an obvious troll who vandalizes several articles that I've been recently working on. Go see his edit history, for example: [5][6] (his first edit there, he came there only to vandalize my work randomly). --Niemti (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Another example: [7][8]. Please block it. Thanks. --Niemti (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you're not an admin? OK. --Niemti (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Give me an explanation on the talkpage on why my edits are deleted, and i will; I have used the talkpage but neither you nor Niemti have; so who is vandalising; thats not the proper conduct of Wikipedia; report me and i will report you; Daufer (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You following Niemti around, blindly reverting his edit because he reverted you on one article is disruptive. Do not do this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted unsourced info; didnt know it was from him; thats just his paranoia; Daufer (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that you've never edited video game articles, I don't believe you. Neither will admins. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Its still unsourced info; no place for that in Wikipedia - read the guidelines; and its the FREE encyclopedia; i can edit any article within the the Wikipedia guideline; incl. deletion of unsourced (false) info Daufer (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

How is this unsourced? Why does this formatting change require sourcing [9]? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You know what vandalism is? its when you mess up an article you have no knowledge about and just mess it up for the sake of it; like deleting well referenced info and sources; without any knowledge; Now im entitled to contribute and edit any article i want - all within the Wikipedia guidelines and rules -same goes for all those videogame articles; as long as its within the guidelines; Daufer (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not (besides that, it's clear that Niemti has knowledge about the topic). Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. And while you're at it, WP:HOUNDING. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

NeilN: you don't need to bother about it anymore. (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Daufer) --Niemti (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

RESPONSE

You probably made the right decision in removing this story.

It has been on a number of sites, that Will wanted another child, and his wife didn't want this.

Cheers, Andrew also known as andyjourn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjourn (talk • contribs) 08:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Shavaiz Shams : Thanks Sir for my help > — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shavaiz Shams (talk • contribs) 16:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop vanadalising

I have now done what you could have done instead of deleting an entire referenced paragraph - editied it. In future, edit, don't delete whole paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.115.227 (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

And blocked --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Smarojit's talk page.
Message added 02:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

smarojit ^HD 02:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me?

I wasn't the first one to begin "reverting" anyone's edits. You reverted by edits thrice, so I can post a warning on your page too. Instead, I think it will be better if we can talk about it calmly. Is that a very difficult thing to do? --smarojit ^HD 02:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you stop adding unsourced info to a WP:BLP, sure. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it isn't unsourced! If you think that it isn't the birth name, but something else, then you must post on the talk page first, instead of blindly reverting! Secondly, when I am trying to reach a consensus, kindly refrain from assuming that you are right, and discuss! --smarojit ^HD 02:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, you have provided no sources that it's his birth name. Once you do, I'll be happy to step back. Until then, WP:BLP's cannot contain unsourced information like different birth names. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, I agree that it cannot be confirmed as his birth name, and again we need to mention Shahid Khattar somewhere in the article!! Do you understand? --smarojit ^HD 02:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations.

The THUMBS UP AWARD

You have been awarded the seldom coveted THUMBS UP AWARD for exemplary editing. It can't be much fun tracking down what must have been a busy few days of editing for User:Middleground09 and undoing most of his/her hard work. But, (opinion), it needed to be done and you made the effort to do it, and for that I am grateful. If you decide to NOT keep this award, please recycle. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sincere apologies

I am truly sorry. I was acting on a report a WP:AIV and I blocked you in error. I have, of course, unblocked you with a clear statement in your hitherto clean block log that it was completely my mistake. If it's any consolation to you, this is the first time I've ever done this. If you could see me at this moment, my face is completely red.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Spamming, sockpuppetry, and incompetence! I hit the trifecta! No worries. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you're laughing about it. I think it's going to take me longer to get over this than you. Thanks for understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted my edit to "Measurement uncertainty"

Hi Neil, Thanks for adding my link. I am an academic working in this field. The current page is highly technical and I feel will be totally baffling to most readers. I understand it is a technical subject and so I elected not to try to change the level of the existing article. Is it true that Wikipedia does not have "go here" links in article bodies? If this is the case why does it enable that function? I read the external links guideline and spam guideline before posting and felt that my post was appropriate.

I do feel it is appropriate to link to the authority text on the subject (the official BIPM version of the GUM on their website). I also feel it is appropriate to mention early on that this is a difficult document and provide some links to something more accessible for people who aren't already experts. The UKAS M3003 is an excellent document which I really feel should be linked to. I have no affiliation with either of these documents and can't understand why these links would be removed.

I also linked to the introduction to the subject that I have written on my academic website. If this was a conflict of interest I apologize. I did not believe it to be so. It is a non-commercial information site. I didn't see how I could include this type of beginners step-by-step explanation of measurement uncertainty without totally changing the flavor of the existing Wikipedia page. Therefore I included my external link. Perhaps I am biased but I think my page is the best beginners guide to uncertainty on the web and the link would serve the public interest.

The two introductory links I provided (UKAS M3003 and my website) are not in my opinion really "further reading" I believe they are more basic and readily understandable than the current Wikipedia page. If the Wikipedia page is to be pitched at such a high level for this subject then I do feel it is appropriate to provide external links to more accessible documents in the first paragraph.

Regards Jody Dr Jody Muelaner Research Fellow in Metrology, The University of Bath — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muelaner (talk • contribs) 23:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jody. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style which covers the placement of external links. See Wikipedia:MOS#External_links. You can carefully add more links to "Further reading" or "External links". I encourage you to propose improvements to the article on its talk page and see if your links can be used as references (cites). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)