User talk:NeilN/Archive 5

Regarding my recent post about Muhammad, boycott of Bano Hashim more specifically:

I added some text on the page Muhammad and you removed it by saying that there was some copy right issues. I posted the material because I myself am the original author of the text. It was no doubt published on www.al-mawrid.org but the site is run by myself and the text is my writing. What is the policy regarding this particular case? Regards, Tariqhaashmi--yamaan (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is:

You don't get to block someone for three hours, and hang around in hope that they'll say something reaaaaaally bad and progressively lengthen out to block. ESPECIALLY after that 2nd block.. where the incivility was aimed at him. We get told flat out "If some one is saying incivil things to/about you, that does not give you the right to block in return". It should be made by a neutral administrator. Wikipedia blocks by one administrator are not like progressive slots, with greater payouts. I just wish he had protected Giano's page after the 2nd block. Geogre still would have unilaterally undone the protection (at least this way no one can argue that the administrator who protected the page was biased in the whole thing). And needless to say, he (WMC) SHOULDN'T have wheel-warred the block back in without taking it to AN/ANI. Hope this explains my thoughts. SirFozzie (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have two issues here. First, "hanging about" may not exactly be accurate. I don't know how William works, but if I'm involved with an editor, that editor's talk page goes on my watchlist. I often do vandal fighting and keep watch even after they're blocked. If I noticed they've replied then I go check it out to make sure more disruption isn't taking place (e.g., refactoring of my comments). Second, does that neutral admin policy only apply to established editors? Because I've seen times where a block of a vandal results in an attack on the blocking admin which results in the block being lengthened by the same admin. This makes sense to me, even only from an efficiency point of view. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Genealogy and Nobility

I am not sure whether I am addressing this issue in the correct way here, but as I see you have been critical of the approach of one Hullaballo Wolkfowitz, who has dismissed my credentials as a widely acknowledged expert on nobility and royalty, and succession law in particular, merely because (he says) I publish my own web site on this. That is precisely why those who are experts in this fielkd consider it authoritative, becauas for many years I have written extensively on this subject, I have published dozens of articles and have been elected to the Royal Academy of Heraldry and Genealogy in Madrid in recognition of this. Wolfowitz, as far as I can determine, has absolutely no expertise on this and has merely dismissed what I have written as if the facts surrounding the birth of a living person are merely matters of opinion. In the case of the Boncompagni-Ludovisi family, its history and genealogy are extensively published and Prince Nicolo, the person in question, is identified in every genealogical reference source published since 1941 that includes this family as the heir and now head of that family. How is this controversial? Stating that someone "claims to be" something is ipso facto disputant; there is an automatic legal presumption that a person is the lawful child of their married parents which goes back to Roman law.

I would repeat the same point I made and which this Wolfowitz took objection to; if Wikipedia is to achieve a reputation for reliability and authority (still for many people, a matter of question) then it cannot allow people who have self-evident personal agendas to promote, the opportunity to edit in this way. I dpicked up the reference to Boncompagni-Ludovisi in an unrelated search but when I examined the history of changes to this entry and the discussion of the title I was astonished at what this person was doing, when he clearly has no basis for pretending to authority on this particular subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyStairSainty (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Van Morrison GA review

Any idea how long this process might take once it is nominated? I would regret not being available for any corrections, etc. that might be requested since I have all of the source material (biographies specifically) listed in the article. I can't be positive though that I will be able to participate during the last 2 weeks of July. I'll let you decide when it's ready to be put up for nomination, just wanted to make you aware of this possibility. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Everything's going great, setbacks only make us (and the article) stronger in the long run. Have added over 30 new references and have a few more just to make sure. Next time around, (several weeks away at least) the article will be "dang near" perfect. (At least in comparison to other GAs.). - and what more can an editor do than that?) Agadant (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A request for help!

Hi there, I realized I was about to engage in an edit war, and I'd rather not to do that; I remembered that you're a helpful and experienced user. I'd love to get your help on the issue I discuss at the bottom of the Oakland, CA article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oakland%2C_California. I feel certain that the other user here is wrong in making POV claims on a barely relevant page, but I'd like to bring in outside help. Is there somewhere I can post on Wikipedia that will encourage objective parties to help? And would I be right to revert this user's edits? Thanks! Eeblet (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with repeat Vandal IP 68.198.222.5

I rarely report vandals, preferring instead to send them a polite note and leave them be. In this instance though this is an IP[[1]] (or two? [[2]]) that has a history of unconstructive edits, and recently making more (e.g. 1, 2, 3). They are consistently reasserting their poorly written and factually incorrect edits for [biodegradable plastic]] and it's becoming very tedious. I've tried reasoning with them, but they are not being reasonable. I am having difficulty getting responses from admins, and you had previously assisted me on a similar matter, so I thought it appropriate to bring it to your attention. Cheers Halogenated (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neil, this is a request for assistance.

You may not remember the guidance you gave when I posted an article about Mark A Lindquist last month. The article has been severely edited and I am a little confused. Not only the format, but the contents have been greatly altered. Have the changes been correctly applied, am I free to return to the article and replace missing information? One example is the location of works of art that I have cited. There were approx 20 locations. These have been edited down to approx 4 locations. Why? I don't want to be rude to the editor that removed the content, but if 4 locations are acceptable, why not the others and why were those chosen as acceptable. Maybe I don't understand the concept of the Wikipedia encyclopedia, but I do want to create and maintain a factual and accurate page that falls under the requirements set forth by the site. If you would be so kind to review the changes made and let me know if my page was that poor or out of touch with the requirements I would be greatly appreciative.

Also, if this is not the appropriate forum to request your help, please let me know and direct my attention to that place!

Paul Jaruszewski, DDS

Paul Jaruszewski (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Neil, I am the one who pruned Mark Lindquist (sculptor). Paul and I are discussing it at User talk:Nancy#Slash and burn on Mark Lindquist.- do pitch in if you feel the urge. Cheers, Nancy ^talk 10:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dang Nancy, you get around fast... Neil, Just to let you know that Nancy has been helpful and at this point I have no material gripe about her or the handling of the page. I suppose my ire was more related to being protective of a first-born page that I tried hard to get compliant with WP. Will come back whining at full volume if Nancy turns out to actually be a red capped pirate, but I think she and I will get along fine.

Paul Jaruszewsk, DDS

71.108.157.221 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 71.108.157.221 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK Guys, this is the last time I try to sign with 4 tildes... It's me... Honest... Who else could spell that name... - PJ

71.108.157.221 (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man

Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Spider-Man, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) There are a number of concerns to be addressed and some work to be done, so pitch in if you are able, make any suggestions that you think might be helpful, or at least just be there for moral support. :) BOZ (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Template:911ct, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  08:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Which do you disapprove of adjectives or good Wiki writing style?

The risque, sensationalistic, bawdy content of her interview is the thing Rita Jenrette is best known for. The opening section, even the opening screen, doesn't give any indication why she is best known for this interview. Why are you opposed to describing it as risque? The reader may decide, but the reader needs a hint before page 2. G&E (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the phrase "and her accompanying semi-nude pictorial" gives the reader an idea :-) How about "She is most famous for the frank interview..."? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Frank" means honest and to the point. She volunteered the episode to spice up the interview. Risque, racy, or salacious would all be better choices. Titillating would be the best choice but it would never get past the wikicensors. G&E (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

All those adjectives are non-neutral and would require backup from a third party source. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The comedy troupe is called The Capital Steps, not Rita Jenrette's pictorial. G&E (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see what you're getting at? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Rita Jenrette COI tag

I left the COI tag on because several sections of the article, even in the form I reverted to, were originally added by Jenrette, and because she's removed or prompted the removal of other text. She's been involved in editing the article for some time; the issues aren't entirely recent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Pfizer criminal charges

Actually, Pfizer did indeed plead guilty to a felony criminal charge. See [3] among other sources. Superm401 - Talk 18:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. The first sentence of the category is "For inclusion in this category, a person must:". Pfizer is not a person. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Pfizer is a person under the law. Please see Legal person or [4] . Superm401 - Talk 18:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt the category meant to include companies in a legalistic sense. There are no other companies on the list. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

How about using the Corporate crime category? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This works for me, though I still think we could include legal persons in Category:American criminals, since the actual law does. Superm401 - Talk 04:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rita Jenrette sourcing issues

I really think your edit this morning was incorrect. The only sources cited on the disputed issues regarding titles are self-published, and not allowed under under WP:RS generally or under WP:BLP's stricter requirements. There's no question about Ludovisi's own website being self-published (or for that matter not meeting the independent 3d party standards); chivalricorders.org is self-published by Stair-Sainty, has not been shown to meet any exception to the general bar on Wikipedia use of self-published sources, and hasn't been otherwise used (presumably for those reasons) as a source in other Wikipedia articles. As I commented on the talk page, I've taken pains to phrase the relevant text in accordance with what appears to be the consensus approach in other articles on similar individuals (as I cite on the talk page), and none of Jenrette's friends/partisans/whatever have provided anything that indicates that the consensus aproach is inappropriate. I also think it's interesting that, after I raised the issue with regard to what the Congress of Vienna supposedly declared, even Stair-Sainty appears to acknowledge that Jenrette herself is not entitled to the title she claims. For all that a few guys are throwing insults around and muddying the waters, this remains a sourcing issue, and the lack of reliable independent sourcing remains conspicuous. I don't even see enough of an issue to open a discussion on the RS noticeboards so far, but I'm ready to discuss it there if you think otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've asked the reliable source question here on the Royalty WikiProject noticeboard [5]. If we can get an answer, either yes or no, or get more viewpoints, then hopefully the article reverts will stop. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the revert on my user page. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Calgary Cerebral Palsy Association

Hello Neil,

I feel quite offended when you have on the note that the website link that I tried to post is a "spam" website. This link is to a non-profit association to help people with Cerebral Palsy. In my opinion any information that people can get about this is condition is always better that none. Do you have a suggestion in which I can put this link somewhere else?

Regards,

Duc Gnourt (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

High Activity

NeilN, Srinivas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Srinivas 12:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I see that you actively edit Hyderabad, India. I am really impressed. Continue you edits in such an enthusiasm. Anticipating a reply, --Srinivas 12:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You do lot of editing with Twinkle, so you can request rollback rights. Please reply here and place {{tb}} on my talk. --Srinivas 13:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hyderabad, India is on my watchlist so I examine most changes when I'm active. And I received rollback rights about 18 months ago - I prefer using Twinkle's revert in most cases as it automatically opens up the user's talk page in another browser window. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh! That is really good, good luck, --Srinivas 15:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Warnings

Thank you ever so much, I'll look for a relevant barnstar for helping others!
P.S Please do check my latest case, where I did follow your advice and give a friendly message: User_talk:173.10.186.162
Limideen 15:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		I guess I'm not that new a user, but I couldn't find any others that fit helping others like this one! Limideen 15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Comment from Me I'm Afraid!

Regarding your latest comment on my talkpage:

Aaaarrrghhh! I think I might need to take a break of this.
Sorry if these all seem like excuses, but I honestly was going through a long list of possible vandalising edits, and the one above or below must have needed the npov warning! I will attempt to locate which one it was, but it might be impossible.

I will remove the npov warning I sent accidentally immediately, and look deeper and further in my next vandalism warning(s)! I hope we continue to fight vandalism together, and hopefully, soon, we will completely stop the vandals!
Limideen 15:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Critically acclaimed

Hey NeilN

Do you want to edit this into the article then? Would mean more than me tackling it further..Thanks for your support. IMO without the critically acclaimed the entire sentence has to be re-written. All the best, Agadant (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, so much!!! Agadant (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Abkhazia

Why is information that is critical towards the topic that I am editing continuously being deleted? Is it fair that people write that my people committed "ethnic cleansing" against a much larger population but that I am not allowed to counterargue this with factual proof aired on live television of the opposite being the truth as well? When is this juvenile attitude going to end? Circassiankama (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)CircassianKama

Dude, a TELEVISED LIVE NEWS REPORT is not enough evidence for you??? I can find other sources that can back up what is obviously a captured image of a GEORGIAN HIGH RANKING MILITARY MAN speaking on TV about massacring an entire nation if you like. But are you kidding me? That's really not enough? Or do you just not want me to post that little tidbit altogether? I suppose it's ok that Georgians can write about a ragtag army of over 70k committing mass genocide against a population of 250k? (which is astounding considering the fact that the majority of that group actually FLED ABKHAZIA before Georgian troops invaded Abkhazia proper, (AGAIN, another fact that can be easily verified)).

Is Wikipedia neutral or "neutral" towards the issues it wants to be?

Circassiankama (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)CircassianKama

I find your words very interesting. So, basically it's about the "wording" of the aforementioned "proof". So, if I come off as neutral and harmless, and without bringing forth any type of provocative evidence, then I'm all good to go? I noticed a couple of citations that are clearly youtube videos, how can you justify those?

As for your comment about the Georgian thing.....obviously, it won't be that easy to find articles that clearly state that. My intent here is that you can see this happening through the actions the Georgian people have taken up against the minority groups living in their artifically drawn borders. I should probably also mention that Abkhazians are not the only groups being oppressed by Georgians.....hmmmmmmmm.......I will find some "verifiable" links speaking of Georgian mistreatment of their non-Georgian neighbors and put them on the page and pray that they stay there to provide some balance to this horribly biased page.

By the way, I was wrong about the "general". He was actually a former defense minister. Does that strengthen my point at all? If this is not seen as "Georgian intent" then how can these obviously Georgian revisionists write such villifying comments about Abkhazians on the ABKHAZIA page and be allowed to get away with them?

P.S. Sorry about the minor edit thing, didn't mean to annoy you. Just didn't really think that these changes were such a big deal.

Circassiankama (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)CircassianKama

Neil, I get what you're saying, but what does that have to do with this though. All I'm providing here is a link to a youtube video of a Georgian government official/general who went on national TV to say he wanted to murder the entire Abkhazian nation. What my argument here is that if pro-Georgian cats can use this page as a catalyst to "prove" that a ragtag poorly equipped milita that was 4 times smaller than the Georgian army could find a way to ethnically cleanse that many people....then I can also provide a COUNTER-ARGUMENT in the form of a video of a Georgian official who only confirms what most people believe: that the Georgian invasion of Abkhazia happened because the Georgians would not tolerate the Abkhazians asking for an expansion of their rights (you know that this is why they invaded, right?) and that this was an intention of theirs.

Now, when you say that you are trying to abide by Wiki's guidelines and what not, I understand. That's fair. But what are you using as "proof" of the "neutrality" of this article? You are aware that the West is undeniably pro-Georgian due to the US's intention to expand its influence in the region right? And that this is on a larger scale a competition for power and influence in the region between Russia and the USA, correct? Are academic writings enough to use as a counter-argument...or does proof only have to come from "specific" sites like CNN, NBC, and so on?

Here we are left with a number of questions left unanswered. This is why I have also proposed having a locked page of Abkhazia for those who believe in the ABKHAZIAN (isn't this an ironic thing to say?) argument of things. If pro-Georgian people insist on projecting their revionist stuff on that page, then we should at least be allowed to have our view on here too, especially in light of the rise of Wiki's popularity in past years. It's unfair for people to try to learn about this topic to come here and learn a very narrow-minded, bigoted, and in many ways, incorrect view of Abkhazia. I just find it odd that Abkhazian history and issues written by Georgians can be allowed, but an Abkhaz tries to come and explain their own history and is rebuffed because their own viewpoints are "unpopular". Get my drift here?

I am finding this tiring in a way because it's really not something I want to do in my spare time...but these people need to understand that their crap is not tolerated by those who actually were born and come from the region. I would imagine that we would know our own history better than those who are trying to surpress it. Why do you think we have issues with Georgia? It has nothing to do with Russia. It has to do with us wanting to be left alone.

Sorry, I went on a bit. But hope you get why I'm upset.

Circassiankama (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)CircassianKama

my change

i`m new and they didn`t change my article oes that mean that it was a really good edit or what

thanks i say hi and boo

so how does a publication makes its way onto a page anyhow?

i was disappointed to see the references to 365antigua.com were removed. this may be considered spam but since we were the sole media outlet that docuemented the latest CARA festival, and cover different events weekly, how does this differentiate us from other media outlets such as the observer or the sun.

but i was doubly disappointed since all edits were removed. as someone who has lived here for years with my Antiguan family, i can attest that the edits made were accurate.

i am new to wikipedia, so i am curious to know if someone simply undoes edits, is that the end of it?

and if placing an information source on wikipedia is considered spamming, then how did the observer or the sun manage to make its way onto wikipedia? please advise.

thanks for feedback

i totally get your point on self-promotion. and the example about NYC is valid. the reality on the ground is antigua the country is quite different than NYC. this is one of the main reasons for the initiation of 365antigua.com. with the implosion of one of the dailies here in antigua, there is a desperate need for community communication. communication in antigua is very disjointed.

wikipedia not recognizing online information sources is, is behind the curve. print is extremely expensive down on this small island so to only recognize print is to disregard valid tools used by antiguans.

i am curious as to why all the other edits were removed. i realize the 'twinkle' app is a catch-all, but to suggest the edits were vandalism is pretty inaccurate. frankly, the edits i made: replaced dated content, (arguably) corrected incorrect information and added content that should not be omitted.

not knowing the ropes around here (but being someone who adds content to several other online sites), is there a lot of undoing of content with a 'twinkle' ? is it standard and should i get used to it ? or when it happens, just accept that someone else is going to continue to dispute my content as vandalism and therefore give up on adding content in those areas?

please advise.

---

the vandalism suggestion came directly from the TWINKLE app who's purpose is to undo vandalism. i realize its a catch-all.

as far as citing points made, its pretty tough to cite things like what Antiguans eat. unless you eat here and see what people eat and what is for sale at roadsides and restaurants... the cuba education could use cites, but frankly, since it wasn't already in place may be the reason for this. the problem with antigua is things are very poorly docuemented and information is archived. not even on the news publications. only until recently have the dailies had sites that provide good information that stays up.

i'll give it another try with the editing of content. there may be times though that we may need to cite from 365antigua.com not because its a plug, but because it may be the only source of information that is available to cite.

our goal is to bring Antigua into the rest of the world for internet content and communication. for many years Antigua has been (often purposely) kept cut off from from the outside world. (did you know VOIP phones are illegal here?). so we have a big job to do. bear with as i muddle through wikipedia to add content about Antigua. what's presently on the page is not up-to-date or entirely accurate. and lots of important information is missing. thx.

Rodney Lough, Jr.

what you call an edit war, we call telling the truth. it seems to us that you guys are simply in a mindset that whatever you want to say about rodney lough is OK, well it is not. you site rule after rule after rule, but then when rules are followed (citation needed as an example) you ignore them or say that YOU don't think there a valid source and then site another rule. really, piss off NeilN. No other photographer that we can see has had this amount of content edit by you editors (and most of it has been wrong!), why is it that this page has gotten so much attention? Oh, please site some more of your rules for us.....We have asked for help in editing the page so that it can be accurate on numerous occasions but do not get any offers to do that - instead you spend your time figuring out which 'rules' you plan on enforcing today. Wiki is in a lot of press of late because it does not seem to be stating fact within the articles, simply opinion - so why is it you think your opinion is worth so much more than that of the horses mouth? here's an example - removing a statement about getting a camera at the age of 12 because it cannot be 'citation needed' is absurd. petty, you are all very very petty. And when you don't like hearing what we think you send veiled threats to have us blocked? OH watch out wiki is going to block us - really that's sooooo intimidating. BTW it appears that you have edited the article more than 4 times w/in a 24 hour period as well, consider this your warning as well - look in the mirror first next time, before you cast the stone! 32.177.4.111 (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This user has been blocked but a couple points: 1) Almost everything in the article has been sourced so everything is verifiable. No inaccuracies have been pointed out. 2) Editing the article 4 times in 24 hours is perfectly fine. Reverting or re-adding removed material 4 times in 24 hours is not. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Canton

Look, it's one person against not just everybody, but historical fact (that the kettle called itself "black kettle" when speaking in the pot's language). It's not my intention to call it vandalism, but that is just what UW Error Level 3 was determined to be. When it gets to that level, it's beyond simply content dispute or edit warring. Also, it isn't just mechanically the third level. His/her tone and logic also send him/her on the way to a permanent ban. The rest of the world has let him/her rant long enough and nobody has struck out his Talk comments. HkCaGu (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but L31 believes the info to be correct so, basically, he's trying to correct your incorrect info, and not deliberately introduce incorrect info. As for his tone, if he doesn't dial it back, a report to WP:WQA will be in order. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh

And I was just saying to someone yesterday that no one had tried to kill off Johnny Depp lately. [6] That's what I get for speaking out of turn. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think half (most?) of today's current celebs would be dead by now if the vandals had their way. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

porno

You continue to add a photo of your erect genitals to the wikipedia page "scrotum". What you do not understand is that, unlike you, others do not want to view them and, like in the real world, you should keep them to yourself. Jcool5 (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• A picture of a scrotum is not porno
• They're not my genitals
• As I've mentioned before, WP:NOTCENSOR
• Get consensus on talk page before removing again --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Dax Landes High School

Hi Neil,

I am guessing from your contributions you are a deletionist, so I fully declare myself an inclusionist.

I am not sure why you listed Dax Landes High School at WP:PNT, and shortly thereafter another in Armenian and another in Spanish. I am sure you do your homework (I looked at the other two) but this one was so short that it would seem to be obvious to go SPEEDY as, effectively, no content.

On all of the French: Dax Landes High School, the Spanish: Loteria santa lucia and the Armenian: Gladzor_University you seem to have SUBST the PNT template, which is a surprise to me as have been called, a little too flatteringly, a "PNT reg" (admittedly in the context of how badly I had done a translation, or if it was worth the bother at all!) Is this deliberate or how did it come about being there? Usually it is just transcluded, not subst, or at least it was.

The French article I have translated but expect will go prod if not speedy as it is a single sentence with no references. The Spanish might possibly have legs and I will do a rough translation, my Spanish is not great. The Armenian looks also likely for speedy just on length i.e. essentially no content. I repeat, I am an inclusionist, and I am more than happy to wait for content to be added, but these seem thrown in almost without thought, and I would not object to a deletion.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Simon. This was my first time WP:PNT so apologies if I screwed anything up. School's are inherently notable (even stubs) so I'm really hesitant to CSD them even if they consist of a sentence. As for the substs, I simply did what the template told me like here [7]:

If you have just labeled this page as needing translation, please add {{subst:Needtrans | pg = Loteria santa lucia | Language = unknown | Comments = }} ~~~~ to the bottom of this section of Pages needing translation into English.

Did I do something wrong? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure why the Armenian Gladzor University would be speedied as there was a fair amount of Amenian text in there. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be simply my false memory, with the subst. I just can't remember seeing it there before (but I have been working mostly on Hungarian articles that have not gone PNT and so not had those tags, the side-effects of having a Hungarian gf I am afraid, I do the fixup and she does the translation. Works quite well.) The fact it struck me as strange tends to indicate something is awry, since from what you put I would agree with you, you did nothing wrong.

On a more general note "did nothing wrong", of course not I accept you listed in good faith and also technically you are probably correct, I dunno. I simply have it on my watchlist and if an article on a language I can translate, even roughly, I do if for nothing else than give others who may be more qualified in the subject but not in the language to decide better than I can if it is worth keeping. By the way, the Spanish article I have rough translated the first para and you may wish to take a look to see if you think it is worth translating more, and add your comments at PNT or, if you prefer, to myself. It's not so long that I can rough translate the rest as well, but it will be rough (but probably better than Google, which I have not used.)

I should have added before I checked your user contributions and saw delete, delete, delete etc. I am sure this is necessary and valuable and everyone must edit in his own way, and I don't just assume good faith, I know you have it. As I see it, PNT is almost a last resort because it means the contributor has through ignorance or deliberate attempt not to ask for a translation at one of the many many pages and projects that allow one to request it. Many do then get deleted for simply having no backup, though people try to google etc. to find matching text, sources etc so as not to COPYVIO and so forth. You did the right thing by listing at PNT if you were unsure, since it is kinda the last resort before the dustbin/trashcan, but much as I dislike saying it, if your judgment is to delete it, I think your judgment is likely sound, whether you can read the text or not, you can use other criteria such as its length, references, categories, etc., and you seem a good judge of that.

The Armenian I cannot really comment on because I can't translate that at all, but under the criterion on length certainly worth listing. The French one, which caught my eye just because I tend to translate shortish French PNTs simply to give others an idea what to do with them, I would say definitely goes SPEEDY. I found no links at all for it on Google (it is in English now so you can try if you want.), nor relevant links for the acronyms on English or French Wikipedia. The Spanish (Guatamalan) lottery one, I've done the rough translation of the first para and you can look and judge and I would suggest add your opinion at PNT though I am more than glad to hear it first if you are unsure. I can rough translate a bit more if you want. SimonTrew (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear I didn't mess up the PON listing. I always find it interesting coming across the less well-known nooks and crannies of Wikipedia and seeing how they work. Regarding the all the CSD's - it funny you say that as I haven't worked on the new page patrol in quite a while before this weekend. If you look further back you'll see a bunch of dab work and prior to that, standard anti-vandalism reverts. There's always something different to do around here.

As for the articles, Dax Landes High School is up for prodding and I agree with that as admins will likely not speedy a school. Gladzor_University seems to be fully translated and kept. As for Loteria santa lucia, I found an English reference and added it to the article. As national lotteries usually get media coverage I would say there are more Spanish references out there and the subject is notable. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Re

oh i didnt know that im sorry Saturn star (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikicookie

LAAFan has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Munch, munch. Thanks! --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing Help

I don't know how to word this correctly, so I am just going to swing a a verbal club around and see if I can hit you with it. How do I put references on pages? The type of reference that gets put in the reference list, a external link that gets put it in the reference list. Please tell me you understand what I am asking.... --DroKIDCASH (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I do understand why my artical Beanie Baby Princess was removed. What I dont understand is why you didnt offered me any help in correcting it. I am learning disabled. I have gone thru many years of school to learn how to read and write. Its not the best by far but I know the point of the artical is 100% correct and it needs to be seen by the public. A direction on how to make it your way would be nice. You have seen my artical many times please come back to help me this time and not warn me. Thank you for your time.Lovablehearts (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Irish goodbye

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Irish goodbye. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish goodbye. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Riddell

My apologies; obviously I mistook the last useful version and went back too far. I do think your version is useful as long as it's not that of the non-notable individual whose biography overwrote it, and I'm happy you noticed the difference and restored the most appropriate version. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I thought that was what had happened. FYI, the replace-revert scenario has been going on for over 2 years now. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Coyote

Thanks re: coyote reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.81.250 (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't did

I am not doing so, it is other user who did that with the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.183.116 (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.183.116 (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)