User talk:NeilN/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Edit explanation

Dear fellow, you recently left a message on my talk page asking me to explain my edits.

The total %age of Hindus in whole uk is 1.3% and 1.5% for england according to 2011 census. I corrected that mistake and merged %age of Hindus in other religions %age. That's clearly not vandalism or some thing else.

On article religion in Belgium, their were two different sources with totally different figures making readers confused. Therefore I took ipos mori source and created the pie chart. But another user came and reverted my edit saying that you are making christian percentage look lower. Since I am a mobile user I cannot revert edits so I have to start again from nothing again. I copy pasted pie chart from previous versions but I was not able to rescue the original source of ipos mori. Then you came and instead of rescuing the original source, you reverted my whole edit saying that its source points towards page not found. This shows your non serious behaviour.Septate (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Septate, curiously you avoid answering for the articles I asked about [1], [2]. I still would like an answer please. And here is the link you added to Belgium. What do you get when you click it? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Neil N, I have warned Septate, and informed about Arbitration Enforcement. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. I admit that I removed info regarding Hinduism from these articles and that's why I was warned for possible topic ban. I have no particular bias for this religion. It was simply due to my lack of information regarding hinduism. I though that it was just an india phenomena and had no presence outside india except Mauritius. Look at my edit history now and you will not get any traces of Systematic removal of Hinduism. Hope you will understand.Septate (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, good revert[3], but why you didn't checked Religion and homosexuality? Let Septate represent his dishonesty and mislead pages, I am just having more and more diffs for getting him topic banned and even a deaf/blind person would agree that Septate should be topic banned from Hinduism.

If you worry about wikihounding, Dougweller had told once that if editor is suspicious then anyone can wikihound and it won't be considered as stalking. My timings are different now. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bladesmulti. I did look at that edit and didn't revert because I actually agree with it. The Rediff source looks very poor for what it is sourcing. I would prefer a much more scholarly source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Replaced with routledge reference. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti, your abusive behaviour clearly shows your inability to resolve disputes. You have not reached any concensus yet. I am waiting for your reply on talk:Religion and homosexuality. You can't simply warn me of topic ban. The info about Hinduism one the article looked disputable to me and thats why I raised concern. Nothing wrong with it.Septate (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		As one of the editors who helped answer my question(s) at the Teahouse concerning my mistaken csd/afd two step with regards to the article Norman Alvis I hereby present you with this Teamwork Barnstar. Thanks for the help, I can see now both why and how I screwed this matter up so badly, which will hopefully translate into fewer mistakes of this nature down the road. With my sincere thanks, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Begging and vagrancy

Hi!

I put quite a bit of effort on improving the writing of the Begging and Vagrancy articles, sloppy in my opinion. I do think I did more good than bad: By all means, if you disagree with aspects of the edit, undo them. But please don't undo them all in less time than it takes to read them.

Nicolas Perrault (what did I screw up again?) 01:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nicolas Perrault, actually I went through the entire diff on Begging and the majority of your changes did not improve the article in my opinion. If you wish me to give examples, I will do so in a couple hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nicolas Perrault III: Assuming you are still interested in this and not nitpicking my informal writing, here are some examples. Diff for your reference.

• Intro is less informative and introduces unnecessary restrictions ("money or food" -> not always, "Beggars are found on transport routes, in urban parks, and near busy markets." -> not always)
• Second intro paragraph -> you changed a direct quote
• Removal of useful intro sentence in History section
• "Ancient Greeks distinguished between the ptochos (Greek: πτωχός, "passive poor" or "beggars") and the penes (Greek: ποινής, "active poor") of higher social status" -> less clear
• "Many religions establish begging to social classes, typically to allow focusing on spiritual development." -> makes far less sense than what you replaced
• "Examples exist in Christianity, Hinduism, Sufi Islam, and Jainism." -> conveys no useful detail
• "Begging has been restricted..." -> no need to cut out detail
• "...restrict specific kinds of begging, particularly certain narrowly-defined cases of "aggressive" or abusive begging." is not equivalent to "...restrict rare cases of aggressive begging."
• "resembles" is not equivalent to "based on"

These are the issues I had with the first part of your changes (you'll notice that I listed almost every change in the portion I covered). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A good word from William Zinsser: "Clutter is the disease of American writing. We are a society strangling in unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous frills and meaningless jargon."

• I agree with your comment on the introduction. I suggest:

"Beggars are found on transport routes, urban parks..." --> "Beggars can be found on transport routes, urban parks..." (That they can be found in other "public places" is implied by the nature of the list).

• The intro to the History section is a filler and gives no information. The existence of begging in prehistory seems hard to prove. We can guess that it existed, but so can the reader. (Of course, I would favour the inclusion of citable material on the prehistory of begging.)
• Listing Christianity, Hinduism, Sufi Islam, and Jainism at the top of the section doesn't give more information.
• In "Begging has been restricted...", I removed no detail. "at various times and for various reasons" doesn't mean anything. In "...rather than to beg for economic or moral reasons", the "economic or moral reasons" is clutter (there's no other kind of begging) and the "rather than to beg" is implied from context. In the last sentence, "varying levels of effectiveness and enforcement" is another filler: No one would conceive that effectiveness and enforcement of Poor Laws are ever unchanging.

I apologise for the change to the direct quote.

Nicolas Perrault (what did I screw up again?) 11:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nicolas Perrault reducing clutter should not mean reducing clarity and preciseness or to transform generalized examples into declarations.

This:

Begging has been restricted or prohibited at various times and for various reasons, typically revolving around a desire to preserve public order or to induce people to work rather than to beg for economic or moral reasons. Various European Poor Laws prohibited or regulated begging from the Renaissance to modern times, with varying levels of effectiveness and enforcement.

proposes some reasons why begging is prohibited while this:

Begging can be restricted to push people to work and preserve public order. In Europe, Poor Laws have regulated begging since the Renaissance.

makes a declaration. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. What don't you like in declarations? Nicolas Perrault (what did I screw up again?) 00:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Your Disruptive Editing

(Undid revision 61124065) WP:3RR and WP:EW require an user's page to receive a warning when they are edit warring. Please stop your disruptive editing. You are not Admin. Put your comments on the Romeo and Juliet page if you are defending your friend.)

If you are defending your friend, then make constructive comments on the Romeo and Juliet page where he/she is edit warring and has made a 3RR violation. Be constructive since Prof. Harold Bloom is a reputable scholar and the citation I have given is validated and a respected book in the academic community. Your friend appears to disagree for his/her personal reasons and is contradicting a published and verifiable authority in Prof. Harold Bloom. FelixRosch (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Resolved? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing ageism from Millennials "See Also" page

Reasons?172.250.31.151 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen

If not there, then where? NO admin cat seems to qualify. It's OK for him to cast aspersions on my front page (I appreciate technically it is Wikipedia's not mine)? It would do no good if I just blanked his and wrote crap on his. So where, then?

S Si Trew (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Si Trew, communications are placed on user talk pages. I left a note on Bish's talk page pointing to your post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Racial profiling

Sorry but ive put a source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradley Wiggins (talk • contribs) 01:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Bradley Wiggins, "am//racially/ hh.) 2011" is not an acceptable cite. See WP:CITE how to add a proper reference. And please stop messing about with section titles [4]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

and stop deleting my stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradley Wiggins (talk • contribs)

Management Solutions Inc

Why are you removing the information about the final judgment? The fact that a US Federal Judge has already entered a judgment is more then worthy of mention in that story, why on earth would you simply reduce it to a stub? I did some edits to make it more cohesive, but the fact that this case has already been reduced to a final judgment in the courts mutes any BLP concerns you may have, this was really well sourced, and I put in some time, as you did to redress its issues, but please restore the final judgment data, thank you! talk→ WPPilot  04:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, please stop, you are really out of line to post this on a Admin board for review then go right into tearing the whole page apart with out any consensus on this, please stop, this as I mentioned on the board is the tenth largest fraud in history and you just put 95% of the sources, in the trash. talk→ WPPilot  04:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

WPPilot, WP:BLPPRIMARY is very clear: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." And I did not post this for review, DGG did, with an eye to deleting the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

But you are removing things that are sourced by the Salt Lake City news agencies, both broadcast as well as print, not to mention the fact that you removed the links to the US Security and Exchange commission websites press releases, how do you fit those into WP:BLPPRIMARY? talk→ WPPilot  04:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

WPPilot, SEC orders are primary documents. The only thing sourced to secondary reports is I can see I cut is:

BECKSTEAD entered into an agreement to sell almost all of the multi-family properties to an affiliate of Cortland Partners for $338,500,000.00 Approval of that sale is pending. April 2, 2014 a investor challenged the structure of the planned $338.5 million sale of a multifamily property to Cortland Partners LLC, contending that the sale’s proceeds will be distributed unfairly. The hearing date is May 19th, 2014

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree SEC press releases are SEC press releases, not ORDERS in any way shape or form. You have trashed this whole article, you never gave it a chance for a consensus in any way, you just tore into it. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=21488877 that is a link to the story on the final judgment, but as you are dead set on destruction??? talk→ WPPilot  04:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

SEC PRESS release: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-266.htm

Here if you want to tear it apart, please include the information that was reported upon by the media:

• http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=960&sid=18526079&fm=related_story&s_cid=article-related-2
• http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=960&sid=18725000&fm=related_story&s_cid=article-related-1
• http://www.costar.com/News/Article/Receiver-Sets-Liquidation-Plan-for-$220-Million-Multifamily-Portfolio/148375
• http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/securities/b/securities/archive/2012/07/25/accused-utah-ponzi-schemer-held-in-contempt-for-hiding-assets-from-receiver.aspx
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2011/12/16/father-son-mormon-duped-investors-out-of-220-million-in-ponzi-scheme-sec-says/
• http://www.law360.com/articles/524329/cortland-s-339m-re-deal-shorts-some-investors-court-told

I did not delete any of those sources except for the law360 one you just added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps but the story is so mangled now that it will take a day of editing to restore the stuff that you so BOLDLY removed before I had a chance to update the refs, now it is going to have be written ALL OVER again. Geeeze talk→ WPPilot  04:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as you had an admin advocating deletion and two other editors calling for a WP:BLOWITUP a rewrite seems to be in order. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

References

And why then did you remove the law 360 link? You really did just destroy years of effort here. I could have fixed in in under a hour. If you review the links it substantiates via a third party creditable source the ENTIRE STORY, as it was, you have hacked it up into something that really makes no sense and no longer is accurate in details about the 10 largest fraud in human history. Are you going to restore the data with the links above, or do you expect me to do it?talk→ WPPilot  04:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI you in no way rewrote this, you simply butchered it, and left it in a mangled state. talk→ WPPilot  04:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed the entire paragraph as it was surrounded by primary-sourced paragraphs and unsourced trivia. I would hope you continue the discussion at WP:BLPN on what are appropriate sources and details. And on the contrary, the present version is quite understandable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If a admin told you to jump off a cliff would you run right over to the cliff and jump? "the present version is quite understandable" but it no longer has any of the actual facts about the case. If a person was to read that he/she would have NO IDEA what was going on. BTW, YOU were the one the suggest it be rewritten. The links that I gave you support MOST of what you have removed. I will restore the story with the proper data using the new sources that I have pointed out. And no the current version no longer represents the case in a manner that provides the reader with a understanding, only confusion. talk→ WPPilot  05:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, I thank you for your attention to this article. I was indeed divided between using bLPN and AFD. WPPilot, what I found utterly confusing was the original article--it took me quite a while to figure out what was important from among the trivia, such as the $ value of the individual items of the principals foreclosed assets. I think primary sources can sometimes be used, but this article was a remarkable example of how not to do so. I don't think anyone wants us to not have an article on the subject; the question is what to do with this article. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Copyright violations issue with two sex topic articles

See here. Copyright violations? If so, should I go ahead and revert those edits now, WP:Preserve some of the content or what? Flyer22 (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If article text is a copyright violation or close paraphrase remove it immediately (I usually add a link in the edit summary if possible to the original text). The text can be rewritten after the removal if so desired. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be a matter of extensive quoting, but from different sources (so there's too many to provide the link for in the edit summary). For example, this type of quoting is fine. While it doesn't make for a good article to have it simply be a bunch of quotes, I'm not sure that these are copyright violations. I know that extensive quoting from a source can be a WP:Copyright violation, though. Seems that I should use this tool to compare the sources and the text. Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I worship at the altar of Moonriddengirl when it comes to non-obvious copyright violations. You may want to ask her. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of her when I referred to that copyright violation detector tool. I decided to refrain from linking her name here at your talk page in case you didn't want the matter discussed much further here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No One Is Buying Your "Reason" For Your Edit War...

I'm not using original research in the actual edits. I'm saving that for the talk page. Your reverts are unwarranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.130.11.182 (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I can pretty much guarantee allusions to conspiracy theories with giving reliable sources that discuss the "mystery" will be removed when scrutinized by any experienced editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC) "with" should be "without". ooops. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. Are you claiming that 4.7 * 2 = 8.5 and to say otherwise is a conspiracy theory? I see you have a history of being rude and arrogant, but have many rewards by Wikipedia... And the worst part is, this doesn't surprise me at all. Wikipedia is not objective, nor is it neutral, and it really has no problem with being wrong if it helps its senior editors' confirmation bias.50.130.11.182 (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi I have tried my best for this as it was my first page. i created this page for him as it is not easy to do something substantial in militant hit state of J&K Rahil Gupta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun7007 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Rahil Gupta

Hi ,

This is the first work of mine . And i did it for Rahil Gupta because He has done something substantial in militant hit state and provided job opportunities to so many people. I don not know much about editing but what you people feel good like you can edit accordingly . yes press releses are ther as secondary intrsuments were needed to my liitle knowledge

Thanks,

Arjun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun7007 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arjun7007. As I mentioned on your talk page, press releases are essentially useless as sources. To expand, they can be used to source straightforward facts. They cannot be used to source self-serving claims or as proof of notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi So could you help me in knowing what kind of reference have to be put here. So that i make necessary changes .

Thanks for replying

Arjun7007 (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Arjun7007, Wikipedia:RS#Some_types_of_sources is a good read if you want to understand the types of sources we look for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

BLPGROUP

Would you mind telling me why you are reverting polite requests sourcing for various unfounded statements, along with a spelling correction, and some strikethroughs of accusations that reflect very poorly on the redirect CEO of this corporation? Especially when Nadex has no references anywhere? I am not certain I understand the policy or rationale that allows them to be called either "enough" or "guff". How can one section be enough when there are several talk sections I haven't even read yet? Okteriel (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Okteriel, as a WP:SPA who has a WP:COI and is grabbing at anything you can find [5], you should be staying far, far away from tampering with other people's comments. Ask for sources in your own separate posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

What should I do? Should I filter my alleged SPA by editing more unrelated articles? Should I go rogue instead of disclosing more about my conversation with Mr Laurent, as I indicated I would do? Should Article Rescue decline to bring fresh independent views? Should Historian be allowed to speak extremely rashly without interruption? The Wikipedia I know is very friendly about allowing {{cn}} or {{interrupted}} in the middle of others' posts. Should I not correct spelling errors in the comment of another friendly editor with a good managed COI? Are you saying I am violating a policy? Since I am coming to you for counsel, would you not tell me how the identity of the article subject can be corrected? Would you mind if I tagged the Nadex article as {{unreferenced}}? If so, why so? If not now, when? Okteriel (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what Wikipedia you know but mine has WP:TALKO. And the Wikipedia I know is pretty unfriendly towards whitewashing with overtones of paid editing. You should be doing things as uncontroversially as possible. And yes, tagging the Nadex article is uncontroversial as it indeed has no sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I thanked you for that one, I like being validated. Also, TALKO bows to BLP, does not exclude the obvious {{interrupted}}, which I could use instead but is clunkier, and later on the page it explicitly mentions the talk inline template {{corrected}}. And the editor who restores (by unstriking) controversial material shares responsibility for that material. Why are you so anxious to unstrike unfounded probable BLP violations?

You are also saying I'm whitewashing when I was merely attempting to get self-reverted discussion drafts going. Would you like to tell me how my quick-start improvement drive constitutes whitewashing? Would you like to stay with me and help me improve the article, such as by agreeing that BDB, Ltd, is not BDB Svcs, Ltd, when our article says wrongly it is? Thank you! Okteriel (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

As you asked, I brought the issue to WP:BLPN#BLPTALK at Banc De Binary archive. Okteriel (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Serbian IP hopper

Any idea who it is? Several editors have been targeted, at least 3 IP addresses so far. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it's probably originally 79.101.150.85 (talk · contribs), about Igor Janev, though why they are being so persistent I have no idea. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Yes, that's my guess too. If you want to see an example of persistence have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahil Gupta and sigh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine WP:NOTNEWS again

Its an ongoing problem see Vladimir Putin#Intervention in Crimean Peninsula - 5 quotes in 3 paragraphs. He even removed the quote tag without doing a thing to fix the problem. Just going to have to keep an eye out for this copy and paste master...see if we can follow and clean up after him. Hes even engaged in an edit war over at Sigmund Freud over an edit that has been there for year (even passed GA review with it) that has resulted in the page being lockedup. Not sure why bold revert discus is such a problem for this editor. Hes not that bad at simple copy editing but when adding info its mostly quotes. -- Moxy (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Moxy: It's a somewhat more advanced version of a problem some editors have with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. In this case, it's a difficulty with judging the appropriate level of detail that should go in the article. I think the 2014 events could still stand to be significantly trimmed. For example, in this top-level article about a country with a thousand year history why is "Talks in Geneva between the EU, Russia, Ukraine and USA yielded a Joint Diplomatic Statement referred to as the 2014 Geneva Pact[155] in which the parties requested that all unlawful militias lay down the arms and vacate seized government buildings, and also establish a political dialogue that could lead to more autonomy for Ukraine's region." present when it's unclear if the pact will actually amount to anything? The entirety of World War I, Great Depression, and World War II takes three paragraphs in the top-level United States article as a comparison! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Banc De Binary

Thanks for your time on Banc de Binary. I reverted CorporateM as they are a self confessed COI editor, who specialises in this kind of work, they even write about it on their wall. They give a list of companies that they have done work for. Their sudden and overwhelming interest in the page is just another of their COI jobs, but they failed to state first that they had a COI. The page was built up first on consensus and I think that changes should be debated first amongst editors, and after people declare COI.HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

HistorianofRecenttimes do you have evidence they have a COI for this article? And I can't help but notice that you are a single purpose account - what's your interest in it? Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @HistorianofRecenttimes: I strongly suggest you read his user page carefully: "In my view marketing professionals and paid editors that covertly edit Wikipedia in order to promote their employer or client are violating the Federal Trade Commission's astroturfing laws, which explicitly requires that those with a financial connection disclose it online in order to avoid confusing them with crowd-sourced participants." He declares where he has COI and has not done so here. In fact, your interest is more suspicious than his. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

References

User:Shashini12311

The have re-inserted the content again on Canadian Tamil Congress.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Reported here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

talkback

Please participate in any discussion at the source, addressing the specific issue. Posting to my user page smacks of canvassing and leaves you unaware of the specifics of the discussion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Uh, no. Pointing out policy problems with your edits on your talk page is not canvassing by any stretch of the definition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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 discussion is about the topic Talk:Skin Game (novel). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

My first DRN! Wheee! [6] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up after User:AHLM13

Hi. Just to let you know that I'm making a start on reviewing this editor's work, starting with the earliest edits and working forward. With a bit of luck we should meet somewhere in the middle. However, I should warn you that real life is now calling me away from the keyboard, and I am unlikely to be back for the next 15 hours or so. I'll carry on tomorrow, and work on this for as long as it takes. If you could leave a note here or on my talk page of where you've got to, this will give me a stopping point. Thanks in advance. RomanSpa (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi RomanSpa. See [7] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Neil, thank you regarding the Charlie "Sugartime" Phillips. I will certainly heed your advice as I do not want to compromise Charlie's standing. I appreciate folks like you who are willing to lend guys like me a hand when it comes to Wiki. Cycushenberry (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

India

hey NeilN! Why deleted the info i added on India page? Kindly plz do nt revert the info again becoz the info i wrote is correct as i given in the links by me! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhir7777 (talk • contribs)

@Sudhir7777: Stop your incessant POV pushing. Now on a featured article, no less. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

hey NeilN , thnx for your advise i will follow the rule next time! But the info i added is correct & very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhir7777 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 12 June 2014‎ (UTC)

@Sudhir7777: It also has completely undue weight in a featured article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of my addition to Celtic Music in Canada

You messaged me the following: Hello, I'm NeilN. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Celtic music in Canada, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 21:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I admit to being a novice at this stuff. You say I can include a citation and re-add it. OK, I got my information from the following websites:

http://glengarryhighlandgames.com/ http://www.leahymusic.com/ www.thebrigadoons.com/welcome.php http://www.choosecornwall.ca/

The thing is, I did not save my text so I don't know how I can re-add it. I'm not a stupid person, but I did not see in the "referencing for beginners" any way I could re-add it, so please tell me what I can do.

Thanks in advance for any help.

IslandMtn (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

MZB talk page

Hi. I restored the archived talk page on MZB's bio because (a)deleting it wholesale seems counter to promoting discussion (b)it covers many topics, not just the recent controversial ones (c)there is, today, a huge debate brewing in F & SF (fantasy & scifi) circles around the controversial bits, and erasing (yes it's archived, but for all but the most techie and digging-oriented of users it's invisible) the WP element of that discussion strikes me as wrong and sledgehammer-y (d) MZB died 15 years ago so BLP should not apply.

You reverted my action and told me to put a CSD tag on the archive if I revert back.

That may be the right advice, but I'd be grateful if you pointed me toward relevant discussions of practices around such a chain of events. At first glance I don't see anything on the CSB page that applies to talk pages or archives. I've never flagged anything for deletion before and I'd like to know a bit more of what I'm doing if I do. Thanks.

P.S. Also any thoughts you have on a-d above are appreciated. Praghmatic (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Revisions to Telerik based on your comments

Hi Neil N,

Thanks for the speedy and concise feedback today. I think I was able to take care of all of your concerns. I added an "Industry Awards" section. It's not pretty, but I think I have a good collection of sources to support their validity.

Thanks again,

MaximZero (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi MaximZero. I've cleaned up the artice, condensed the awards sections, and approved it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from 2018 FIFA World Cup. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Please use the talk page and refrain from abusing template warnings. If I experience or encounter any further misuse you can explain your actions at the appropriate noticeboard. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I can agree on using the talk page, and I suggest reading WP:BRD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sock of Sudhir7777?

Is this use I reverted, a sock of Sudhir7777? — LeoFrank  ^Talk 16:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@LeoFrank: Looking at his contributions, I don't think so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Women who have sex with women article

I could use your help at the Women who have sex with women article. Right now, we have "new editor" Sudendiss (talk · contribs) removing "heterosexual" as one of the sexual identities that a woman who has with women might identify as, even though this is clearly covered by sources on the topic. See here and here where I reverted the editor twice already and where the editor claims to have "checked source" (as in "one source") and states "reliable source is required for the claim heterosexual women engage in same-sex activity." So the editor is apparently confusing sexual orientation with sexual identity. Whatever the case, the editor is not well read on the subject if he or she doesn't know that, just like the topic of men who have sex with men, heterosexual identity is one of the sexual identities involved in the topic of women who have sex with women. I am not sourcing that one bit of the lead when the other sexual identities in the lead are not sourced in the lead and are rather sourced lower in the article (well, with the exception of "pansexual"). Flyer22 (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't see an online source stating that (maybe I missed it), so I added one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary Blocking and Editing by NeilN

You need to stop changing valid information. If you feel that you have to control everything and make it invalid like the miami heat page then i will report which i already have that page up. I try not to threat you, but stop deleting my work because the stuff i put down belongs there. Stop being a jack... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laderek (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Laderek: On your talk page you have already been pointed to Wikipedia's crystal ball guideline. The 2013-2014 basketball season just ended and the 2014-2015 season is nowhere near beginning. Adding a 2014-2015 roster is speculative information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey NeilN you have reverted one of my changes. The change was on the Miami heat page, where the roster was. You keep on changing it and saying that is not correct information. Im sorry that you think you know more than a basketball expert. So, hopefully you can learn how to stop being the person who wants to control everything. I am losing my temper with you. 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laderek (talk • contribs)

NeilN if you see, the season starts in less than 4 months, well preseason does. The draft is next week. There is gonna be a roster change. There are gonna be free agents. Why do i get punished for putting valid info on a page, when someone else made a 2014-15 Miami Heat page when you said the season is nowhere close to starting. Think about that please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laderek (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Laderek: Yes, add the roster after the Heat announce it, not before. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

NeilN how come the person who made the 2014-15 Miami Heat page be able to make that and the heat have not announced anything. What you said makes no sense. Why do i get punished for putting a roster that can be edited on a page that should not have been created. What happens if someone else put a roster on there i bet you wont penalize them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laderek (talk • contribs)

@Laderek: You can ask EuroCarGT why they created the article. Right now, it's a stub, containing info unlikely to change (coach, arena, owner). For the 2014-2015 roster, which is likely to change, we need some sort of announcement. And why should I care who adds the roster? It's the content I have an issue with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The Jr. NTR article

Hello NeilN, do you know the article about Jr. NTR, I edited a long time ago. The extra information I added in the article, was all true. I do not even understand why you blocked me for that, at all, neither do I know why you deleted the necessary information. Plus, try not to delete the true information. It is indeed true, that the first sentence of his career was wrong, so sorry. But the other details are true.-- Sikandar Dadi alias Sdadi2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdadi2010 (talk • contribs)

@Sdadi2010: You were blocked (not by me) for repeatedly adding unsourced information to a biography. The information may be true, but it still needs to be sourced. Please see our verifiability policy for more info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Farhan112233

I have seen that the socks have already been blocked. In any case, I had filed an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Farhan112233. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 00:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Adam's Peak

You missed the earlier IP edits, probably the same as the new account (who has created a village stub I fixed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Saw that. Thanks for catching my oversight. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

N. T. Rama Rao Jr.

Hi, NeilN I just want to tell you, I added a lot of references for the first time. Please don't find it wrong. I will send a note to the administrator in order to state the sources. - Sikandar Dadi alias Sdadi2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdadi2010 (talk • contribs)

@Sdadi2010: As I said on your talk page, a gossip site is a completely unacceptable reference. You are working on an encyclopedia article, not a fan page. Please keep that in mind. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN I would like to thank you, for moving the NTR Filmography back. But, why did you delete all the good, necessary information, even when it was properly sourced. Sdadi2010 (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Sikandar Dadi alias Sdadi2010

@Sdadi2010: Because most of what you added was your own unsourced commentary - "huge blockbuster", "colossal failure", "huge disaster" and stuff like:

Jr. NTR later signed up for the gangster-thriller film Kantri which was directed by debutant Meher Ramesh who is the cousin of Chiranjeevi and Pawan Kalyan. The film was shot in various dangerous locations such as South Africa, and Japan. The film though receiving mixed reviews, managed to become a hit at the box office, as Jr. NTR's star power helped it. Jr. NTR's dance steps in the song "I Go Crazy" and "123 Nenoka Kantri" went viral over South India, and he got applause and recognition from many South Indian actors. Jr. NTR took a two-year hiatus in order to join politics. Unfortunately for him, his political stint failed, and he got admitted to the hospital due to the severe car accident. He also settled arguments with Chiranjeevi, due to their political differences.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I will fix the Kantri article, but the others, are truly correct information. That was why I added references. If you notice anything false, please send me a message and I will fix it, but don't delete the information.

Sdadi2010 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Sikandar Dadi alias Sdadi2010

@Sdadi2010: Truly correct information still needs to be verifiable and written from a neutral point of view. You're writing as if it was an article from some celebrity magazine. Please look at Ranveer Singh for an article with a proper style of writing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:Justin Bieber

Hello User:NeilN, thank you for your message on my talk page. Multiple sources, including Fox News, The Christian Post, The Huffington Post, Daily Mail, among others, have reported Bieber's baptism. Moreover, his pastor, Carl Lentz, has also confirmed it. I'm not going to revert you however since you seem passionate about this topic. Though we disagree, I'm glad that you're concerned about maintaining high-quality articles here on Wikipedia. All the best! With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anupam. All these reports seem to use the same TMZ source which has, "Pastor Carl Lentz -- who works with Bieber in NYC -- tells us he spent a week doing intense Bible study with Justin last month ... in the wake of being extorted over the videos." and all are careful to use variations of "reportedly". There's no actual comment by Bieber or anyone authorized to speak for him. All we have is a third person talking to a gossip website. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand your perspective. If more information comes out about this, then perhaps we'll add it at that time! Cheers, Anupam^Talk 05:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop Islamization of America

Please note that your stated reason for a reversion of edits to Stop Islamization of America is incorrect. The sources cited do not utilize "Islamophobic". This has been pointed out in the talk page, but the discussion appears to have diverted from that point. There is a group that have been forcing the term into the article through force of numbers. While I have been away recently I intend to write up a clean review of the sources and get it reviewed externally. I think this may be more constructive than continued reversion of edits. I would encourage you to come participate in the discussion when that is up. GrinSudan (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Copy of my Write up to Karan74 on deletion of my name from Dhenkanal District, Dhenkanal, India, Kamakhyanagar & Bhuban

Hi...NeilN....Your activities are worth appreciable & very logical in nature. Keep doing all good works. My best wishes are with you.

(RAJA NARAYAN TRIPATHY (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)). Copy of my Write up to Karan74 on deletion of my name from Dhenkanal District, Dhenkanal, India, Kamakhyanagar & Bhuban

Hi Karan ...Nice to know your good works in Wikipedia.

Some of My well wisher have posted about myself in Dhenkanal, India & Dhenkanal District, Kamakhyanagar & Bhuban. Later also I have joined myself in the process. But, however, those listing were deleted on the ground that there is a promotion regarding my Profession. For your kind information, I don't want to highlight my CA activities. But, however, besides my Chartered Accountancy, am also elected twice in ICAI Bhubaneswar Managing Committee which is having 800 Members & 5000 Students. We do some social activities under the banner of Bharat Nirman Foundation where i am the Chairman & Managing Trustee. We do Policy Advocacy in Dhenkanal for infrastructure development like National Highway, Railway Project, Industrialisation etc & all round development of Dhenkanal under the banner of Dhenkanal Development Council. We also debate on issues like Odisha Budget & take part in making people aware about different aspects of it & assist Government in suitable Policy making for the overall improvement of the State in the banner of Odisha Development Council where i happen to be a Convenor.

This time i have also applied for an BJD ticket for Kamakhyanagar MLA Constituency but out of 100 applicant i was shortlisted among final Three. Being a Chartered Accountant, it is also my passion to keep in touch with my people of my own area to do best for them.

We are also planning to conduct several new initiative in near future.

But, however, it gives me a utter pain to know the way in which you have put a conclusion about me.

My activity of the above kind are not meant just to put my name in Wikipedia but for a greater cause of Society. You can understand the difficulties of mobilising mass people for a greater cause & for that we encourage people through different means & motivate them. Can't the Wikipedia, based on facts & circumstances, do the same & empower the People who take the pain for a greater cause.

Wish you all the best. (I will be glad if you a do a little more research about my activities)

Thanking you

(RAJA NARAYAN TRIPATHY (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)).

@RAJA NARAYAN TRIPATHY: Wikipedia's purpose is not to promote people or causes, however worthy they may be. Hopefully you will be successful in your cause and reliable sources will write about you in depth. If that happens, and you meet our notability criteria, then an article can be written about you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

I have not abused any warning template, I have used the standard wiki template for giving notices and warnings. Please clarify your point. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 19:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Abhilashkrishn: Clear abuse of a vandalism-warning template. Reading WP:NOTVAND will further clarify matters. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: I have already read that. I have put the notice on that particular user talk page due to repeated vandalism incidents. You can check that user talk page and you will see the earlier notice. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 20:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Abhilashkrishn: Please point out an edit of TheRedPenOfDoom's that you classify as vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Please see the page history of Bangalore_Days and you will see multiple unconstuctive edits and removals. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 20:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Abhilashkrishn: Which is what I thought. Content dispute over reliable sources and you abusing the vandalism template. Please do not do that again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Not content dispute! Even though article has clear cut citation and reliable sources, the user removed and altered to compromise the article integrity without suitable explanation or description which will surely come under WP:VANDAL. Please clarify if you are still feeling that I should not give notice to that user. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 20:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Abhilashkrishn: Look at his last removal. He gave a clear reason about why he was doing it in the edit summary. You might not agree with his assessment of sources but that doesn't make his edit vandalism. Vandalism is a deliberate bad faith edit designed to harm the article, not removing sources or content an editor feels is inappropriate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Editing or altering a statement in a way that make the whole article compromising its sake of existence is surely makes vandalism. In the user's last edit the user neglected multiple citations provided by various editors and added some content to look like the article foolish. Please check the page history. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 20:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Abhilashkrishn: All right, you obviously have your mind set so my last post will be this: Keep labelling those sorts of edits as vandalism and sooner or later you'll find yourself at WP:ANI, having to explain your actions and I don't think you'd like the response you'd get from other editors very much. Much better to use talk pages for content disputes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: I always takes genuine responses from other editors which would be more than 80%. As always, I have strict adherence to wikipedia policies and always discuss in article talk pages. Please check the article talk page first. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 21:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Abhilashkrishn: You don't have to {{ping}} NeilN on this page, because he will get the notification even if you have edited 1 byte of this page. I was also about to say that you should avoid calling people a vandal, and check WP:ATWV. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Thanks for the tip. I haven't even mentioned which user and which article vandalized the page. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 04:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Abhilashkrishn: You are welcome, keep up the good work. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: While I realize "keep up the good work" is probably a generic statement, the other editor might see it as support for his position. Just saying. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

He's probably constructive, with so many edits and no blocks. Best wishes to him and you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding :) @OccultZone: -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 18:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

IPchange

On Lipscomb article. User is the 82. IP? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Probably. I wish an admin would deal with the page protection request. The new/IP editors seem to purposefully be editing against our normal standards, both on the article and talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, these days backlog is blessed. There would be no SPI against this user, it will require more proof. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone:It's specifically the 82.132.192.0/18 range. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lw1982. Voceditenore (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I had seen, after it had been posted to WP:ANI. Backlog is blessed these days, you may have to wait for a few weeks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You are inncorrect

I must ask that you please do not say irrelevant words as it is against Wikipedia guidelines. You have put words in my mouth in order to make me look bad in front of other Wikipedia members. If someone (admin) is to consciously promote malware, put millions of people at harm, and not allow anyone to do anything correct them, a class action will be filed against this person to allow people who have been affected to obtain justice. That is not against guidelines and no threat against the website has ever been made. You have violated guidelines by leaving a comment suggesting this on my page and I must you to stop in the future or I will let others at Wikipedia know about the dangers you and others have been responsible for. This is not at all an attack, this is two people talking. If you want to block me, that is called harassment. There is no reason to block me or threaten to block me. Please play a fair game, be a responsible person. I am simply here cleaning up malicious links, removing articles that promote dangerous software, etc. in order to make Wikipedia a safer place. If you can not see that, I must ask that you leave me alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.0.110 (talk)

Quelle surprise. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, thank you for letting me know. I will make the appropriate corrections.

--Tiffanysimone (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I will make the changes

Hello, I understand that Michael A. McCain's page my be deleted. Please allow me to make the appropriate changes to the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiffanysimone (talk • contribs) 20:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tiffanysimone. The deletion discussion will run seven days so you have a week to show notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much :-) --Tiffanysimone (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello NeilN, I corrected the errors that you brought to my attention. I would like for you to review the page and if there are any other areas found to be unsatisfactory to Wikipedia's standards I will be more than happy to make the changes. I apologize for my past mistakes and any inconvenience.

--Tiffanysimone (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tiffanysimone. I'm afraid you seem to have trouble understanding our WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies. Any kind of self-serving claim must have an independent third party source. The sections you added have none of these. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will add the third party sources. Thank you very much. --Tiffanysimone (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis

Dear Neil N: Schoolchidren use Wikipedia for research, as well they should. Unfortunately, when they read about Jefferson Davis the first description they will read is that he was an "American." That's technically correct, because he was born in Kentucky, but he led a rebellion which killed hundreds of thousands of loyal American soldiers.

I find it offensive that the first word used to describe Jefferson Davis was that he was an "American," because he renounce his citizenship. So I deleted that term, and used the more descriptive phrase "slave-owner," which gives an important fact about who the guy really was.

Omnedon reverted, so I tried again, so he reverted again. You can call that an "edit war," even though I gave up before thrice, but the truth is, it was an incident of Wikibullying by an administrator who uses his "in crowd" position to win edit wars.

In the real world I am, among other things, a writer and editor. Things I have written have actually made a difference in our society. I enjoy writing and editing Wikipedia, but I can't stand the pin-heads who engage in Wiki-bullying.

So I reject your ultimatum. I'd like to arbitrate, or whatever you do, when an administrator insists on protecting something really, really stupid in an article.

ArdenHathaway 02:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs)

@ArdenHathaway: Wikipedia articles do not exist for you to right great wrongs. Davis was an American, just as all those who served in the Confederate army were, no matter how offensive that is to you. If you wish to discuss changes, use the article's talk page. And please, post on user talk pages instead of user pages as you did here. [8], [9]

RE: June 2014

Hello, yes you've made a mistake. Nikah mutah is a concept only in Shia Islam and article explains Sunni Islamic phenomena so the nikah mutah doesn't apply in there at all. I replaced it with two Sunni marriage concepts similar to the one provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi 24. Please use edit summaries for your edits so other editors know why you're deleting/changing material. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, sorry for the confusion.

coleman page

Info added and correction to accurately display factual data. Re coleman is III, not II. Please indepently verify with brirish national library and library of congress, index lester knox coleman III. THANK YOU DIAMC10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.244.34 (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Heterosexuality article

Maybe you can offer something to this discussion? Others watching the article apparently aren't interested in weighing in on any of the latest matters there. It is a low-watched article, as stated there, but still. And I've likely upset Caden by calling his WP:Merge proposal silly and ridiculous. Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I just briefly went through Caden's user contributions, and, judging by this beer he gave you, he might be more interested in what you have to state on the aforementioned Heterosexuality article matter (if he remembers giving you that beer, that is). Flyer22 (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Waste Management Article

I saw you removed the external link I added in the Waste Management Article. I don't understand why if the linked url is relevant to the content and there are plenty of examples here in Wikipedia. --Changocz (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Changocz: It's blatant spam. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Indopug is not replying to my requests to talk. Please see ... Something is going wrong around the article on M.S. Golwalkar. I am not the culprit.

Dear Neil, I am feeling very down and afraid. Whenever I am adding some information about Golwalkar's followers and admirers in the Wikipedia page regarding M.S. Golwalkar, it is being deleted by another contributor. That contributor is doing this again and again and again ... with uncommon frequency. The name of that contributor is Indopug. (If I have got into an edit war, then that is only with Indopug and no one else. Also, I am not that new at Wikipedia ... Please see my records) I have raised the issue with him at his talk page but HE IS DANGEROUSLY SILENT. I love Wikipedia ... It is like a big doorway for me (and millions like me) to know about the world. But what is this? Why my honest contributions are being deleted without telling me why was that done? I just want to tell the world that what do the followers and admirers of Golwalkar want to tell about him. But the other contributor is deleting whatever I am writing in this regard. I have left all criticisms about Golwalkar untouched. I have not deleted a single word that is written in criticism to Golwalkar. I understand Indopug (and now, maybe you) want to tell about the critical views about Golwalkar. But what is wrong if I try to tell about what the admirers of Golawlakar want to say? I requested that contributor again and again to educate me on this matter, but he is turning the whole affair in almost a battleground. He is quickly deleting whatever I am writing without any attempt to talk to me. I am having a strange feeling. I am desperately requesting your learned authority to watch what is happening. Please keep in mind that I am NOT deleting criticisms on Golwalkar. That contributor is blatantly deleting anything that refers to an admirer of Golwalkar. Golwalkar led an organization called RSS (there is a Wikipedia page on Rashtriya Swamsevak Sangh or RSS. Please see it.) for almost 30 years. What is wrong if I try to write what RSS thinks about Golwalkar? I am not saying or doing anything by deleting when something is written in criticism to Golwalkar. Then why the other side of the story cannot be presented? Why? Can an editor like Indopug be allowed to behave so undemocratically??? Are you too going to do this injustice?Arghyan Opinions (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Arghyan Opinions: You left a message for Indopug less than an hour ago. They are not obligated to respond immediately. Wait a reasonable amount of time (1-2 days). As for what you're trying to add ("However, Ramchandra Guha's analysis cannot be regarded as a holistic scholarly view, simply because many other scholars and politicians have sought to differ. For example, the present Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi states that Golwalkar imbibed the principles of Swami Vivekananda, whom the whole world admires for his rhetoric of inclusive growth and justice for all, irrespective of cast, culture, or religion. That said, Golwalkar's works are aimed to resist any hateful propaganda against unified Bharat or India. This kind of approach cannot be based on any unnecessary or blind animosity towards the minority communities.") look up WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, WP:PEACOCK. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you very much. This is what I was expecting from you. I had reverted changes made by Indopug and I felt he would talk to me through the talk page. But he did not talk. Now this is a different issue if he is an egoist or something else. I respect him in general because he has some authentic information to share. I am not alleging anything ... I am just expecting explanation. As far as you are revealing your opinion, I think I got a language error. However, if I wish to furnish counter-views over the critics of Golwalkar, how should I proceed? Try to understand the whole thing in a different way. It is a generally accepted truth that Earth is spherical. But there are people who don't think so. How should I write about that contradicting view? I think you would understand my problem. Another thing, I urge you once again that please check my records ... I am not that new at Wikipedia and this is perhaps my first edit war. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Arghyan Opinions: The simplest thing to do right now is to use exact, cited quotes. For example: However Indian Prime Minister stated that, "<quote>" (reference). Stay away from injecting synthesis and personal viewpoints like, "whom the whole world admires for his rhetoric of inclusive growth and justice for all, irrespective of cast, culture, or religion." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Wow! You have fully understood the issue!! Now I wish to engage in a friendly edit war with you! I am very happy. I also think using direct quotes can be rewarding. However, you please give me word that you will from time to time check what I or Indopug writes about Golwalkar. Actually, Golwalkar is a very famous and widely loved figure in certain parts of India. Giving one-sided analyses may trigger unwanted consequences. I request you to please try and read what I seek to say, so that I may not make a mess of everything. I am now restarting my research. Thanks once again for teaching me so simply on how to write for Wikipedia, especially when an edit war breaks out. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Arghyan Opinions: The article is on my watchlist so I will be keeping an eye on it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Dear Neil, I need your help once again. Before I revert your edit, or modify it, I wish to show what I want to do. What I want to tell you is that I am not personally or individually impressed with Golwalkar as a mere political figure (in fact, he was not). But, I want to write about what his admirers want to say. I have at least two prolific writers to write about. First is Tarun Vijaya, who openly advocates Hindu Nationalism. The other is Jaideep A. Prabhu, who claims to be a liberal but finds no wrong with Golwalkar. Maybe they are propagandists (who knows? Golwalkar's critics too may be a propagandists!!!). But why can't I write about their views? I really don't want to express my personal views ... I just want to show what the admirers of Golwalkar are saying.

Another thing. Indopug can revert my edits again and again within a few seconds I do them. But now hours have passed and he is not responding on the talk page. What can be the confidence building measures now? ha ha ha ha ... Let's wait and watch. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Arghyan Opinions: You should probably use the article's talk page to specify the actual text you want to add. And 12 hours is not 1-2 days. Did you even check if Indopug has edited anywhere recently? The answer is no - his last edit was about 90 minutes before you posted on his talk page. [10] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Okay okay, let's wait and watch. Me and you, both of us this time. However, I have a different issue now. I want you to visit certain URLs. Of course, this is a humble request which you may disregard. But the problem is, whenever I am trying to insert a citation in your talk page, no reference list is appearing anywhere. I want to give you certain URLs (direct links to specific web pages)so that you can tell me whether they can be used or not. Just a friendly, volunteer guidance. You may refuse, no problem. But may I paste the URLs directly here? Actually, I want to show you the things that I am reading. And also, I want to clarify that I want to show the world what the admirers of Golwalkar think about him. Criticisms are already present in the current article about him, and I am not willing to delete them. I neither want to focus on admiration nor on criticism ... just some constructive analysis. And I think you would guide me like a responsible senior. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Arghyan Opinions: I'm about to sign off for the day but yes, you can post URL's here and I will give you my opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: I am astounded to see how humble and well mannered you are! You don't need to tell me if you are logging off ... I won't complain and nag if you keep me waiting for a reply for a reasonable time.

Now I want you to kindly visit two URLs. URL 1 is about the opinion of Jaideep A. Prabhu. And URL 2 is about the opinion of Tarun Vijaya. And in the case of Prabhu, it is astonishing that he does not personally admire Golwalkar; yet he wants to say that Golwalkar was not anti-minority or anti-Muslim in the way he has been portrayed.

URL 1: http://centreright.in/2009/09/vilifying-ms-golwalkar/#.U60N6vmSxZF

URL 2: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006769516

@Arghyan Opinions: Both these sources will probably be treated as opinion pieces which is fine as long as the authors are notable. Since they both seem to have Wikipedia articles - Jaideep Prabhu, Tarun Vijay - they seem to be. If anyone objects, you should discuss why their views on Golwalkar are important enough to be added to the article. To understand why, realize that every notable U.S. politician has a view on Barack Obama but they don't get all added to his article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Indopug has replied to my query in the M.S. Golwalkar Talk page. I am horrified. He is alleging that I am trying to BALANCE what Ramchandra Guha thinks about Golwalkar! What kind of mentality is this? I also respect Guha ... Why the should I balance his opinion? If I try to present both sides of the story, then what is wrong? Indopug claims Ramchandra Guha is impartial. However, he does not use any credible source to prove this. On the other hand, please see what I want to say. I want to tell the world what Golwalkar's admirers want to say about Golwalkar. Why should I think who is partial and who is impartial, when I am clarifying again and again that I want to write about the admirers' views on Golwalkar? Golwalkar led Rashtrya Swamsevak Sangh or RSS for 30 years. Why should I not tell what they think about him? I humbly request you to visit M.S.Golwalkar Talk page and see how skillfully and blatantly Indopug is trying to refute whatever source or whatever reason I am giving. Another very important point. Why Indopug deleted the part where I wrote about RSS' role during Indo China War (1962) and Indo Pakistan War (1965)? If I write that RSS was being mentored and led by Golwalkar when it served as paramilitary during Indo-China War, what wrong do I do? The then Prime Minister of India J.L. Nehru had invited RSS to march past along Indian Army during the country's Republic Day. I did not write these things in order to BALANCE Ramchandra Guha. These are historic facts. I even did not write these facts in the section titled Views on the role of minorities in a Hindu India. I wrote these facts in the section titled Criticism and counter-criticism. And from there also, Indopug deleted everything. This is not only unfair but also dangerous. Why does Indopug not allow me to write about historic facts that I came to know about them from Wikipedia itself (and other scholarly resources too)?

Another thing I want to know. How to warn an editor on Wikipedia before proceeding to allege vandalism? I think this is an innocent procedural question, and you will answer it.
Arghyan Opinions (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's too clear for us if you read his own article in which the person Uekusa stated that Wikipedia contains various false contents(URL: http://uekusak.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2010/11/post-5ec3.html). And I edited its page and will reedit it until there is no more libels against the person from Wikipedia. You have to notice that who continues the war is not me but the multiple account user. I have to protect Uekusa from any violation of human rights. URL: http://uekusak.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2010/11/post-5ec3.html Ejoe2 (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Child Prodigies - Tristan Pang

Can I supply you with newspaper articles and TV interviews? Punice (talk) 09:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Punice. The best thing to do is to add references to the text you want to add. These references should be of good quality (i.e., the local newspaper won't cut it) and explicitly call him a child prodigy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible sock?

Dear Neil do you think user Buddyonline7 is some sort of sleeper account for Sudhir777? Looks odd to me he only edits very rarely and on articles where sudhir777 has been on thanks for time. GaryKhanna (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained

Can you please explain, why you removed reliable pew research center statistics (2012) in favour of another source. Please have a look at my edits on religion in Belgium again. There is no particular emphysis on Islam. Percentage if Muslims is same i.e ., 6%. Infact, the percentage of Christians is greater i.e., 64.2%. This shows that I have no bias for Christianity. Can you explain it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septate (talk • contribs)

@Septate: Can you please explain why you replaced the long-standing Eurobarometer source (2012) in favor of your source? Your undue emphasis is in this sentence: "Belgium is religiously diverse society with Christianity and Islam being the most widely professed religions." The two religions are not remotely comparable with respect to the number of adherents. By the way, still looking for your answer on this: User_talk:NeilN#Edit_explanation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If the sentence: "Belgium is religiously diverse society with Christianity and Islam being the most widely professed religions." is wrong from your perspective, then you should remove it individualy , instead if reverting my whole edits. Secondly, can you please explain what's wrong with reliable 2012 pew estimate compared to eurobaromenter.Septate (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: Please explain why you want to change a long-standing source. I'm putting the onus on you because of your constant POV-pushing (which a number of editors have warned you about) that is continuing: [11], [12], [13] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please look at the article first. How disorganized the article is? One source gives an estimate of 49% for Christians and other source gives an estimate of 59% Catholic and 6% other christian. But interestingly another stupid source in the lead states that 1.7% are protestant and 0.3% Orthodox. This is complete stupidity. Is not it? The reader is unable to comprehend all these statistics. I just wanted to make the article more organized and readable by providing a single reliable and recent i.e., 2012 source. If I am a Muslim POV pusher then please tell me what would I get by placing pew center source and statistics. A lot of sources on article already give 6% figure for Muslims. In fact I removed a source which gave 8.1% figure for Muslim population because it was too dubious. Is this POV? I just wanted to help wikipedia in a civilized manner. Understand it or not. I am not going to waste my time on this stupid article anymore.Septate (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please respond quickly. Please allow me to improve the article using pew estimates. I assure you that I will not give too much importance to Islam. Thanks.Septate (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You expect a quick answer but won't answer User_talk:NeilN#Edit_explanation even after being asked several times? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate, okay, the Pew estimates are from 2010. The Eurobarometer source is from 2012. Why do you want to use an older survey? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I want to use pew estimates because they look more acceptable to me.Septate (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN, please look at talk:Religion in Norway. Is this so called concensus? Is this so called cooperative behaviour?Septate (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate, your behavior there is the same as it is on here in that you expect to get your way simply on the basis of your unsubstantiated opinion. "I want to use pew estimates because they look more acceptable to me." is akin to saying that cake is better because it's chocolate. And before you talk about "stupidity" and "waste my time" you should go through the history of your talk page and see how many editors have wasted their time checking and correcting your edits. If you feel you have valid points that are being ignored, follow the processes outlined in WP:DR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

OK dear. Looks like its bit too much. My only purpose was to use only a single reliable source and remove other conflicting sources. If you don't like pew estimate (because I consider it to be more acceptable), then please allow me to use only Eurobarometer estimates. If you don't like eurobarometer ,then allow me use Ipos Maori source which is last choice. Mine suggestion would be to use Ipos Mori source (The middle one).Septate (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: If the quality is the same, I would always favor using the survey with the most recent numbers. Pew is 2010, Euro is June 2012; what is Ipos? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ipos Mori is 2011 survey. I am going to use it. Hope that you are no going to have any concern. ThanksSeptate (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: Again, why use an older survey? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. I will use eurobarometer source.Septate (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

About you undo on the diana page.

Hi NeilN,

After your edit on the Princess Diana i had a quick look on the internet and i have found that he is known as harry on the royal.gov.uk website and by his mothers brouther as harry.

links:

• http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/PrinceHarry/PrinceHarry.aspx
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/spencerfull.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioangogo (talk • contribs)

Hi Ioangogo. According to the template documentation we use formal names ("listed by name and highest shorthand title"). In this case, it's Prince Henry of Wales. You'll see the same thing on Charles, Prince of Wales. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Maria Sharapova edit on Sachin Tendulkar

Hi Neil,

I see that you have edited my inputs on Maria Sharapova causing a huge controversy in India when she said in an interview at Wimbledon that she does not know Sachin Tendulkar. What makes you think that it is irrelevant to Maria Sharapova? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinaiyer1976 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tinaiyer1976, see WP:NOTNEWS. One minor incident that no one will talk about next week does not belong in a biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neil,

@NeilN This is not minor incident. It has effected 1.5 billions of people in India and around the world and that is almost 1/3 of world population. And whenever Maria's biography will be written by a neutral person this ignorant knowledge of her will be including as major controversy in her life! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinaiyer1976 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tinaiyer1976, pure hyperbole. Some people got annoyed that she didn't recognize a person. That's it, that's all. If you wish to pursue this further, please discuss on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) First of all, please stop promoting your website as an external link into every article you encounter. Second, how is this even news and/or a "major" controversy? This is such a trivial issue and in no way 'effect's billions of people in India and around the world.  NQ  talk 14:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN I am not promoting anything here and please do not tell me that it does not effect so many people here. Just look around the web if you are not an Indian, and I guess you are not and you will find the magnitude of her comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinaiyer1976 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tinaiyer1976, how does it affect the life of a garment worker in Calcutta? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN sir, As I said we regard him as GOD and saying something so silly effect us morally and individually. People are shock at her ignorance and this cannot be taken lightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinaiyer1976 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tinaiyer1976, please start signing your posts as per the directions on your talk page. If this is still in the news in a month, then it might be worth discussing putting it in. Until then, it's just another silly social media outrage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tinaiyer1976: If the impact is as widespread as you say, then surely you can find multiple sources, including the major newspapers of India, that have given significant coverage to it.

Conversely, since you seem to be adding info about how various notable personages don't know who Tendulkar is, maybe what we need is a section in Tendulkar's article about how he has not had that lasting a legacy, since he is not that well-known outside of India after his retirement? Yeah, I thought you wouldn't be in favor of that. :) —C.Fred (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Even if it has significant current coverage... As an aside, pretty sure that 99% of professional sports players in my country wouldn't recognize Tendulkar. Maybe we should come up with a category: "People who don't know who Tendulkar is" :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred it is like saying Chinese PM is no known to billions of people of the world. I am pretty sure there are billions who even does not know his name but that does not mean there should be no article on him in English talking about his effect on people life! --Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tinaiyer1976: No, it is like saying if Michael Jordan doesn't recognize the Chinese PM, that fact is irrelevant to his biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

And I thought Wiki is for the people of the world not for specific country, race , religion etc etc --Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tinaiyer1976: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not "entertainment news of the day". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN that's exactly my point is. And if a person bio should not contain the news he made in his time I don't know what it should have. All his achievements are in some ways news of the day or else why will you have all his/her achievement in his/her biography.--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tinaiyer1976, did you actually read WP:NOTNEWS? "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." (emphasis mine). And WP:BLPSTYLE: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.: --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN I hve read the WP:NOTNEWS? and understand it better then anybody out there. And you cannot disassociate this controversy from Maria anytime today or in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinaiyer1976 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tinaiyer1976, "Understand it better then anybody out there." I think many, many editors would disagree. Anyways, we're done here. You can go get consensus for your change on the article's talk page as I suggested above. I wouldn't get your hopes up, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN and how do I get consensus on her talk page? --Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tinaiyer1976: Post about your suggested edit on Talk:Maria_Sharapova and get other editors to agree with you. Again, I wouldn't get your hopes up. I, for one, will be arguing against adding the content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN I know you in your view Sachin is not there upto Jordan or Ali yet even after scoring the most number of runs then anyother person in this world--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tinaiyer1976: It doesn't matter who the person is. What matters is if the incident has a long-lasting impact on a subject's life. Given this edit, this is something you completely fail to understand. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User exhibits pattern of adding same website – see contribs. Also exhibited by 203.201.61.146 and 27.34.253.98. Outside of these edits, I found the website only two other times, added by IPs (59.182.247.79, 122.172.35.71) in 2012. I've gone ahead and removed site since it is not WP:RS. Per Tinaiyer1976 (see Draft:EKhichdi.com) website lets anyone post 'news' and articles. Going to website, it seems to confirm Tinaiyer1976 statement. Since it's not a WP:RS, is there any way to prevent links to this website be added in the future? Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kirin13. I would post your findings and make a request at User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN How about this http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-28142116 Is this authentic as per your policy. It is from BBC --Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tinaiyer1976: Please see the discussions here and here.  NQ  talk 17:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I know who Sachin Tendulkar is, but who is Michel Jordan? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Baron Omar Rolf von Ehrenfels

Please have a look at Baron Omar Rolf von Ehrenfels. The situation of this article is awful. Please fix it to make the article compatible with wikipedia. Thanks a lot.Septate (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC) No reply yet!Septate (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination

I followed the policy on NPOV disputes, though not precisely: I first put a section on the talk page explaining why it violates NPOV, and then tagged it to indicate that I was disputing its neutrality. The removals of the tag are attempts to unilaterally resolve this dispute. I will revert any future removals as long as this dispute exists, obeying the three-revert rule at all times. My solution to the problem is modest: just insert alleged into the names of two infobox fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert O'Rourke (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Robert O'Rourke: We're not accommodating conspiracy theorists. And please note this from WP:3RR: "...and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Religion in Belarus and Religion in Croatia

Could you please take a look at Religion in Belarus (addition of stat. data from a tourism website) and Religion in Croatia. The selective mentioning of 1,47% muslims in the lead and the addition of a mosque in Religion in Croatia might be WP:UNDUE . What is your opinion? JimRenge (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@JimRenge: That ref in Belarus was pretty poor and I support your removal (reminds me of the time someone tried to use a restaurant menu as a source for the origin of the Red Fort). I tweaked the Croatia lead but left the mosque in. It's not like another article where a picture of a mosque was in the body and in the gallery. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for your comment and your contribution JimRenge (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You've been featured!

Guess what? You've been accorded the title of "some Western moderator on Wikipedia". See Wikipedia Deleting Maria interview on Sachin Tendulkar and this  NQ  talk 00:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@NQ: Yay! Goes and bangs head against a wall. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@NQ: More Wikipedian eyes can't hurt. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Maria_Sharapova. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the material is a little disproportionate in Sharapova's bio, but how about I create a stand-alone article such as Sharapova-Tendulkar outrage? Considering it's trending on the social networking sites. darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 05:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

You know, I was just thinking about what an article like that would contain. Subject A doesn't know who Subject B is. Subject B's fans get pissy and are told to grow up. [14], [15] Something like that? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@bish I for one, will definitely vote 'Speedy Keep' in the highly unlikely case it goes to Afd. (in part to avoid the wrath of Zilla!)  NQ  talk 18:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that Bishonen has indeffed Tinaiyer1976. Let's just hope this outlandish, unprovoked and completely unjustified admin action has not "effected" billions of people in India and around the world. "Dicremtiation"! [16]  NQ  talk 18:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@NQ: I'm just happy no one has responded to the offwiki canvassing and the talk page is relatively sane again. I had to think for a good five minutes before I could come up with a Wikipedia-appropriate response to "dropping of single atomic bomb did not get coverage for 1 month". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Not surprising. As far as I can tell, the website doesn't have much of a readership and probably relies on organic results from Google for its ad revenue, hence the persistent link spamming. Yes! I knew I couldn't reason with such logic, that's why I chose to skip that. Besides I wasn't sure if it was sheer trolling or lack of understanding. From the article - "Her action has hurt the sportsman and people around the world and extensively disapproved by many great past and present sportsman around the world."  NQ  talk 22:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(The annoyance of bitey little Darwinbish may actually be more painful than wrath of great 'zilla!) Too bad if it effects the entire galaxy. You clever internet watchers, feel free to let me know if I'm honoured on the site in question. See Darwinbish's edit summary — she has obviously got her hopes up. Fame! Bishonen | talk 19:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

Are you a Wikihounder?

Bladesmulti is claiming that you, DeCausa and 1 other have wikihounded me during some point of your life. Such a bad practice! If its true, which seems likely because Bladesmulti looks trustable to everyone including you, then this clearly shows that you and other users have a particular bias for me.Septate (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Lets agree with you, shall we reduce then? It will be reduced once you are topic banned or you refrain from fabricating religion-content. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: I believe Bladesmulti used the wrong term and DeCausa has advised him of that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti, why you always keep talking about topic ban. What makes you afraid? I have done nothing wrong to hinduism since I was warned. Before making any changes to Hinduism related articles I propose them on talk page.Septate (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: NeilN left a message on your talk page in "Local search (Internet)".

You asked:

"What are you using for a source for "PremierGuide was the first company to offer a private label local search solution to newspaper and Yellow Page.."

My Answer:

1) http://www.biakelsey.com/Research-and-Analysis/Coverage-Areas/Online-Search-and-Marketing/summary.asp?DocID=13&SFlag=No (summary report) 2) http://malcolmlewis.org/images/Kelsey_PremierGuide_0402.pdf (my copy of full report)

As you can see from this date-bounded Google search, no references to "private label local search" in 2003-2004. Not sure why PremierGudie's website wasn't picked up but you can see here that's exactly what we were doing:

https://web.archive.org/web/20040406074757/http://premierguide.com/yp3/section/home/pg/ch/style/corp.html

Btw, is this the correct way to respond a question posed by a Wikipedia moderator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdl123 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mdl123. I'm not a moderator - Wikipedia doesn't have those - just a regular editor like yourself (but one with a lot of experience). And yes, you can post here or on your own talk page where I added my question. Now, what you're adding seems to be synthesis or original research. In order to add the text, we need an independent source explicitly stating that "PremierGuide was the first company to offer a private label local search solution..." Also, I note you wrote, "what we were doing." If you were involved in the company you should read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes PremierGuide was my company. That's how I know we were the first ;) I'm not sure how I can prove that since I can't find a statement from, for example, an industry analyst stating that. What would you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdl123 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mdl123: Unfortunately you can't add a claim like that without a proper source. One of our core policies is verifiability: "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." We frequently have people insisting (in good faith) that they set up the first Internet TV station or invented a class of software. In order to evaluate these claims we rely on previously published sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

University of Sindh

Mr NeilN, You have many mistakes in the article , that are not updated information about the University of Sindh, you are typing contradictory dateseg. established in 1947 and on other side you are typing 1948 , as well as about Karachi which happens to be Sindhs Cpital and you are writing it as Pakistans Capital,Please do make conformations from Sindh Govt before typing any thing wrong or remove the article from your site as it is no more authenticated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashi201313 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kashi201313. If you look at my subsequent edit you'll see I kept the 1947. Also, at the time of the university's founding, Karachi was Pakistan's capital. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Sexual orientation and Attraction to transgender people

Neil, I just encountered this, this and this at the above linked pages with Krozan7. If Krozan7 continues his or her POV on this matter, I might need your help in explaining and enforcing Wikipedia policies and guidelines in this regard. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Both added to my watchlist. The move was completely unsupportable as Google throws up 603 results for the term, none of them academic sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Much thanks for watchlisting Template:Sexual orientation, Neil; that template, as well as the Sexual orientation article, always needs eyes to make sure that people are not using it to promote a sexual identity in a WP:Fringe way. Pansexuality and polysexuality, for example, are sexual identities, but they have yet to be widely recognized as sexual orientations (especially among academics); often, they are treated as aspects of bisexuality. I explained that matter here at the Bisexuality article, which you may have already seen since I noted it at my talk page before. People have also tried to add pedophilia to the template and/or to the Sexual orientation article as a sexual orientation; the most recent example is noted here.

As for the term skoliosexuality, you are of course correct; I stated similarly here.

On a side note: I thought that maybe I'd annoyed you in some way recently, such as at the Sex position article (the discussion of indirect stimulation as part of the definition) or that perhaps I'd been bugging you a bit much, such as not too long ago pinging you via WP:Echo at the Age of majority article to weigh in on a dispute (a dispute I've likely been a tad unreasonable in). If you ever find that I am annoying and/or bugging you a bit too much, feel free to let me know and I'll back off with no hard feelings. I respect and appreciate you too much to risk losing communication with you. And I'll always consider your opinion, criticism or otherwise. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No, no annoyance on my part. Sometimes I want to think things over before replying and sometimes I really have nothing to say :-) For Sex position, I thought my point was a good one as if the body held sourced details about indirect stimulation, your point would have been made already. Also, I'm always wary of weight issues when something is mentioned in the lede but not the body. As for Age of majority, I've never heard of "age of maturity" being used as a term and certainly not as a synonym for age of majority, If I had to guess, age of maturity would refer to sexual maturity or age of consent. But these are only my guesses, not backed by any proper sourcing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. And I certainly don't expect you to weigh in on every matter (or even most matters) that you are pinged to; for example, regarding the Age of majority article, I figured that you likely didn't have anything to add to the discussion. I was simply wondering if perhaps you felt annoyed, or someone emailed you essentially stating..."Be wary of Flyer22 asking for help because she can go overboard with it.", LOL. Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Saif Ali Khan article

I have requested the other person to join the talk page but instead he has started abusing me as you can see here

now he has violated the rule by doing three reverts in one day .. What would you advise me to do or if you can help in this matter. He is just trying to make every khan and Afghan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Saif Ali Khan is known throughout India as being of Afghan heritage, there are reliable sources to back this claim. Nobody ever disputed this and this is important information for an article about a famous Bollywood actor, you see this in every other article. Saladin1987 is an anti-Afghan editor, he's removing "Afghan" from every article. Saladin1987 is used by another editor as a single purpose account with special agenda so his main account doesn't gets involved.--39.47.29.108 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Both of you are perilously close to violating WP:3RR and there is no discussion on the talk page. 39 no more personal attacks please as per the warning on your talk page. And don't make veiled accusations of sockpuppetry. Either make a clear assertion (with proof) or desist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I accept the fact that I was wrong for using bad words in edit summary and I won't do it again. Saladin1987 is saying that the term "Afghan" means a refugee, that's how he sees Afghan people. Read his own state of mind here: "Bro i understand the term Afghan ... pakistani pakhtuns dont like being called Afghans as they think this term was used in history and now for Afghan refugees. ... My mother is a Pashtun turi and i know alot of Afghan Pashtuns(PAshtuns of Afghanistan) dont accept them as Pashtun as they are shia leave alone the Afghan word. ... This Saladin1987 was known before as User:Strider11 (who is now banned), he is basically editing Wikipedia based on what Pakistani people think of the name "Afghan". This is not allowed in Wikipedia and any editor doing such shouldn't be allowed to edit pages. The fact is I know Saladin1987 based on information he exposes on his own terms, such as his location, his background and his personal views. He used to be a regular chatter in Yahoo chat rooms and there he abused Afghans and Indians on daily bases. There is no doubt that he is not that same person, and I know for a fact that he's abusing multiple accounts. No editor in his/her's right mind would be doing the stuff Saladin1987 is doing unless of course that person doesn't care about being blocked or banned.--39.47.29.108 (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

i dont have any other account but as you have referred to me as terrorist here , i have reported it . Also you have broken a three revert rule . Calling me names will do further bad to youSaladin1987 19:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Afghan word in pakistan means Afghan refugees as a whole article is on them Afghans in Pakistan. Also i have got only one account. i dont hate Afghans or indians, its just you want to portray me as one but you surely hate pakistanis as depicted in the words that you used against me. Btw paki is a racist word List of ethnic slurs Saladin1987 20:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Nobody gives a rats ass what the word "Afghan" means in Pakistan, this is Wikipedia (not Pakistan). Pakistan (which is known in the world a 3rd World Country) is itself a land of refugees from India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and other countries. When Pakistan was created in 1947 millions of people from India and Bangladesh moved to this newly created country, and all of those are referred to as refugees (see Muhajir people). The province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is where all the Afghan refugees live and to them this is their native territory. This area was part of Afghanistan for ages and it's still a disputed territory. Your actions in Wikipedia proves that you hate Afghans and Indians... that's like a Pakistani terrorist (i.e. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mir Qazi, Ramzi Yousef, Aafia Siddiqui, Faisal Shahzad) arguing in court that he/she isn't a terrorist.--39.47.29.108 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Guys, use the article's talk page to make your arguments and focus on content, not sniping at each other. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

References

"Vandalism?"

I saw your post that you feel I am vandilizing and being disruptive...? I am most sorry- I DID NOT mean to offend or disrupt, only to try and make wikipedia a more enjoyable place for the fandoms I know are viewing those pages. Also, I think it is fairly accurate, though amusing, information. Please let me know what is considered appropriate so that I may know to refrain from bad activity in the future.

(P.S- I am new to wikipedia and figuring out how this works so please don't get mad at me if I am doing this wrong. Most likely if this continues I might delete my account soon.)

@EtceteraBlue: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite, so a more formal, impartial tone is required for content. Content also needs to be sourced properly. There's a bunch of help links on your talk page that will give you more information about various aspects of the encyclopedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

NOTVAND IP

Hi NeilN, I noticed your warning on User talk:65.129.156.23 after I had blocked them. Just so that you know, I blocked the IP because they were disruptively reverting edits made by Binksternet, and were doing so while use deceptive edit summaries, like what you reverted. Best. Acalamari 09:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Some questions

First of all I thank you because you have done a great job by checking my edits regularly. I am not irritated by this at all but infact it is helpful for me when you point out my errors and mistakes. But my humble request is to please don't revert my edits instantly. For example you asked me to provide sources for my edits on Islam in France, which I provided and dispute was resolved easily.

Now let's come to the main point. Although there is some friction between me and User:Peaceworld111, I always trusted him when I comes to sources. There are a lot of religion related articles on wikipedia where I asked him to provide sources regarding ahmadis and he did so. I admit that he is always humble and affectionate with me. He has a very nice character. But most times I was fairly irritated when he used book sources. I don't know how to verify book sources. Nevertheless I trusted him. Recently he added info regarding ahmadis on religion in Russia page and provided a book source. I was unable to remove ahmadis despite a great deal of controversy because I was sourced. But yesterday user toddy1 pointed out that there was not a single mention of ahmadis in the source. Infact it was related to azerbiajan. I can't really explain how much I was shocked and disturbed. He had been misleading me and wikipedia readers using fake sources. In the heat of emotions I left a message on his talk page where I called him a liar. I still can't explain why it is against wikipedia guidelines to call a user liar when he is spreading misinformation at the expanse of the trust of other users. Nevertheless I am sorry.

Now please tell me why you reverted my edit on Religion in Egypt. He is claiming that there are 50,000 ahmadis in Egypt using a book source. Please tell me how did you verified the source because I am unable to do this. If you are really able to verify source then please tell me because there are a lot of other book sources which need verification. Thanks.Septate (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: You cannot reject a source because you cannot access it. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Wikipedia articles have hundreds of thousands (probably over a million) of cites to books or sites behind paywalls. Assuming good faith means we accept these sources if there's no compelling reason not to. A compelling reason would be if an editor has a proven history of falsifying sources (and I don't mean one iffy case). With regards to Peaceworld111 and yourself, if you have questions about a source, I would start by asking him to provide an exact quote from the source that backs up the article text. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I want quotes from his all book sources.Septate (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take action

Please NeilN take action. See Talk:Religion in Russia# "Islam Outside the Arab World" p418 as a source. Peaceworld is openly misleading other users. It is well proved fact that he added book source in order to prove that ahmadis exist in Russia. But interestingly he is now claiming that he added book source in order to prove that Muslims represent 6.5% of the total population. That's complete maddness. How can this be possible. Arena atlas source already states that Muslims represent 6.5% of the population, we don't need another one. Futhurmore following link shows that Ahmadis and the book source were added at the same time meaning that source was added only to prove that ahmadis exist.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/614652615 Thanks to your quick descions he is praising you for taking his side. He is clearly lying and misleading others and no one seems to care. He is filling wikipedia withlots of misinformation. I am really worried. He is no longer trustable neither his book sources. Please instead of teaching me civility guidelines, do some thing about this. I am depressed. Take some action! You have to.Septate (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• @User:Septate, "It is well proved fact that he added book source in order to prove that ahmadis exist in Russia". I did not exactly hide this?
• "But interestingly he is now claiming that he added book source in order to prove that Muslims represent 6.5% of the total population." I did not.
• Septate, I don't have the energy to keep defending myself. You have called me a "liar" on many occasions, "untrustable" and the one who misleads, but I shall not be your mirror and start calling you the same. I suspected this long time ago, but as with much of the Muslim world, you struggle to tolerate "Ahmadis".--Peaceworld 10:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh God, Oh God, Oh God. I am really sorry User:Peaceworld111. I was unable to understand your opinion. I though that you meant that the source was intended for 6.5% figure but after reading it again I am totally shocked. You were infact saying that the source was not intended for 6.5% figure. I am seriously sorry. I am foolish and stupid. For God's sake forgive me. You have full right to open ANI case against me. But please remember I seriously misunderstood it. For God's sake peaceworld forgive me. Alas!Septate (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I promise you that I will never hurt you again User:Peaceworld111. I will never challenge your edits even if they are unsourced. I am gravely sorry. You are always right and I am always wrong. You have full right to open ANI case and block me.Septate (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: This is why WP:AGF is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. Challenge edits if you think there's a problem but try doing so in good faith and do it politely. Even if you are right, calling another editor names will make other editors focus on your behavior rather on the point you're trying to make. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh! Just open an ANI case against me and block me (You have already given me last warning). That's what I deserve. I am happy that I made 1500 edits to this incredible encyclopedia. Again, I am really sorry because I have wasted a lot of your precious time and you have been tolerating me for such a long time.Septate (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: No one is going to open an ANI case against you for this and no one is going to block you for this. Your constructive contributions outweigh the issues you sometimes cause. Just follow the path I suggested above and everything will go much smoother. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN for your kindness.Septate (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

UIDAI

Please see this diff [17] and reconsider the message you left on my talk page. I also presume you are aware that the Supreme Court of India has admitted a challenge to the legality of the aforesaid executive order as filed by Justice Puttaswamy.Mansjelly (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mansjelly: "Dubious" is a POV judgement, not a statement of fact. Being challenged in a court of law doesn't change that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"Dubious" simply means 'in doubt'. The doubt to the order does not flow from the challenge itself, but from the fact that the Supreme Court admitted the challenge as raised and thereafter trashed the said order.Mansjelly (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mansjelly: Suggest you consult a better dictionary - "not to be relied upon; suspect.", "morally suspect." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"dubious = of doubtful quality or propriety; questionable" ..Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Mansjelly (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mansjelly: Right, it's not up to us to say something is of doubtful propriety. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, both the Supreme Court and the Parliamentary sub-Committee have said that UIDAI's constitution by exec order is of doubtful propriety and a breach of Parliamentary privilege. I would have cited from the SC order except that its a primary source.Mansjelly (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mansjelly: Then you'll have to write something like this, "by what the Supreme Court has called an executive order of "doubtful propriety", issued in January 2009." with an appropriate secondary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Joshuaj102003

Hey there, Joshuaj102003 is back to adding poorly sourced/original research into articles. AD (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@The 80s chick: Final bit of rope. Makes for a more clearcut ANI report if he continues. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@The 80s chick: And ANI report. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

NeilN: I see you reversed the recent edits I made to the Soka Gakkai page using Twinkle. Thank you for helping to protect against vandalism across wikipedia! I also feel this is an important issue.

However just to clarify, I don't believe these edits should be considered vandalism as they have been thoroughly discussed on the talk page and agreed upon by a number of key contributors including the admin. Was their another reason you thought it was necessary to reverse the edits? Just let me know and I'd be happy to consider them in a future edit. If not, I'd like to continue with the edits that were agreed upon on the talk page. Thank you again, --Daveler16 (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Daveler16. Not all reversions made by Twinkle are for vandalism. In fact, most of my reversions are not for vandalism. It's important that you look at the edit summaries to see what they say. In this case, mine included "some are not improvements". Three other editors chimed in with some concerns on the talk page after my revert. I've now also expanded on my reasons there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Megaforce talkpage

Why did you readd the section break? It only makes it that much harder to quote Ryulong in the discussion. He can't say it's two different lines of conversation when the phrases "And really..." "You guys..." and bring up points directly from before the break in the discussion. --Harmony944 (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Harmony944: They're obviously two different comments. Please read WP:TALKNEW: "Create subsections if helpful. Talk page discussions should be concise, so if a single discussion becomes particularly long, it may then become helpful to start a subsection (to facilitate the involvement of editors with a slower computer or Internet connection)." That section is already very, very long. A break is useful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahmadiyah

AN OTHER VIEW :- I had made a few changes on the page of "mirza bashir ud din Ahmad" and Dr. Abdus Salam in good faith. Both of these men belong to a group, rather I should say a cult called "Ahmadiyah". these people are not considered to be Muslims by all the factions of main stream Islam (hanfis,maliki,hanbli or Shafii and Shiites). it is highly objectionable to portray these people as "Muslims" because they don`t share any of the fundamental islamic beliefs.

It is quite pertinent to mention here that Pakistan National Assembly has declared this cult as non-Muslim vide 2nd amendment in the 1973 constitution of Islamic Republic Of Pakistan<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Pakistan>.

Foregoing in view, it will be highly appreciated that necessary amendments to these pages may be accepted. these amendments are more realistic and from reliable sources.

thanks

§§§§§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamicpointofview (talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 July 2014‎ (UTC)

@Islamicpointofview: It does not matter what you think the Ahmadiyah are. Some Christian sects don't consider other Christian sects Christian. Some Jewish groups don't consider other Jewish groups "true Jews". Scholarly sources consider Ahmadiyah an Islamic movement so that's what we follow. Now, as to your specific edits, malicious edits and POV pushing like this [18], [19], [20], [21] is completely unacceptable. As I stated on your talk page, continue in this fashion and you will get reported. If you wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you read our WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability policies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How to put on a talk page?

Riddle me this: if anyone who dares suggest a certain favorite official might be a little integrity-challenged gets immediately declared a sockpuppet of some user they never heard of before, is there any way whatsoever to bring up on the talk page the multiple verifiable and reliable sources that so definitively show that official is indeed integrity-challenged?

YOU wrote "take it to the talk page." Well, he can't take it to the talk page, I can't take it to the talk page, no one can. Because instead of the dozens of people fed up with the official's lack of integrity, there is supposedly only one person saying "Hey, here's 5 newspaper articles, with more on the way."

Hell, I might get declared a sock just for asking you this. Because, if you all do look at IP evidence, you will find that I am within 50 miles of the person you might declare me a sock of (not that you have to look at such evidence because such evidence is never subject to cross-examination and can therefore there is no need to even bother to fabricate it).

Bet you haven't read this far down. You see the word "sock" and that immediately makes your blood boil and ignore everything I'm saying. But if you have read this far down, ask yourself: are sock-hunting trophies more important than getting verifiable citations from reliable sources into Wikipedia?

Just in case you're wondering, the music department had a lot of cooperation with engineering prior to 2011. That came to an abrupt halt on February 2011. A lot of nice things came to abrupt halts that month. Flutedude (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Flutedude: If you're talking about Farshad Fotouhi, given the sockfarm surrounding that article, your seeming wish to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, and this statement you just added to your talk page, I am completely uninterested in discussing this with you. You can use WP:DR if you wish to discuss content matters further. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

why i edited fatimah

hi neiln, you left me this message: "Please do not add or change content, as you did to Fatimah, without verifying it by citing a reliable source." well, neiln , what i edited was a part of the Fatimah article which is based on pure sectarian hate . the book the original publisher of the part i edited used as "a source" is well known for being a sectarian book and a source for information designed to fuel sectarian hate and can not be a reliable source to start with . not to mention, it can not be considered a neutral source of information. just because whoever published that part of the article based their information on a published book does not make their source automatically a reliable source !! the article in it's current form is sectarian and contains hate and this is not what wikipedia is all about and the parts i edited are in fact against wikipedia policies and they should be removed from that article. i hope you will understand. i will keep working on this issue whenever i have some free time until the article in question is clean, neutral, non sectarian, hate free and complies with wikipedias guidelines and policies. i will talk to others ( wiki guys) about it if i have to. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont101 (talk • contribs)

@Dont101: What you did was add your own personal commentary to the article. [22] Please see our no original research policy. If you have issues with the content, use the article's talk page to discuss them but don't put your comments in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

neiln, you did it again and you reverted an edit i did. i edited that part of the age of consent article because that part has nothing to do with the subject of the article. that part was just a cultural attack and there are sources that contradict the information in it. anyways, i started to form an idea about the type of edits you dislike ,and therefore, revert. again, if you keep doing it i will complain about you else where.

sorry, but if you continue to be selective in reverting edits and targeting certain issues and users and refusing to see their reasons, i will complain about you to wikipedia. it is obvious that many users are already not pleased with how you target them or how you select to "protect" some articles and keep them in their current un neutral form.

@Dont101: You deleted sources from the article including this one without any reason why. That source looks perfectly fine. I strongly suggest you read WP:BRD and start explaining what you're doing in edit summaries and using the article's talk page when someone objects to your change. Many users don't understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and some don't like being told that. You can complain but based on your edits, I doubt you'll get very far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

nelin, ok ..lets say that it was wrong to edit the fatimah article the way i did , but what about the current form of the article? it is sectarian. it is not a neutral source of info, period. why do you refuse to see this? just because the publisher of that part of the article is using a published book as a source does not make that part of the article worthy of being on wikipedia. the book they are using as a source is a well known sectarian book and it contains hate as well.

@Dont101: So what you need to do on the article's talk page is point out problems with the current sources by saying something like, "This source has been criticized by [other expert sources (not your opinion)] because..." Or, improve the article by adding text using better sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

i edited that part of th age of consent article because that part has nothing to do with the subject of the article. it contains info published to tarnish the image of the culture of a certain country, and again that part i deleted has nothing to do with the subject of the article. when it comes to marriage, many countries have no age limit and many child marriages take place too, yet, no mention of such things next to their "age of consent " info !!! however, only one single country was selected and one case of a child marriage was mentioned !! does this sound right to you? it is obvious that particular country is being targeted allover the net and it is hard to find credible neutral sources about it's culture.

i really don't have anymore time to sit here and argue anymore today but the issue will not end here.

@Dont101: There are many countries in that article which have similar content (see Qatar for example). Now that you've brought up specific concerns, I've made an edit. Look at this compared to yours. Proper edit summary and keeps the sources needed for the text that remains in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate discussion?

Please explain what was inappropriate about my question? Why did you delete it? You are very biased. Are you Jewish?KevinFrom (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@KevinFrom: Suggest you re-read what others have already told you. [23], [24] You can take your "musings" elsewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Text from my article moved to another.

Thank you Neil for your information. I will contact the other party and tell him I'm not happy because he deleted my text, not just copied it. TimothyWF (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neil, thanks for the tip off. Appreciated. Victuallers (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

For your help with the spammer. I thought they'd be back. 06:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

An apology

I apologise for my recent behaviour. I was mad and therefore not very accurate because I noticed that info about the current status of relations between Ukraine and Russia was missing in Vladimir_Putin#Relations_with_post-Soviet_states; therefore I thought it was not present in the whole article and I was suspecting this was done in a whitewash (of Putin) attempt. Then I noticed I was wrong since I noticed Vladimir_Putin#Intervention_in_Ukraine_and_annexation_of_Crimea.... in which the current status of relations between Ukraine and Russia is described.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yulia Romero, thank you for reaching out. I really appreciate that. I did look over your recent edits and they completely addressed my concern. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Post-Soviet conflicts template

What exactly do you mean by "Evidence of Russian soldiers?", how does this relate to your edit? --KronosLine (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@KronosLine: For a conflict to be listed on that template, I think a Russian armed presence should be significantly involved in the conflict. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The template isn't aimed at only Russian involved conflicts, it must include all armed conflicts of all post-soviet states. --KronosLine (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@KronosLine: I've reverted myself and asked a question here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding editing of jaora artical on Wikipedia

Sir I am the resident of Jaora(India). The objects I have edited was surely true I don't want them to be Reverted. So sir please set them as I edited them.

Thank You

Sincerely Gaurav Yadav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadav gaurav (talk • contribs) 06:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yadav gaurav. While I don't doubt your changes were true, Wikipedia is not a directory in that articles don't simply list places with no indication of their notability. Your edit also had a few other problems such as incorrect formatting and the addition of empty sections. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

pirelli calendar

Thank you for warning me but you can check out Graziadaily for the Pirelli 2015 models http://www.graziadaily.co.uk/fashion/news/the-2015-pirelli-calendar-is-revealed--featuring-first-ever-plus-size-model — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrswhoknoweverything (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mrswhoknoweverything: Thank you for providing a source. Please add sources to articles whenever you add new information. If you need help doing this please read Help:Referencing for beginners or drop me another note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

edit request

Hello there, a user named McGeddon makes disruptive editing at Fazlur Khan article. Please tell him to stop reverting constructive edits. You are a much more experienced editor, so please fix the article. He directly removed good info from 11:32, 24 July 2014‎ edit. please put it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.141.120 (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

McGeddon's edit summary seems pretty clear to me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

he removed important info and pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.141.120 (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop socking. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

still, the info i added was not bad. directly sources were provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.141.120 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me!

But do not just get onto me like you did on my talk page as you need to get on Ryulong as I been removing and he has been readding and you want to get on me and not him? I do not play that. Please say something to him too. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bumblebee9999: I apologize for missing that he was doing the same thing to your page. I've left a similar note for him. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you. Sorry for getting upset, I just didn't find it fair but it's all good now. :) Bumblebee9999 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

He lied to you about this though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: What I saw was him undoing your changes to your talk page and you undoing his changes to his talk page. Really, if someone deletes or re-adds a post on their talk page, just grit your teeth and ignore it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: I did not lie. You were readding stuff to my talk page that I was deleting, just as much as I was and neither of us wanted it on our talk page but we kept readding it to the others talk page. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Could you also talk to Ryulong about going through and nominating pages for deletion because of his personal opinions because if I am right Wikipedia does not work like that. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bumblebee9999: When you get down to it, all deletions and calls for deletion are based on personal opinions about how well they meet Wikipedia guidelines. Testing the waters on a class of articles is usually okay (BTW, I've weighed in on all three discussions). Once these AFD's are concluded the results should be taken into account before more nominations are made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Okay, I get what you are saying and I guess I should probably not say anything about personal opinions in the future. Thank you for the information. Also thank you for your revert on my talk page. I really do appreciate the look out and I am strongly considering just abandoning the account and not logging on anymore because I personally do not want the drama. But I will take what you said into consideration for the future and again thank you for everything. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Indic articles

Hi, you seem recently to have got drawn into issues relating to Indic articles. You've been around a long time and the experience shows. It is appreciated. I hope that, if you continue the involvement, you manage also to retain your sanity - they can be a nightmare & I've exploded on several occasions. Expect trips to ANI and, alas, both legal threats and death threats. And stick with it because the protests are usually baseless and innocuous in fact despite being perhaps alarming in nature. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. Yes, it seems that if one caste-related article makes it onto your watchlist others will inevitably follow. Thanks for the advice. These things always have the potential to make it to some noticeboard and if they do, and if you don't have clean hands, the discussion can veer offtrack wildly. So WP:CIVILITY is the order of the day. Plus, I'm just a really nice guy generally. Okay, some of you talk page watchers can stop snorting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Rolling Coal - Disambiguation of Expression

Hello. You have reverted an edit of the word 'cole' . Have you inserted the similar expression into 'coal' then or left it alone without the disambiguation.Richard416282 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Richard416282. Disambiguation pages are not meant to list every (and obscure) phrase containing a homonym. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN. OK, So, while the reference may be obscure, is that not the reason to have a disambiguation page? So that the obscure variation of a phrase is defined, and added to the whole encyclopaedia experience? You deleted my edit. Fine. Did you improve the disambiguation page? Did you move the phrase over to the correct spelling? No, Ok, so you complain about one part (addition of obscure reference to term), yet don't fix what broke it. Hmmm. OK. Now fixed. Not part of 'Cole' disambiguation page.Richard416282 (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't belong on Coal either. No one is going to say just "coal" when they mean rolling coal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

For example look at Peanut (disambiguation). No mention of peanut butter as people don't say "peanut" when they refer to peanut butter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Our "newcomer", Raam2 appears to be topic banned user Khabboos. This would not be the first time[25] nor the second time.[26] He is using it to violate his topic ban. There are various edits that clearly relieve that it's him. Such as:

1. Editing the same exact articles (one example per article).[27][28][29][30]

Khabbos[31][32][33][34]

2. Same active edit time.[35]

Khabboos[36]

3. Trying to use the same "sources".[37]

Khabbos[38]

4.Adding/restoring the same exact content that was previously removed[39][40][41][42][43] then claims that they were wrongfully removed on the talk page[44] removed even when it was clearly discussed on it.

Khabboos[45][46], talk page[47]

5. Randomly claims some friend on wiki has helped him.[48] it even turns out that their "friend" is also wrong like that of the banned user.

Khabbos[49]

6. Spams us with "useful sources" that he has not read or explain it's purpose.[50][51]

Khabbos[52][53] [54] (see the last reply, there's 7 links)

7. Oddly asks for others to look for sources because his claims are "true". Which is weird since they started the discussion and provided useless "sources".[55]

Khabbos[56]

8. Using edits summaries, such as "grammar fix" to completely change sentence or violate polices.[57]

Khabbos[58]

9. Doesn't seem to get what wrong with his edits[59]

I doubt such sheer amount of ignorance and all the things mentioned above are just coincidences. What do you think? AcidSnow (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have reported him for socking. Drop in to give you thoughts on it. AcidSnow (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow! These are EXACTLY the same types of behaviors Khabboos has exhibited in the homeopathy area. The naive sockpuppetry makes him look more and more like the multiple indef banned User:Dr.Jhingaadey. They have got to be twins (except their socks have myriad names). -- Brangifer (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ashish Nanda

The Business Standard article does not say that Nanda is still an Indian national. It is in public domain that he is a US national, so please provide a reliable source which explicitly says Nanda is an Indian. 13:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansjelly (talk • contribs)

@Mansjelly: He was born and raised in India. That doesn't change. We do not go on citizenship alone, see for example Gérard Depardieu, M. Night Shyamalan, Kalpana Chawla. If you have a source for American national then the text could be changed to Indian American. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The IIM Ahmedabad itself has officially confirmed that Nanda is a US national, the copy of which is accessible to me, and to any Indian citizen (but not to foreigners). Given this situation, it is false and misleading to publish that Nanda is an "Indian" which has a specific meaning in India. The other labels like Indo-American, American-Indian, Indian-American etc. are unknown to me and are hence incomprehensible. This article should address both US-American readers as well Indian readers so as not to cause confusion through linguistic differences over our "English". FYI in India we do not regard any of the 3 examples you cited as "Indians", we describe the latter 2 as "PIOs" (Persons of Indian origin). I would also disagree with the term "Indian-American" as in India we view Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Chileans etc. as "Americans" too. Mansjelly (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mansjelly: So, no publicly accessible source and you want to change the article based on your particular linguistic preferences and not what we have in other articles. No thanks. Please start a community-wide RFC if you wish to discontinue the use of Indian American across articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a publicly accessible source, for an official document, which being an official document is only accessible to Indian citizens, as it is otherwise covered under the Official Secrets Act. I have a copy. If you confirm that you are an Indian citizen I can snail-mail a copy to you. Otherwise I can fully cite the source -- its author, its reference number, its date, and where it can be accessed from. OTH, if you are an US citizen, I'm sure you can confirm under your laws that Nanda is a US-American. FWIW I have much better things to do with my time than raise RFCs or whatever.BTW, see this [60]. Mansjelly (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This Official Secrets Act? The one that "involves helping an enemy state against India" is okay with releasing a document to over a billion people who will keep the contents a secret? Anyways, if you want that term changed then you know what to do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Nanda has revoked his Indian citizenship and passport by acquiring US nationality is a State secret which can only be disclosed to Indians. The Indian Government is not obliged to disclose this fact to every alien. Its perfectly logical and consistent with international law. FYI, the article on "Indian-American" is very thin on reliable sources which show that this is term is not a Hoax. Please take it up with your site administrators.Mansjelly (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on these two less than credible assertions, I think we're done here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You want 'State secrets' included in an encyclopedia? Isn't such disclosure, grounds for treason under the very same Official Secrets Act ?  NQ  talk 15:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@NQ: Oooh, good point! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The question is on Google (search "if the present IIM-A Director Prof. Ashish Nanda is a US national, or not, and if so the approvals of PMO, ACC etc.") as is its answer. So Google Inc. is liable for disclosing how they accessed the secrets held by Mr.Sujit Kumar, Under Secretary/Ministry of HRD/Dept of Higher Education/Management Division room 430-"C" Wing Shastri Bhawan vide F.No.16/73/2013-TS.V/12.11.2013.Mansjelly (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

1) We don't care what random bloggers post. 2) Your posts are getting more nonsensical. No one is talking about Google. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please don't talk nonsense. The person who asked for that information is no "random blogger" but Ambrish Pandey - the well known RTI activist of India who is with "Association for Democratic Reforms" a notable Human Rights organisation which was founded within IIM Ahmedabad and numbers many IIM faculty as its trustees. See [61] [62]. He asked for this information because of this [63]. The official reply of the Govt. of India (which I have fully cited) establishes that Nanda is not an Indian. No one is talking about Google. Mansjelly (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, it does not matter if Nanda is presently not an Indian citizen. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

IF you have a reliable source which explicitly says that Nanda is presently an Indian, lets have it, or else self-revert your false reinsertion that he is. You should appreciate that Wikipedia content is mirrored on many sites and read there by people who don't know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Mansjelly (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says Nanda magically went back in time and changed where he was born, grew up, and went to university? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He is Indian born. Take Gérard Depardieu for example, you don't see him being referred to as a Russian actor, even though, he recently acquired Russian citizenship. Likewise, as Neil mentioned earlier, citizenship isn't the only deciding factor here. If you have sufficient verifiable, publicly accessible sources to support your theory that he is in fact a US citizen, you are welcome to start a discussion on the talk page of the article to gain consensus to include your changes  NQ  talk 17:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The statement in the article that Ashish Nanda is an Indian is demonstrably false, and its falsity is verifiable from the source I have cited which is easily accessible to the Indian public. The further statement that Nanda is an Indian educationalist is equally false and even more mischievous. Nanda's educationalist tag comes from his American association and not from his Indianness. He never taught previously in India, and virtually the whole of IIMA's senior faculty is up in arms against this "foreigner" who has been imposed on them by the previous deposed Government in its final days by foisting false criminal cases and case of plagiarism on them to get them out of the running.Mansjelly (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, unless you can provide verifiable reliable sources to support your claim, there is nothing more to discuss here. I'm sorry for reviving the discussion. NQ  talk 18:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The on-page claim that Nanda is Indian is made by NeilN. So the burden of proof devolves upon him for his claim and not upon me. All he has shown was that Nanda was born and educated partially in India some 30 years ago. The source I have fully cited meets every definition of a reliable source to dispute a claim in a BLP article, and considering it is made from the Institute of which Nanda is the Director.Mansjelly (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is incumbent on you to provide a source that states Nanda was not born and raised in India. You don't seem to understand that citizenship or what a government calls you is not the be all and end all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually - (i) this is BLP article, so be ultra-careful (ii) WP:PROVEIT says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.". You restored the claim that Nanda ia an "Indian Educationalist" when the fact is that he is an American educator. you have failed to provide any RS which directly supports he is an Indian educator. His birth and early education are irrelevant, because in India Nanda is not looked upon as "Indian" but as "American". So you PROVEIT that Nanda is Indian - when his passport and his own Institute says he is not. Nanda is a Person of Indian origin so please correct yourself. Furthermore the BS article you cited is not a reliable source, but a paid PR article to counter the allegations raised against Nanda within IIMA - such as that he gets an unheard of astronomical salary package and gets to keep 100% of all his private consultancy income - and shares nothing with IIM. The entire senior IIMA faculty is now demanding the same thing and there is open warfare in IIMA over this. He is also being paid 80% more than what he made at Harvard, so this puff piece has no credibility as an RS.Mansjelly (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How does one "Move" this section to Ashish Nanda's talk page for wider discussions ?Mansjelly (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't, as your accusations and insinuations violate the BLP policy you're citing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@NQ: FYI. [64] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Compare this and this user. Mansjelly was created just a day after Unfitlouie got blocked. I just read through the talk pages of these users, and I must say I rather prefer the musings of Alex Jones. At least he makes more sense.  NQ  talk 08:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014 ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned an edit of yours at ANI

JUST FYT Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FelixRosch reported by User:Moxy (Result: ) -- Moxy (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Moxy: Not ANI but WP:3RRNB. I commented there before I saw this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I see 3rr is just one of the Admin noticed boards....dont go to them often oops. Perhaps it would have been best at some other place. O well whats done is done. I find it odd one person could cause problems at so many places. -- Moxy (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A definition is a Definition

Sorry for the inconvenience

As you can see the change in edit I was proposing was a definition of "Inquilab Zindabad" which was misinterpreted as "Down with the imperialism". But according to wiki, and in reality, its meaning comes to be "Long live the Revoluton". The other editor wanted the previous definition as it was the norm of Indian Propaganda to project the martyrs of Indian freedom struggle to be fighting a larger Imperialistic force. But according to me definitions should be definitions. As most of the people referring Bhagat Singh would go by the definition given in the brackets rather than checking its link and going through the linked text page, I was trying to change the meaning to what it should be (Please look it up). I have written to the editor. Thank you and SORRY... Regards, ARMarkande — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarkande (talk • contribs) 15:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amarkande: According to Wikipedia policies, disputes such as these are resolved by referring to reliable sources. The current source has "Down with Imperialism". If you want the article changed, you'll need to find a source discussing the incident with a different translation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: I am refering from a wikipedia page with about 7 references for the same phrase...(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquilab_Zindabad). Here you can also get a reference about how the phrase defined as "Long live the Revolution" was used by revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh and Azad who used it to urge future generations to endorse and support the political party's rebellious actions(and not for denouncing the imperialism). It means the same (Long live the Revolution) in Hindustani (a language). You can verify with a linguist.

@Amarkande: Actually the sources in that article don't provide a translation for the phrase and I've made note of that. Please provide a source that does. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: The translation of "Inqulab" from Urdu to English according to Oxford dictionary is "A revolution or uprising"

.. Zindabad also an Urdu word meaning 'may (a person/process) live' .. Zinda, as described in Wiki, is a persian word used in Hindustani (which includes hindi and Urdu) means "to live/living".. , .. "Abad" meaning in Urdu: To propagate....Amarkande (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amarkande: Please see Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Bhagat_Singh --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Please read this authors take in his point 10........Amarkande (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amarkande: Did you go to Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Bhagat_Singh? You'll see the confusion was cleared up and you were correct. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Its not about me being right... ppl reading need to know the exact definition... many ppl write their essays and articles frm Wikipedia now. They will be misled... Fortunately the problem was solved..because you would have got a deluge of references about the phrase...from ME!!!  :-P Anyways....Thanx.Amarkande (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amarkande: Thanks for pursuing this until it was corrected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

References

WP:SOAPBOX vio?

Would you take a look at Proxima Centauri's user page? He's hosting that Candy Crush treatise there and something about the current pope.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: Dropped them a note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25