User talk:NeilN/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Update

ORIGINAL MESSAGE: Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Health insurance. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN talk to me 01:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash nutty (talk • contribs)

Hello Neil,

I understand that you have reverted my edit. All I wanted to explain is I am NOT promoting my business. Just because the video is created by my company, does not mean that you can consider it spam. I would like to bring to your attention that such information is not available anywhere in the internet it will be useful to wiki User. I would also take this opportunity to point out that the information I have shared on wiki is unique and is not available anywhere in the net.

As far as your message about the links go, I do not want a backlink or SEO value from these information. Let me also explain you that the links were pointing to a YouTube video. This is not leveraging my website in any SEO value. I would request that you read/see/hear the content first and then make a decision whether it is a spam or it is really valuable to the user of wiki. Just because we created it, does not mean we are promoting it. We have never used any promotional language or advertising speech in the video.

Thanks Ash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash nutty (talk • contribs) 02:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ash nutty, this is pretty much the definition of WP:LINKSPAM. Please read the conflict of interest info I put on your talk page and refrain from adding links to your business. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

online ordering system

No links were added to the content, so I do not understand why it is perceived as advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9kondop (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@K9kondop: Please find non-commercial sources for the content you want to add and be mindful of copyright infringements like File:Concepts-3.jpg. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then why not simply leave the images out. That should solve the problem. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9kondop (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@K9kondop: No, please see verifiability. You still need to provide sources for the material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but if I add the reference URLs you will then say that it's a commercial URL and therefore non admissible. So, it's ok, I'll leave it as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9kondop (talk • contribs) 16:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@K9kondop: A source must be independent and have a reputation for fact checking and neutrality (e.g., newspaper, trade magazine). Not a vendor page designed to sell you something. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9kondop (talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

Hello I will add reliable sources thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish2470 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this revert... I must have been drunk when I made that one! Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

3RR in Indian Foreign Service Article

Dear NeilN,

I had reverted back 3 time on aricle 'Indian foreign service' malafied and unresobnable reverts by unregistered user IP 116.74.12.42 . I was not aware of 3RR Rule and more so I was not aware of diluting the quality of article and malafide editing by aforementioned user was already being observed by you and had already been issued warning by administrator. I regret my not keeping with rules. I only wanted to restore quality and integrity of article as all addition were duly referenced from reliable sources and all pictures added were relevant and in public domain.

As far as my 3RR is concerned, I have read carefully rules regarding 3RR and reverted my own latest revert as advised in article. Hope you will consider my mistake and also restore quality of article. Regret and Regards. Writereditor009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writereditor009 (talk • contribs)

Hi Writereditor009. You are in no danger of breaking WP:3RR. Consecutive edits count as one revert so feel free to undo the last undo of yourself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

So Sad with Wikipedia

I am an atheist, but found that Cherub article to be so slanted for Judaism up front, with little info on what a cherub is, exactly. I quoted the Bible with passages as sources; and you deleted my edits as unsourced--despite the Judaic texts in the article taken as word.

If I was a fourth grader trying to find the definition of "Cherub," your page would chap my brain. Wikipedia used to be the brand we all trusted--because we thought it was *us*. But now it is impossible to contribute. Your editors are mostly control freaks, the right-wing religious slant is stifling, the pages are filled with self-promoters & vanity press of dime store artists who put their own pages up, and blocks on anyone editing who isn't an insider--you have turned into the information control horror that you started to fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OhStop (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a better way to cite the bible. Maybe that'd help. - Denimadept (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, there's a way. See {{Bibleverse}}. Would that work for you, NeilN?- Denimadept (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Denimadept. Although OhStop is blocked for socking, let me answer you. The issue is not citing passages, the issue is providing secondary sources for the interpretations he's adding. This is a prime example: "Gabriel, because he has been involved in major Biblical events, is likely one of the Archangels (though the Bible does not directly say so - see Daniel 8:15 - 16)." There's no cite to biblical scholarship provided to back up that statement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't exactly specialize in this area. - Denimadept (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method

Maybe I should just stop reporting him already? Flyer22 (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for not only cleaning up breakage on my talk page, but for reaching out to help the fellow who was lost. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

AHMADIYYA MUSLIM JAMAATHU

IT IS NOT A MUSLIM JAMAATHU , BUT IT IS A NON MUSLIM JAMAATHU. KADIYANI IS NOT A MUSLIM , BUT HE WAS A FROAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by SALAMMK (talk • contribs)

@SALAMMK: I can make little sense of this. Please stop typing in ALL CAPS. Your edit removed sourced information and a link to the proper sub-article. If you're saying Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was not a Muslim, Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not editors' personal opinions, to determine that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

plz c the Wikipedia page of the heading Muslim,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim.SALAMMK (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@SALAMMK: What about it? If you expand the Denominations section in the Islam infobox you'll see that Ahmadiyya is listed. Note: please don't surround text with {{ }}. Wikipedia thinks you're trying to insert a template which is adding to the confusion. I've fixed your posts up above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for doing that I was trying to fix other changes that was made to the Roman Empire article. The previous person replaced Roman for Irish and I thought that I would change them. As for the Obama Sr. My son put something wrong on there so I quickly changed it so it would not offend anyone. Thanks for helping me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh12357 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya Caliphate

Hello

Consider this opening statement of belief: "The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community ... believes that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate ... is the re-establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate ...." This is an opinion altho it may have a reference from one of their own community theology books.

Now consider my edit in terms of the above belief statement of the Ahmadiyya community and the below explanation:

If you believe that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate established (after the passing away of the community's founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) is the re-establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate and which belief as you well know is a belief that no Muslim accepts, therefore the researcher/reader on Islamic topics has the right to know why that Ahmadiyya belief (about the re-establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate) is unacceptable to the Muslim majority (assuming that the Ahmadiyya can still be considered a minority Muslim sect in spite of all Muslim sects denying them any Muslim recognition) vis-a-vis the Muslim beliefs as follows:

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and their Caliphate are considered heretical by all Muslim groups due to one deep theological difference. The Quran asserts that:

Mohammad is not the father of any of your men but he is the Messenger of God and the Seal (the last and final) of the Prophets. (Quran 33:40)

Prophet Mohammad also had said:

Indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah, each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. But I am the last of the Prophets. There is no Prophet after me.

It's simply a matter of putting forward both referenced belief i.e. one against another referenced belief. I have no axes to grind against the Ahmadiyya. In fact I think it would have been better for the Ahmadiyya not to have mentioned anything about their Caliphate which makes no sense in Islam because it is against the belief system of a billion plus Muslims as opposed to their estimated 10 million(?) Ahmadiyyas worldwide. How are 10 million excommunicated Muslims going to push thru their candidate for a Muslim Caliph against that of one billion Muslims? Really it is altogether an absurd situation.

Please let me know if you need more explanations. In the meantime I have cancelled your revert.

Please also inform whether you are a Wiki Administrator since you are threatening to block me as if you are one. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Salim e-a ebrahim: This is classic synthesis which is not allowed here. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." As to your admin question, looking over your past edits I see that you seem to be fixated if editors are administrators or not. No one has seemed to have told you this explicitly so I will: It does not matter. Admins do not have any special powers to judge content or to hand out warnings. Anyone can do so. If an admin does that, they are acting as a regular editor. Their admin powers are used for performing the actual block, after the editor to be blocked has disregarded enough warnings which, again, can be issued by anyone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please visit the link below which describes the Dispute posted by me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Caliph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim e-a ebrahim (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Rolling Coal

Hello NeilN - I recedntly posted material to the Rolling Coal entry that was deleted by you and tagged as "not relevant". My post had to do with the emissions control performance of equipment disengaged on pickups for the purpose of generating higher emissions. The material comes from a credible and often cited source, the U.S. Envoronmental Protection Agency. I believe my post is both relevant to the subject and credible.

Thenk you,

EpaulF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epaulf (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Epaulf: And none of that is relevant to the topic. It's like adding a section of the properties of modern steel to the Eiffel Tower article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Internet TV Inventor

Hi Neil, the article by Bob Metcalfe (the inventor of the Ethernet) was in an InfoWorld article dated 12/18/95 based on an interview with me (John Bentley) while demonstrating the Viewcall STB entitled "Couch Potatoes armed with Viewcall can surf the Web through the tube. It went on to say in a 2 page review that "we are watching our first intervision" as he explained the first internet on TV.There are numerous references to Viewcall on the Net and the later sale of its business to NetChannel an Oracle subsidiary. I invented TV internet well before anyone else and Viewcall was my company. In the light of other claims I simply want to put the record straight for reasons of Internet and TV history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekyman (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Beekyman. "we are watching our first intervision" does not mean you invented TV Internet. It simply means it was Metcalfe's first experience with it. Where is the two page review? All I found was Metcalfe's column. Also, please read our conflict of interest guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

TV Internet Inventor

There is a Catch 22 in what you are asking. Before my giving the interview for the Metcalfe article no person had claimed they had invented Internet TV, and indeed nor have they now although some writers now attribute it to Microsoft or Oracle. In fact the product had no name other than Viewcall or OnTV as Viewcall later called it, since it had not been invented by anyone else or even thought about. I have other inventions to my name and do not generally boast about them but I am just trying to put the record straight for historic purposes.

Metcalfe is a very well known TV industry figure and himself the industry acknowledged inventor of the Ethernet. His InfoWorld publication was an authoritative industry publication and he was the first knowledgeable journalist in the US to whom I demonstrated the Viewcall STB which was also exhibited at the CES exhibition of that date, and had been demonstrated some months earlier in London.

This seems to me to fit your conditions that an invention must be witnessed by some other recognized person or publication other than the inventor who lays claim to it. The University of Montreal also published a review entitled L'Etat d'Internet in 1999 which described me as follows:" Indeed , although one allots the invention of Internet on Television to a certain John Bentley, a British (sic) who was the first to put on the market of the consoles giving access to the Web by the means of television this one and his company disappeared early from the race because they did not have the funds to compete with WebTV Networks and Microsoft."

Metcalfe gave it the name of "Intervision" and his article makes it clear that what he was watching was in effect the forerunner of what Microsoft later called Web TV and what Oracle called the Network Computer since it was Oracle who purchased the business of Viewcall through their subsidiary NetCannel Inc. There are numerous references to this purchase on the net but they do not say I was the inventor since Oracle liked to lay claim to it as their product, but not that they had invented it. Viewcall America purchased the rights for Viewcall's product from Viewcall Ltd of the UK and acknowledged me as the Founder of both Viewcall Ltd and Viewcall America Inc, both of which companies I was a director. There is no article that says I was the inventor of Internet TV since I did not go looking for kudos, but neither has any other individual laid claim to it, unsurprisingly since they did not invent it. If this means you refuse to recognize any inventor simply because he is modest enough not to have gathered up sufficient evidence to suit you purposes then so be it, but then the truth of the record, which I assume is your purpose on Wikipedia, cannot therefore ever be recorded, and so the public are left either in the dark or with a false impression given by those with power and money to suppress the original inventor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekyman (talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Beekyman: Wikipedia's purpose is not to be the record of truth, but rather to report on what reliable sources say is the truth. This is straight from one of the core policies: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its 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." Do you have more information about the University of Montreal review? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neal. I respect the need Wikipedia has to ascertain sufficient independent appraisals. I will contact the University of Montreal to see if they have a web link to their review of the Web industry in 1999, in which the words I quoted to you are contained, and of which I have a physical hard copy. Is a link to the University a necessity or can its review be linked to another web site? It does have the name of the University on the heading, although it is a translation from the original French. If this cannot be found then perhaps the second best way it can be done is to ascribe Viewcall as the company which originated Internet on TV of which there is a fair amount of evidence, and then make it clear I was its founder.

In passing I would remark that as an inventor, as I imagine with most others, the thought of the invention comes into ones head as a vision and so cannot be shared at that moment with anyone, and if it was then that person too could possibly lay claim to it. It is possible the reason why so many inventions are contended. The world tends to understand an inventor as the first person to show an original product in some sort of working order. I did this,both in London and with Bob Metcalfe in the US, but in the name of Viewcall, a company,of which I was the founder and main stockholder. My vision took three years to complete as a product, having the need to raise the necessary funds, to research the available hardware, and to re-engineer it, and to outline the software requirements that would make the net appear acceptable on a TV screen with the novel fractal use of images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekyman (talk • contribs) 18:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Beekyman: Sources do not have to be accessible via the web, they just have to be accessible to the general public (e.g., in a library or archive). In order to use the source on Wikipedia enough info needs to be given to identify it (journal title, article title, date, author) and to ascertain what weight to give to it (e.g., a review by an undergrad for the university paper will carry no weight while a published overview in a paper by a professor will carry significant weight). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekyman (talk • contribs) 11:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Hi Neil. this morning I re-edited the Wikipedia Internet TV site as you have previously stipulated with authoritative evidence of references:- a) in InfoWorld Magazine that John Bentley of Viewcall demonstrated the first Internet TV product at Comdex to Bob Metcalfe in December 1995. Metcalfe is a Professor Emeritus and the inventor of the Ethernet whose reputation cannot be disputed. b) that the highly authoritative British Guardian Online newspaper in January 1996 reported Viewcall's world first Internet TV product and that John Bentley was Chairman of Viewcall. c) that the authoritative US BYTE magazine reported Viewcall in April 1996 as having the first Internet TV product d) the press report in April 1997 that NetChannel purchased Viewcall. NetChannel being a subsidiary of Oracle e) the several page interview of Ruel Set Top magazine between its editor and John Bentley entitled "John Bentley Inventor of Internet TV"

Ruel Magazine is now defunct but was a widely read internet TV industry magazine for a decade or more.

By refusing to let this information be published you are suppressing the truth of the invention of Internet TV and giving no contrary evidence. Not least that Viewcall was the first to demonstrate it which is referenced in all of a,b,c,d and e above. secondly that John Bentley was the demonstrator, thirdly that he was Chairman of Viewcall Ltd when its product was demonstrated. fourthly that it became the Network Computer of Oracle, and fourthly as reported in detail in 1999 in Ruel Magazine that John Bentley was the Inventor Of Internet TV, which has never been disputed by any other party. Additionally all of these references can be found on the www.johnbentley.biz web site as I had previously pointed out to you. If you do not respond satisfactorily I will take my case to the owner of Wikipedia directly whose object I feel sure was that Wikipedia should be an instrument of the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekyman (talk • contribs) 14:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Beekyman: Please start signing your posts as you were shown to here: User_talk:Beekyman#Your_recent_edits. Also, please add your posts to the correct section - you can read WP:TPG for more info.

I did not revert your latest addition, another editor did likely because the cites were completely incorrectly formatted. [1] Please read Help:Referencing for beginners for help on this. Lastly, the owner of Wikipedia is the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization. Employees of the WMF, acting on behalf of the WMF, cannot dictate article content unless there's some legal issue involved (very rare - I believe there's only one article out of 4+ million under Foundation control). Volunteer editors such as those working on Internet television will always dictate content for the other 4+ million - 1 articles.

Qatar

My edit to the Qatar pages is not just attributable to The Daily Beast. Dozens of web sites and news sources including U.S. intelligence say that major funding to ISIS (IS) is being provided by Qatar. ISIS (IS) is committing atrocities including forced religious conversions, beheadings, genocide and more in its move to form an Islamic Caliphate. Your removal of my edit is tantamount to a cover-up. I don't have a talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozoni11 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ozoni11. Your talk page is where I posted my message to you - talk. As to your edit, I didn't say it was unsourced, I said it was non-neutral (see WP:NPOV). "Additionally, Qatar is one of the biggest donors to ISIS (no called IS or Islamic States). IS continues to threaten and kill Christians, other Muslims and those who do not believe in their fanatical brand of Islam." is not encyclopedic language. Also, that is the top-level article of Qatar, we need to be careful that recentism doesn't creep in. I suggest you try to integrate the material within the existing content using neutral terminology. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

revert

I saw your revert, there seems to be some sock who added it, I was about to revert it myself. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvajna (talk • contribs)

jehovah witness is not a Christian denomination.

Hi Neil, The entry for Jehovah Witness mistakenly lists this as a Christian denomination. I can edit if you like. But I am new to wikipedia editing aand am not certain how this works. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccsarchitect (talk • contribs) 01:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ccsarchitect: No, please don't change that as you'll quickly be reverted. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not editors' opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Dear Neil

I do have a source for that, namely Dr. Yeshi Dhonden, The Ambrosia Heart Tantra, p.5. Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, Dharamsala, 1977. Please tell me how to insert this citation. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.130.151 (talk)

Can you please type out the sentences from the book that back up your edit and what qualifications Dhonden has as a historian? Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Neil,

The relevant passage reads:

"It was in his manifestation as the Sovereign Healer that Buddha Shakyamuni delivered the following teachings (comprising the Ambrosia Heart Tantra)". ibid.

Dr. Yeshi Dhonden. Yeshi Dhonden's qualifications are impeccable. Among other peerless achievements, he was personal physician to the present Dalai Lama for 20 years.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshi_Donden

Also see http://yeshidhonden.com/

From the brief biography of Dr. Yeshi Dhonden: Dr. Yeshi Dhonden was born in Lhoka, Tibet on 15th May 1927 to Mr. Tashi Tsering and Mrs. Metok Dolkar. His family comes from the popular medical lineage of Ngok Lotsawa and Ngok Choeku Dorjee. He is very genius that he has finished his medical training at a very tender age of twenty. In 1960 he took up the challenge to found Men Tsee Khang, the Tibetan Medical College and was succeeded.He was both Director and principal until 1979.

Yeshi Dhonden is a Buddhist monk and was Dalai Lama’s personal physician for about twenty years from 1960 to 1980. His primary goal was to prove that these Tibetan formulas were safe and non toxic and have successfully done it. He now uses Tibetan herbal medicines and diet for curing cancer. Since 1967, he has long list of patients seeking his care and help at his clinic in Mcleod Ganj, Dharamsala.

Dr. Yeshi Dhonden is one of the foremost Tibetan doctors of the world. Over the last 50 years, he has successfully treated patients with all kinds of ailments. One of his specialties is cancer. He has treated thousands of cancer patients from all over the world, including women with breast cancer. His treatment basically includes ancient Tibetan herbal therapies. He is a successful doctor in treating diseases such as AIDS and cancer. He even gave life to the patients who are in last stage.

With respect to your question about being a historian, Dr. Yeshi Dhonden is a Tibetan Buddhist medical doctor and monk. The citation does not say anything about historians, it says that the tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, as expressed here by the Dalai Lama's personal physician, states that the Ayurveda text Heart of Amrita (Ambrosia Heart Tantra, Kelsang 1977) was preached by the Buddha, which would place the provenance of the text north India around 500BC - centuries before all the other leading Ayurveda textbooks.

Given Dhonden's clear impetus to promote Buddhism, and lack of qualifications as a historian, I don't think he's an acceptable source for, "The Four Tantras are traditionally held by Tibetan Buddhist lineages to have been preached by Lord Buddha several centuries before the appearance of any other Ayurveda text." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you or do you not agree that the Dalai Lama represents Tibetan Buddhism? Next, the Dalai Lama's personal physician definitely represents Tibetan Buddhism. The view expressed by the Dalai Lama's Tibetan physician is the same view as the Dalai Lama's himself. Contrary to your claim, it is not in the Dalai Lama's interest to undertake mere self-promotion. Due to these facts, it is not incorrect to state that the Tibetan Buddhist tradition holds that the Buddhist Ayurveda treatise, Ambrosia Heart, of the Heart of Amrita, was preached by the Buddha, which places its composition many centuries before any of the later Ayurveda textbooks. The view of Dr. Dhonden is that:

"It was in his manifestation as the Sovereign Healer that Buddha Shakyamuni delivered the following teachings (comprising the Ambrosia Heart Tantra)". ibid.

I still would like a historian's perspective but I've copied our conversation to Talk:Ayurveda#Buddhism_and_Ayurveda to get more input. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Leave it alone please

I am not harassing anyone. Please review the edits of HelenOnline. She is severely violating WP:OWN in her control of the Oscar Pistorius article, to the detriment of Wikipedia. All I am doing is trying to add accurate information. Please do not abuse me any further. Thanks. If you wish to wield your mighty banhammer, consider the one in violation of Wikipedia's principles, who is damaging the accuracy of Wikipedia ==== HelenOnline. Thanks. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are a moderator, you are a poor excuse for one. Please stay out of things that you aren't bothering to investigate. I am the good guy here. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Continue your harassment of HelenOnline and you can explain yourself at WP:ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I am harassing nobody. Check the history. HelenOnline is a major abuser on that article, has added in huge amounts of inaccurate information, controlled the article, and harassed multiple editors. You should be defending me!!!! Let her speak for herself. All I am asking is that she back away from this, to allow level-headed neutral people to edit it, so that her bias isn't there. There is no way that that is anything close to harassment. Your behaviour, on the other hand, is clearly abusive and bullying. Please stop it. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

So ban me, bully. Wield your banhammer for great justice. Get your kicks out of it. And don't bother to check any facts at all. I am sure you feel really good for defending someone who you presume is female. What would happen if Helen was male? Would you still blindly defend someone who was adding in inaccurate information if they were male? What if I was female? You don't know. I could be a supermodel. Anyway, enjoy your power trip. Wikipedia is so terrible. Wikipedia doesn't care about accurate information. All they care about are people like you on massive power trips. So go ahead, feel good about yourself. It doesn't change the truth at all. Just makes you look bad. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Potential ANI post

123.2.223.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Looking at the BLP notice posted here, I found that the IP added unsourced content [2] which HelenOnline removed. She also removed a copyvio committed by the IP. [3] The IP then made all kinds of accusations here. Despite other editors' support of Helen and a warning to stop, [4] they continued to tell Helen to stop editing the article. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, too slow. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for personal attacks and disruptive editing, which includes the BLP issues and the copyvio. Acroterion (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Acroterion. It's pretty bad when someone gets attacked for upholding our core policies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that escalated really fast! Thank you for taking care of it. Oh, you should never be given the mop, since you seem to be getting "massive power trips" by enforcing policies against possible "supermodels". Inexcusable.  NQ  talk 01:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help and sorry Neil got dragged into the nastiness. I was out all day, probably just as well. HelenOnline 08:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@HelenOnline: No need to be sorry. We're supposed to be a community and that should mean editors sticking up for community standards are supported. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Given the subject matter and the articles targeted, this is rather obviously User:Internodeuser aka User:Blissyu2 aka User:Zordrac - Alison ^❤ 05:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Ejaculatory edit

Given the text I added is properly sourced and relevant to the topic section, Volume, why did you revert my additions to the original?

If there is a comment on Hypospermia there should be a comment on Hyperspermia as well as clarification on normal volumes.

I will be adding my edit again but await to hear your reasons with anticipation.--BigBearLovesPanda (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi BigBearLovesPanda. It was because this is questionable as a reliable source and it's definitely not a WP:MEDRS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I did have doubts about this but as it had references on the page I thought that may be adequate, much like a university medical text book. I'm sure my Hyperspermia citation is compliant as it is used on the Hyperspermia article page and Flyer22 thinks it probably is a WP:RS. I'll double check and add the reference again if it is compliant. By the way, thanks for the feedback re my references, I'm rather inexperienced at the Wiki editing malarkey and it's 20 years since I wrote my thesis so I'm a bit rusty but I know how important it is so I will hope to do better next time.--BigBearLovesPanda (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Indian Foreign Service

I have copy of a letter dated 4 June 1947 which was my source for including the names of the first batch of IFRS officers.

If you had asked me for that source rather than simply removing my post I would have understood.

FYI, the last name on that list was my father!

I do not know who you are or why you have taken upon yourself to be the guardian on the IFS page, I do not care.

If you send me your email I will gladly send you that letter, but only if my edit is added back on.

Regards, Madhav Agate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agatemike (talk • contribs) 15:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Agatemike. Wikipedia does not accept private letters as sources. Per WP:SOURCE: 'Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form"' For letters that could mean a publicly accessible archive or library. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have surrendered - at least let me say goodbye

Your reversion is inappropriate. Let it stay there. She owns the article, with your assistance. Let's leave it at that. Congratulations, by the way, on winning the war of truth, by keeping the article in a false condition so that it can never be returned to a true state. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

[11] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I highly disapprove of your actions.

I highly disapprove of your actions. You continue to revert my edits when they are perfectly legitimate, and your blocking threats are unacceptable.

Please reconsider the way you go about these things as it is both rude and inconsiderate. Edfilmsuk (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Edfilmsuk: I'm sorry you feel that way but as I alluded to on your talk page, verifiability is core policy. You need to provide a proper source that specifically backs up your addition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ashish Nanda

Even though hosted on the Harvard website, isn't his CV a self published source? Section - "Awards and Honours" - faculty profile as sourcing - Reliable? Could you take a look?  NQ  talk 06:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi NQ. Yes, it's a WP:BLPSPS. It's probably reliable as lying on a CV hosted by Harvard would get the author torn apart. However that doesn't address the question of WP:UNDUE. Secondary sources are also useful with determining what is important enough to belong in a biography. For example, is "Harvard University Certificate of Distinction for Teaching Undergraduates" really notable? I don't think so but who knows without secondary-source coverage? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Awards and certificates for "developing second year course material" and "for teaching undergraduates" have no place there. I'd recommend scrapping that entire section and maybe include the important honors in the body itself. A quick web search shows only him being mentioned getting the 'Raman Subramanian Prize' and the 'McGillicuddy Doctoral Fellowship'. So probably those awards aren't that significant or to say the least, important enough to include in the biography.  NQ  talk 05:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

British Pakistanis

I am surprised to know that you wrote that I am involved in reverts. Please check some one else started it when deliberately my edits are reverted. Regards.--Khalid Mahmood (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Khalid Mahmood: Yes, your edits are being reverted because your personal pictures of your relative/acquaintance don't belong in articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Ne1N it is not easy task to make some one's picture and post it here. I have posted many celebrities' too and I have to give them guarantee that the pictures will not be misused on Wikipedia. Well the picture IS relevant. Did you check in detail who started this business of reverting posts ? --Khalid Mahmood (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Khalid Mahmood: What does that have to do with you sticking a picture of your relative/acquaintance in an article? Wikipedia is not Facebook. There are 1.2 million British Pakistanis. They all can't just add a picture of themselves into the article. And, as you are the one pushing for the addition, it is up to you to get consensus. P.S. I hope you're telling all those celebrities that if their picture is on Wikipedia, anyone can do anything they want with it subject to the applicable publicity laws. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

About your imaginative edits

If you've read my edit summaries, you'd have known that neither reliability or reliability was my problem. It makes it clear to me that you just reverted over and over, without a second thought, since you never addresed my arguments for why I removed that stuff. By the way, the word "lite" means something cheaper than "rock" (in this case), in case you didin't know. -Erik P.S.: Sorry if I sound rambly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.229.222 (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Erik. Your arguments are based on your opinions. If you want to change genres then you need to provide sources to back up the change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Anti-balaka

Do you mind taking a look at this, Talk:Anti-balaka, You have been quite helpful to me and I greatly appreciate it. AcidSnow (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. AcidSnow (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear NeilN, Raju Suryavamshi and Chandra Vamshi

Collapse mess of unreliable sources that have been posted again and again on the article's talk page --NeilN talk to me 22:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear NeilN, Many thanks for the help. Apologies posting in your blog. Please find the below proofs for raju suryavamshi and chandra vamshi I have provided the proofs many times, someone wantely deleting, can you please help to update the below releable information for raju suryavamshi and chandra vamshi proofs for raju suryavamshi - Indian Archaeology reports from temples (Proof1) No. 45. (A.R. No. 491 of 1906.) Pulivendla, Pulivendla Taluk, Cuddapah District. On a slab set up at the entrance of the Ranganathasvamin temple. Krishnaraya, AD 1509. This is dated Saka 1431, Sukla, Kartika su. 12, corresponding to AD 1509, October 24, which was, Wednesday. It records a gift of the village Kunddal Kundu to the god Sri Ranga Raju of Pulivindla by Narasayya Deva Maharaju, brother of Basava Raju, son of Tamma Raju, grandson of Valla Bharaya and great-grandson of Bejawada Madhava Varma of Vasishtha-gotra and Surya-vamsa. The gift village is said to be situated in Pulivindalasthala, a subdivision of Mulkinadu in Gandhi Kotasima of Udayagiri Rajya. (Proof2) No. 201. (A.R. No. 161 of 1905.) Markapur, Markapur Taluk, Kurnool District. On the east wall, left of entrance, of the antarala-mandapa in the Chenna-kesava-svamin temple. Sadasiva, AD 1555. This is dated Saka 1476, Ananda, Magha su. 7, corresponding to AD 1555, 29 January. It records a gift of the various toll incomes due from the 18 villages, viz., Marakarapuram, Channavaram, Konddapuram, Yachavaram, Rayavaram, Gonguladinna, Tarnumbadu, Surepalli, Vanalapuram, Chanareddipalle, Gangireddipalle, Korevanipalle, Medisettipalle, Gollapalle, Jammuladinna, Tellambadu, Kamalpuram and Kondapalli to god Chennakesava by Maha Mandalesvara Madiraju Narappadeva Maharaju, son of Aubhalayya Deva Maharaju, grandson of Maha Mandalesvara Madiraju Singa Raju Deva Maharaju, of Kasyapa-gotra and Surya-vamsa, and nephew of Maha Mandalesvara Rama Raju Thirumalaraju. The gift villages are said to be situated in Kochcherla Kotasima which was held by the donor as Nayankara from the king. Records in addition that the lanjasunkham (levy on prostitutes) collected during the festivals at Marakapuram was also made over to the temple and that fie out of every six dishes of offerings to the deity, were to be made over to the satra (feeding house) for feeding paradesi Brahmanas of the smartha sect, the sixth dish being the share of the sthanikas, the adhikaris and the karanas. (Proof3) No. 205. (A.R. No. 59 of 1915.) Chinna Ahobalam, Sirvel Taluk, Kurnool District. On the west wall of the Narasimha-svamin shrine in the Narasimha-svamin temple. Sadasiva, AD 1555. This is dated Saka 1478 (current), Rakshasa, Sravana ba. 7 corresponding to 9 August 1555,(Friday). The record is damaged and fragmentary. It seems to register a gift (of land) to god Ahobala Narasimha by Ganapatiraju who belonged to the Kasyapa-gotra Apastamba-sutra and Yajus-sakha and was the son of Nandi Raju and the grandson of Maha Mandalesvara Krishna Raju of the solar race. (Proof4) No. 235. (A.R. No. 79 of 1915.) Pedda Ahobalam, Sirvel Taluk, Kurnool District. On a slab set up near the sixteen-pillared mandapa on the way to upper Ahobalam. Sadasiva, AD 1558. This is dated Saka 14[80], Kalayukt, Margasirsha su. 3, corresponding to 13 November 1558, (Sunday). It records the grant of a piece of land and some money by Emberumanar-Jiyyamgaru, the mudrakarta of Vam Sathagopa-Jiyyamgaru and others for conducting certain festivals when god Ahobalesvara was seated in the 16 pillared mandapa constructed by Maha-mandalesvara Kurucheti Timmaraju, son of Vobul Raju and grandson of Baichana Deva Chodaraju of the solar race, when the god was taken (in procession) to Diguva Tirupati and back to the temple (nagaru) (Proof5) No. 240. (A.R. No. 311 of 1922.) Vyapulapalle, Hamlet of Mudivedu, Madanapalle Taluk, Chittoor District. On a rock in the village. Sadasiva, AD 1559. This is dated Saka 1481, Siddharthin, Sravana ba. 12 Friday corresponding to 31 July 1559. The weekday, however, was Monday. It registers a gift of wet and dry lands to god Lakshmi Narasimha at Ramagiridurga by Jillela Vengalayya-Deva-Maharaju, son of Krishnam Raju and grandson of Peda Krishnam Raju of Kasyapa-gotra, Apastamba-sutra and Yajus-sakha. The gift lands are stated to be situated in Vempalapalli in the village of Mudivada in Vailipatisima belonging to Rama-giri-durga of Penugonda Marjavada which the donor is said to have obtained as amara from Rama Raju Tirumalaraju Deva Maharaju. (Proof6) No. 251. (A.R. No. 15 of 1904.) Hampi, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District. On the north wall of the mandapa in front of the deserted shrine to the west of the Vitthalasvamin temple. Sadasiva, 1561 AD. This is dated Saka 1483, Raudri (current), Phalguna, the other details being lost. It registers an agreement (kaulu) granted by Kurucheti Sri Ranga Raju, son of Obulraju of the solar race and Kasyapa-gotra to a person (name lost) for his having level-led and brought under cultivation a specified piece of land stipulating an annual payment of one ghatti varaha by him into the treasury of god Vitthalesvara and a fourth share of the produce to the donor. The details pertaining to the rest of the produce are lost. Refers to a gift of garden land made to (the shrine of) Tirumangai-Alvar on the occasion of Prathama-ekadasi. Proofs for Raju Chandra vamshi - Indian Archaeology report from templease (Proof4) No. 228. (A.R. No. 411 of 1911.) Vontimitta, Sidhavatam Taluk, Cuddapah District. On a slab set up near the eastern gopura of the Kodanda Rama Swamy temple. Sadasiva, AD 1558. This is dated Saka 1480, Kalayukt, and Ashadha su. 12, Monday, corresponding to 27 June 1558. The inscription records a gift of the village Vontimetta with its hamlets in Sidhavatam-sima of Udayagiri Rajya to god Raghu Nayaka of the same village said to have been consecrated by Jambavanta, by Naga Raja Deva Maharaju of Kasyapa-gotra, and Surya-Vamsa and the son-in-law of Rama Raju and Gutti Yara Thirumalaraju Deva Maharaju of Kasyapa-gotra, and Surya-Vamsa and the sons of Sri Ranga Raju and the grandsons of Aravidu Rama Raju of Atreya-gotra and Soma-Vamsa. The gift village was situated in Siddhavatamsima which the donor appears to have held as his nayankara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.198.242 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

As Sitush said. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Neil,

Above proofs are not the unreliable sources, I gave given the sources from Indian archaeology department that has given from the previous temples.

Sitush said about the author for book, but above proofs are not from the book they are the real sources from Indian archaeology from the temples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.150.30 (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear NeilN, above proofs are from Indian archaeology department which gives raju kings from suryavamshi and chandra vamshi with vedic gotra from seven rishis, they got from inscriptions on temples.

what are your action on the proofs from Indian archaeology reports.

As Sitush said. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear NeilN,

How can Wiki not consider Indian archaeology reports from temples 500 years and 1000 years back. Sitush always blocking to add information to raju wiki. Sitush is not the person to decide.

I request you to go through the reports shared which are published by Indian government from historic temples inscription. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.150.30 (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If the inscriptions refer to "gods" as if they were real then they cannot be used as sources for actual history. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Didier Drogba

Hello!

I hope you can help me. I have an account on Flickr with many photos i shoot.

But i have now found one of my photos on wikipedia without my permission. File:Didier Drogba, ORANGE, Hotel Sofitel, Abidjan-Plateau, Ivory Coast, 11.06.'08 (9994).jpg - Stefan-meisel1 (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Stefan-meisel1 You have licensed the image under "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)" on your flickr page which states that one is free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided there is attribution to your work. The image is hosted on Wikipedia Commons, where you are listed as the author, in accordance with the license. Please read Commons:Flickr files for more information.  NQ  talk 10:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stefan-meisel1. NQ is correct. You've licensed the photo under CC BY 2.0 [12] and proper attribution is given. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

	my first edit
	Thank you for the link and invaluable evaluation of my content. TheLeopardTree (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Gumtree Australia

It is not my personal opinion. It is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tozalak (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tozalak: This is an unsourced rant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• And the user blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. Neil, do you attract these? Drmies (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: 26,000+ articles on my watchlist, sooner or later these types of editors are going to hit on one, prompting a look at all their contribs. In this case it was Liliane Bettencourt, an article mentioned at BLPN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It's my third indef-block from this morning--and they're all cuz of you, pal! Drmies (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: Actually I did notice that. I figured you were amusing yourself by reading through this talk page. BTW, if you want one more: [13] I was going to report if they continued (duck sock of [14] and this and this). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't--I want to go home and eat lunch and read Sensational Religion: Sensory Cultures in Material Practice. Start an SPI, pro forma, to tidy up loose ends--maybe. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: Will do. After I eat my lunch. I just have to point out the spills for others to mop up :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shashini123. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply to "August 2014" on my talk page. (Caealn)

Thank you, but you don't need to tell me when you revert one of my edits. You are the only user I have seen to do this. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caealn (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

First time I've been asked not to explain a revert :-) I think you'll find as you continue editing here, some users will come to your talk page if they feel a revert should have a better explanation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

National Famous Historical and Cultural Cities

see zh:国家历史文化名城 and zh:Category:国家历史文化名城 and [15]. The list was published by the State Council of the People's Republic of China.--Huang Jinghai (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

OK.--Huang Jinghai (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hwangjinghai: Thanks. I've added the description here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!--Huang Jinghai (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Art Theft

Hey wait... Apparently this user is doing a drive-by wherever he can and hoping to sling some mud. Isn't that lovely? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Zero Serenity, I actually looked at the user's history to determine the tone I should take. Oh well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Even so it kinda disturbed me that it seemed the same sort of blurb was copypastaed. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Reproductive coercion article

Similar to what I told Bbb23, more eyes are needed on the Reproductive coercion article. This commentary of mine explains what I mean. If you are willing to lend your eyes to the article, it's much appreciated of course. If you'd rather stay away from this matter and simply stick to watching the Domestic violence article out of these two pages, I don't blame you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit on Liancourt Rocks

NealN,

I am a Korean, so I find it hard to keep a neutral point of veiw. However, I am always trying to do so. Your undo of my edits on Liancourt Rocks was fair, I see that now. But as a Korean, I had never heard of the "Sea of Japan" before in my life. I have and had known it as the "East Sea", and it has been like that for years. The first time I saw anything about the "Sea of Japan" was in fact when I saw the article on the Liancourt Rocks.

I feel that the "East Sea" should be incuded on the Liancourt Rocks and any other page that says the Sea of Japan, not only for people like me, but for maintaining a neutral point of veiw on the East Sea and the Sea of Japan.

Marty Jefferesson 12:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bestmj3300. Articles usually don't list alternatives for place names everywhere they're mentioned as this would quickly grow unwieldy. NPOV is satisfied by using the common name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Arabs

Dear Neil.

Can you please explain me why did you edit my part about the Berbers in North Africa?

Xxx xbrunette

Hi Xbrunette. Did you read the note I placed on your talk page? Information in articles needs to cited by reliable sources. "In North-Africa does 90% of the Arab population in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya have Berber/ Amazigh roots. They only get Arabized some century's ago and keep speaking the Arabic language." indicates what needs references. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

SergiSmiler

Does there ever come a time that you can block an editor who refuses to cooperate? The language barrier and his lack of cooperation makes it hard for him to be a good editor. I get that his edits are in good faith, but he's been blocked, what? 6 times? And every time he says he's sorry, he won't do it again and then...does it again. Edit wars, disruptively edits, adds non-notable information and then says he doesn't get it why we revert it. Will this go on forever or is there a breaking point? LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• WP:COMPETENCE comes to mind. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lady Lotus. The breaking point usually comes when the editor appears at WP:ANI. Indefinite WP:CIR blocks are handed down there if a good enough case is made. I've shown SergiSmiler how he can contribute and MirrorFreak has agreed to help but this is really his last chance before an ANI post is made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, who wants to wait for that. This was nothing but a time sink--lack of English skills and edit warring. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

He said that when his edits were deleted he got mad so he began to edit war. He also thinks that users should fix a mistake if it small.Mirror Freak 16:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Or an admin takes notice :-) FWIW, I agree with the indef block as his mistakes were by no means "small". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You have told Sergi how he can contribute and MirrorFreak has helped but unless I completely read it wrong, Sergi still expects us to correct his mistakes which is totally missing the point. Even with Mirror's help, I just don't see Sergi making the effort to go to the talk page or Mirror's talk page when I have said that to him for MONTHS. It just seems like a vicious circle. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Lady Lotus: Yup, that's why I think the indef block is needed. If he's still characterizing his mistakes as small then he has no idea how bad they are. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As much as I want him to stay, I don't. I tried to tell him that he cant make edits that aren't intelligible but he didn't listen. Hope being a personal translator helped you guys.Mirror Freak 16:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Mirror, I'm glad someone was able to talk to him in a way he could understand, even if that didn't help. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@MirrorFreak: Yes it did, thanks for your assistance and offers to help. You can lead a horse to water but... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, If you ever need a translator, just let me know.Mirror Freak 16:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there, [16], he doesn't appear to be any better in his own language either.... So the block is the best thing LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

inaccurate or inappropriate. How?

Your replied to my talkpage and said Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Superpower has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you

Just how is this inaccurate? I provided academic sources.--216.31.10.170 (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary read, "posted an update on source material". No, what you actually did was revert to a version eight months old. [17] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding Filthy local words to Yuvan Shankar Raja

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia by adding filthy and abusive words from local language, as you did at Yuvan Shankar Raja, you may be blocked from editing.Wasif (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Retaliatory warning for this warning I gave for this edit. Wasif, I strongly suggest you read WP:NOTVAND and read your sources you add carefully. [18] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Which WP policy asks you to remove the entire info, if one line is not in the source? Seriously a childish play. Please be open minded to remove the particular line which you find it not from source.Also you have deleted the source. What is your intention there? Have to report for vandalism if you are not stoppinh this.Wasif (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wasifwasif. Enough. There's a lot more than "one line". Either quote properly and accurately or desist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I cannot violate WP:3RR as you violate easily. Please discuss in talk page of Yuvan Shankar Raja. Wasif (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wasifwasif As I am removing a made up quote from a BLP, my reverts fall under WP:3RRNO. Do you seriously not see some of the quote you're adding does not exist in the source? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War general sanctions

As a result of a community decision, broad editing restrictions apply to all pages broadly related to the Syrian Civil War. These sanctions are described at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions and a brief summary is included below:

• Sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process.
• If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic or article ban.
• A one revert per twenty-four hours restriction applies to articles broadly related to the Syrian Civil War, with the wording listed here.
• Please familiarise yourself with the full decision at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions before making any further edits to pages related to the Syrian Civil War.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

Sanctions may only be imposed after the user is notified sanctions are in effect. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

This notice is effective only if logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions#Log of notifications.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, you know closes like this just frustrate the hell out of editors who actually follow the editing restrictions, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I do, and I've been on your side of the desk before but I think this is the best outcome in this case. If they break the restriction again link to this or to the ANEW report and hopefully the reviewing admin will take this chance into account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Will do, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Haider

I'd be glad that you'd help me with Haider film's page, later. Arjann (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverted changes

Hi NeilN, first of all thanks of reviewing my changes on the article Digital marketing. I have to say that I'm new here, not like a user, but a moderator/contributor, so if I made a mistake please sorry. I'd ask to you why you reverted the changes I made, I think the words and link that I added are perfectly fine. Let me know to don't repeat the mistake again.

Thanks Fede1seo (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fede1seo, please see WP:REFSPAM. The cite you added went to a marketing page for a company complete with pop-up chat window. Please use academic or non-commercial sources like newspapers and magazines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry for the wrong use of linking. I saw it on this article first Inbound marketing so I thought it was ok to use it. Thanks for the advice :) /Fede\ (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fede1seo: Thank you for pointing that out. It doesn't belong there either and I've removed it. For an overview on sources, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is a good place to start. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources for watches page

Hi Neil

Hope I have not over stepped my boundaries, I have put numerous links and references in to Journey Through Time and also the Electrifying Wristwatches books which both establish the Chrono-Quartz as the first Anologue/ Digital Chronograph wrist watch using LCD technology, please advise if I need to add more, as mentioned I am new to wikipedia and don't want to offend.

I have also added in external links to great sources like Piotr through http://www.crazywatches.pl/omega-1611-chrono-quartz-montreal-albatros-1975

There isn't a great amount written on the CQ, which is IMHO a really important watch and I wanted to try a link it to as many other great wikipedia articles as possible

fully understand if you feel the need to remove my link again, please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega-collector (talk • contribs)

Hi Omega-collector. If you look at this edit, you'll see that no references were provided. We need a cite in that article for "the first company to produced a digital analogue chronograph was Omega with the introduction of the Omega Chrono-Quartz." You might want to read Help:Referencing for beginners. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, I will do it tonight and provide an appropriate referencing link

best wishes Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega-collector (talk • contribs) 12:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit summary

In regards to your recent edit summary [19], the 'source' does not indicate anything except give some basic info about the films. I don't see the purpose of it being there. There's already enough sources in the references and EL that tell us all we need to know the films. Can you explain why the links were there? Thanks--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nadirali. There's been a lot of discussion regarding what the films are actually called. Providing sources right beside the names stops these controversies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

But that's the thing, the sources don't mention any of that. They just mention the films and discuss what they are about. And they mention the films by their official names, not as their titled on wikipedia. You can check them yourself.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nadirali: The sources are for their latest official names. For the article you linked to above the source has "Star Wars: Episode V The Empire Strikes Back" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That I know, but the sources don't indicate anywhere that they were "renamed" as the article states. Please also share your comments on the discussion. Thanks--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Rind Et Al

You claimed my essay has nothing to do with Wikipedia. How do you claim that consider the existence of Rind et al controversy. This is the primary reference to my essay.JaysonSunshine (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@JaysonSunshine: I don't care if you based your essay off a Wikipedia article. I could write up a 10,000 word treatise on how 9/11 was a conspiracy and claim it was based on 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's still an essay. Find somewhere else to display your English coursework. Pretty poor work to base essays off of Wikipedia articles, BTW. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: [20]. Chillum 05:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You said that the alternative to page protection was a block. A block was issued. Page protection was a reasonable option, but not by the involved admin. It was an uninvolved admin who blocked. Enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Where did I say anything about blocking? And, as per WP:INVOLVED, "In straightforward cases (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." I'm not sure what your "enough" comment is about. If you don't want people commenting on your "poor judgement" assessment then perhaps don't repeat it? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

JaysonSunshine (now indefinitely blocked by WP:ArbCom) was another one of those arguing for a Rind angle, I see. Like I stated here, "The editor should have been indefinitely blocked per the WP:Child protect policy alone." Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Stated a little more. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I'm concerned WP:INVOLVED doesn't even rate a mention here, considering the material involved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

In response to your thoughts on my correct information regarding Mr. Billy Bob Thornton

Hello Neil N.

Thank you very much for your input, however, I did verify my information through the words of Mr. Billy Bob Thornton himself. After watching the DVD, "Slingblade," there's a mini-documentary about him, his life and career. He gave the correct place of his birth and home, his family, his brother's death, etc. I did not hear this from a 3rd party.

My efforts were to included the correct information after verifying my sources. I did not check to see if you had changed the correct information that I had entered. If so, I'll just put it back. :-)

Thank you. LuVMickeyLuvMickey (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Slingblade DVD

@LuvMickey: There are two cites in the article to published sources saying his birthplace is somewhere else. It would be helpful if you could find a published source that backs up your change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: It's really not that serious. I know I'm right and if you ever decided to watch the movie and listen to Mr. Thornton at the end, you'll know also. The man should know where he's born. I didn't know that I would get into a debate with anyone over something so minute as a birthplace. If I had known Wikipedia would be like this with self-important people, I would have never signed up. That was my first and last post. I surrender. You should as well. LuvMickey (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)LuvMickey

Buddha

You claim that it is bad practice to delete other people's writing, and then you did the same to me in the discussion of the Buddha article, by removing a whole section for discussion. You are very disingenuous and a hypocrite. 81.156.243.180 (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was JimRenge who warned you. And stop using the talk page as a forum. If you wish to improve the article, bring sources to the discussion, not opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Strange. I don't see other people bringing sources to the discussion and their edits are still there. It seems you and that Jim person have one rule for some and another rule for others. My edits were therefore wrongly and unlawfully deleted and so could be reinstated. 81.156.243.180 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The other discussions didn't open with, "Would Buddha be considered a good Buddhist by today's standards? After all he left his wife and child. Is this what a Buddhist is suppose to do nowadays?" Talk pages aren't for the idle speculations of editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

So? That's the whole point of a discussion. 81.156.243.180 (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia. You are free to speculate on the nature of x elsewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Where did I speculate? 81.156.243.180 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

[21] And why did you remove this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

By accident, which I, as far as I recall reinstated in follow up edit. 86.180.152.25 (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope and you're heading for a block. [22] Speculate elsewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Not reinstated as you had deleted the whole section. I did not make any speculations; what are you talking about? Are you touchy about someone? 86.180.152.25 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

[Illegitimate blanking] and [Vandalism] by User:Director

Three days only after being on the verge of being blocked, User:Director removed large sourced sections of text in Istrian Exodus without even discussing. He briefly mentioned in the edit summary he would have rolled back forever. So I had no option and filed an ANI for vandalism [[23]]. I hope this does not account for WP:CANVASSING. It is just that it is astronomically difficult to deal with this user. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Silvio1973, I sympathize but that edit is not vandalism nor does it break WP:3RR. If you expect action to be taken against a long term editor then you need a clear cut case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, the user keeps reverting on Istrian Exodus my edits saying the sources are not good enough (for Christ's sake I have almost copied verbatim). I have requested a 3O but in the meantime I report the user for 3RR. This user is problematic. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving Page ganges to Ganga

How can I get consensus on this matter? Prymshbmg (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prymshbmg: Read Talk:Ganges/Archive_5#Requested_move_.282011.29. Read Talk:Ganges#Req:_Move_to_Ganga. If you have new arguments please open a formal move discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for guidance. Prymshbmg (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Hinduism.

Hello User: NeilN. As far as I know there is no caste system according to profession as mentioned in Vedas and Manumsriti. Secondly don't revert it. I added the sources to various contents. Bladesmulti gave a false impression by mentioning that the article was unsourced. Please check the section Idol worship and caste system. The sources are already given. Moreover I will remove the unsourced content now. Have a good day. Akshatra (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Akshatra: Your "best" version had uncited passages. [24] At this point, you need to use the talk page to discuss and get consensus for your changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You can delete it . No Problem to me. But please don't revert the whole content which is also sourced. Thanks. Akshatra (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Akshatra: At least one of your sources is a random essay. At this point, I'll see if you are reverted again. If you are, and you revert again, it's off to WP:3RRNB. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It is very astonishing to note that you are supporting fabricated things. Akshatra (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not very astonishing that a new editor is POV-pushing by using unreliable sources and edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply

NeilN, I have replied on my talk page. Thanks a lot for the advise.--71.110.129.100 (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong (page)

Hello NeilN, this is Pageswriter. Thank you for pointing out the problem of recentism in my edit. Despite my political views, I aimed to remain as neutral as possible by avoiding opinionated facts and by including views from opposing sides.

Do you think a timeline is a good idea? My intention of adding this was to provide convenience for readers who might have to navigate their way through a long section of 'History'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pageswriter (talk • contribs) 01:37 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pageswriter. A timeline may be better suited to History of Hong Kong. However, recentism aside, your 2014 text definitely did not read as neutral (e.g., your repeated use of communist and your use of scare quotes) and was unsourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Laverne Cox

I shouldn't have to get consensus on my life. When a transgender person is referred to by our birth name it misgenders us and encourages people who hate trans people to misgender. Having this information on Wikipedia encourages hate and affects the quality of my life as a trans person. Can you take it down please? I beg you.

Also Chelsea Manning transitioned publicly and her pre transition name was public knowledge before she transitioned. This is something I have never shared with anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavernecox3000 (talk • contribs)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Lord Laitinen

I thank you for your advice. You were one of the few people who were respectful in disagreeing with my opinion. I meant nothing negative by the statement you emphasized; it simply meant that if there were consequences for making threats of suicide, then it would dissuade many people from doing so in the future. Again, thank you for being respectful in this situation. Lord Laitinen (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Lord Laitinen unfortunately it seems that you have a misguided understanding of a suicidal person's behaviour. If a person threatens suicide and they get help, there's a chance that they might not kill themselves. Blocking someone for threatening suicide serves to decrease the chance of getting help for being suicidal, which then increases the chance of that person dying. The only consequence for threatening suicide should be getting that person help, not trying to dissuade them from speaking out. --Ca2james (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Odisha Edit

Neil, this is in reference to your deletion of my adding of pics on the Odisha page. I am reverting back the addition of pics as Odisha has richer cultural history than other states. In architecture, while other Indian states in the north with Nagara style architecture suffered massive iconoclasm, Odisha did not. That is the reason Bhubaneswar, Puri and Konark exhibit remarkably rich examples of architecture representing Odisha's unbroken history. The pics are not at all out of context, as they concern only and only Odisha. They just make the article richer and more beautiful. I have not deleted anything. I do not change the factual lines in any article. I just add more visuals to the cultural and historical sections of some articles. There is no wikipedia rule for deleting that. I ALWAYS make sure, the pics do not exceed the text, which is the rule. In this case however, I will delete one or two pics.

I do not know from where in the world you are. I highly respect your vigilance. I hope you will help me in making wikipedia richer and more visually appealing. Thank You.

I agree we should not sandwich entire articles of images. I always add images to one or two sections. I also will not want to make an entire article full of images. [To comply with your suggestions, I did delete two images from the page. Please let the others stay. They just make the article more beautiful.]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PankajSaksena (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@PankajSaksena: Every single editor on here can probably make the case that the article on my home of "x" needs more pictures because "y". Twelve pictures in one section is not happening. The sandwiching of an entire section is not happening. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Our guidelines are at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Neil. Okay, I will un-sandwich the images and delete a few more, though now they are not 12 as you said. Is there a stipulated amount of images to be included in one section? If you could tell, I will be careful in future.

Moreover, you called one revert as edit war. It is my first and only one, as you just deleted the entire stuff, and even when I reverted, I deleted a few images, complying with your suggestions. I will comply more and do the above needful. I am also an editor, as you are, so calling one revert an edit war with multiple editors is not happening either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PankajSaksena (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@PankajSaksena: Initial addition, revert, revert. Twelve images. The amount of images is obviously tied to the length of a section. A one paragraph section shouldn't have five images. Longer sections can have more images, but not so many that they have to appear on both sides. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic Encyclopedia

@NeilN

About Author:

Syed Iqbal Zaheer, a mechanical engineer by training and profession, is today a well-known researcher and writer on Islam, its culture and civilization. Quite apart from the Tafsir Ishraq al-Ma'ani, the fourteen-volume commentary on the Qur'an, he is also the author of numerous books and booklets on Islam.

Recently, he headed, in his capacity as the Chief Editor, the ambitious 'An Educational Encyclopedia of Islam' project which is a two-volume, 1300 multi- colour page, compendium of knowledge on Islam, its civilization and heritage. The Young Muslim Digest, one of the most authentic periodicals on Islam in English has been edited by him since the last three decades.

Books Published by Syed Iqbal Zaheer

http://www.youngmuslimdigest.com/iqra-publications/

Online version of the recent book "An Educational Encyclopedia of Islam"

http://islamicencyclopedia.org/public/index/topics

The website of Islamic Encyclopedia is actually an online version of the book “An Educational Encyclopedia of Islam”

http://www.edupediaislam.com/ This is an official website where you can find the complete information concerning the book “An Educational Encyclopedia of Islam” and the author “Mr. Syed Iqbal Zaheer”

Further you can also find the mentions of Mr. Syed Iqbal Zaheer in “About Us” page of Islamic Encyclopedia website;

http://islamicencyclopedia.org/public/index/aboutUs

Moreover, here I’m mentioning some of the authenticated profiles of Mr. Syed Iqbal Zaheer for your consideration. Syed Iqbal Zaheer’s author profile on amazon; http://www.amazon.com/Syed-Iqbal-Zaheer/e/B00MXXXZU4

Syed Iqbal Zaheer’s author profile on Good Reads; http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3515937.Syed_Iqbal_Zaheer

You may also find the work of Mr. Syed Iqbal Zaheer on Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir_Ishraq_Al-Ma'ani

You may also find him and about his publication on news;

http://www.milligazette.com/news/2441-educational-encyclopedia-of-islam

Here some books are mentioned written by Mr. Syed Iqbal Zaheer

An Educational Encyclopedia of Islam on Amazon; http://www.amazon.in/An-Educational-Encyclopedia-Islam-Volumes/dp/6039000449/ref=aag_m_pw_dp?ie=UTF8&m=A23ZXOCER9ZMRI

• Book: I Want to Repent, But…, Published 2006 by International Islamic Publishing House (IIPH)

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16154055-i-want-to-repent-but

• Book: An Educational Encyclopedia of Islam, Published 2010 by Iqra Welfare Trust

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13557128-an-educational-encyclopedia-of-islam

• Book: Fake Pearls, Published 2002 by al-Attique Publishers, Inc.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13557275-fake-pearls

• Book: A Short History of Israel, Published 1993 by Abul-Qasim Publishing House

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13557282-a-short-history-of-israel

• Book: Tafsir Ishraq al-Ma’ani: Being a Quintessence of Qur'anic Commentaries, Published 2008 by Iqra Publications

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8132970-tafsir-ishraq-al-ma-ani

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=uAzYAAAAMAAJ&q=Syed+Iqbal+Zaheer&dq=Syed+Iqbal+Zaheer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GFMIVO-QMIv-ygPN4ID4AQ&redir_esc=y

• Book: Islam the Religion You Can No Longer Ignore, Publisher: Iqra Publications (2002)

http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Religion-You-Longer-Ignore/dp/B003NAZQCQ/ref=la_B00MXXXZU4_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409830354&sr=1-1

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=42A-0u18HuQC&dq=Syed+Iqbal+Zaheer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GFMIVO-QMIv-ygPN4ID4AQ&redir_esc=y

• Book: The Short History of Israel, Publisher: Abul-Qasim Publishing House (January 1, 2003)

http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Israel-Iqbal-Zaheer/dp/B0084NDOYY/ref=la_B00MXXXZU4_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409830354&sr=1-2

Book: A Voice to Hear, Al-Attique Publishers, Incorporated, 01-Jan-2000

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=tR9CPQAACAAJ&dq=Syed+Iqbal+Zaheer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GFMIVO-QMIv-ygPN4ID4AQ&redir_esc=y

I hope these references will be enough to be acceptable as a reliable source.

SheikhJunaidAhmed^{talk to me} — Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi SheikhJunaidAhmed. Thanks for this. Are there any academic papers that reference his work? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN!

In response to your query regarding academic references of Syed Iqbal Zaheer, I personally approached the author and got the response mentioned below:

Paper References:

• http://www.milligazette.com/news/2441-educational-encyclopedia-of-islam - Indian Newspaper
• http://islamdag.info/news/585 - Dagestan's largest and most popular Islamic news site
• http://www.onislam.net/english/news/global/461389-islamic-sciences-encyclopedia-issued.html - OnIslam & News Agencies

About the Author

An engineer by profession (Technical Institute, Bangalore), and then trained in Islamic disciplines by traditional scholars, Syed Iqbal Zaheer, (born in 1944), an Indian now in Saudi Arabia since almost four decades, enjoys equal proficiency in three major languages: Arabic, English and Urdu. Having scraped through a Master's degree in English language (Mysore University), he feels he is the weakest in this language. A polymath, and a prolific writer, he has wide interests and can freely write – journalistically - on advanced scientific topics such as cellular biology, quantum physics, or conundrums faced by the scientists in astrophysics. With reference to religious issues he is probably the first Islamic essayist of such length who stays within the unanimous opinions of the authorities of the past. An interesting feature of his writings – apart from the fact that he writes on subjects not dealt by many - is that, in each of his book he adopts a new style of writing. Although he has produced almost 10,000 pages of writings including translations, the authenticity, especially in his 14-volume Tafsir Ishraq al-Ma`ani, can withstand the test of criticism. In Fiqh he follows the Hanafiyy school, but states the opinions of other three schools wherever necessary. He has been editing the monthly magazine; Young Muslim Digest (issued from Bangalore) since last 35 years in which his editorials and answers to the letters by the readers are followed with interest in several countries. In the "Letters to the Editor" he crisply combines wit, cynicism, humor, criticism, with provocative analysis. The element of surprise is another characteristic of his writings. He runs an Islamic Institute for girls (teenage and above), in a town (Haassan) near Bangalore, whose syllabus is his making (considered distinctive by many scholars), and which lays greater emphasis on the Arabic language, than on stuffing the soft heads with intricacies of `Aqeedah or Fiqh. His weekly Qur'anic Dars and lectures are fairly well attended by the educated class. But, following the fatwa of classical Deoband scholars, he does not allow filming of his talks, does not believe in globe-trotting, and strongly objects to any praise directed at him as he believes that men who deserved praise are in their graves.

Books authored by Syed Iqbal Zaheer

1. Tafsir Ishraq al-Ma`ani:

In 14 volumes, some 3500 pages. Presents opinions of scholars of first few generations, and majority opinions of the commentators throughout Muslim history, with the provision that such opinions do not contradict a meaning given out by the majority of the Salaf. Anecdotes, Fiqh Points and other features add to the interest. Perhaps this is the first time that such a comprehensive work has appeared in English, with thousands of Prophetic traditions with translations. Published by Iqra Welfare Trust, Bangalore.???

2. Muhammad the Unlettered Prophet Who Changed the World in 23 years

With introduction by Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi, it is an extremely simple, but comprehensive biography of Prophet Muhammad in 100 pages. Repeatedly reprinted.

3. A Biography of the Prophet in the Light of the Original Sources

Originally in Arabic, by Dr. Mahdi Rizq Allah, translated into Arabic, it is an authenticated work in 2 volumes, with thousands of isnad- related notes and other references in footnotes. Published by Darussalam, Riyadh

4. The Fundamentals of Islamic Creed

What are the fundamental articles of faith, without which a man cannot be a Muslim? Translation of Imam Tahawi’s text and Ibn abi al-`Izz’s commentary (abridged) – 300 pages

5. Islam, the Religion You can no longer Ignore

A very successful short introduction to Islam. 60 pages. Repeatedly reprinted.

6. Fake Pearls

A collection of 250 ahadith taken from 5 different hadith collections that are either fabricated, or very weak, with notes on reasons of such evaluation.

7. Bilal, the Abyssinian Outrunner

Life of Bilal written in a story style, but within the parameters of historical evidences. 100 pages.

8. A Short History of Israel

With introduction by Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi, it presents the history of the Jews from the Abrahamic times until the end of the last century – 100 pages

9. An Introduction to the Arabic Language through Islamic Texts

In two volumes, 700 pages, and two DVDs containing audio-explanations, dictionaries, and several other interesting features. It teaches the Arabic language with the help of texts taken from Qur’an, Hadith, and other Islamic source books. Being used as text-book in some institutions. Published by Al-Attique Publications, Canada.

10. Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi

A short, but comprehensive biography, but well-appreciated biography of Syed Abul Hasan Ali al-Nadwi in 110 pages.

11. Hadith of the Night Vision

A translation of Ibn Rajab’s Book in Arabic, on one of the dreams of Prophet Muhammad, and its commentary – Pocket-size, 130 pages.

12. The Splitter of the Dawn

A collection of Qur’anic verses that deal with the fundaments of Islam, meant for non-Muslims as an introduction to the Qur’an. Several times reprinted, it is a useful booklet for Da`wah purposes – Pocket-size, 130 pages.

13. I Would like to Repent .. But

Translation into English of a short work by Sheikh Muhammad al-Munajjid.

14: An Educational Encyclopedia of Islam

A comprehensive work in 1300 pages, 2 volumes, covering all aspects of general need and interest. Trustworthy, authentic, with hundreds of graphic works and epigrams, it happens to be the first such work in English at a Muslim's hand. Its maps, though not very artistic, but are the first of their kind. Its third volume awaits publication.

15: Islamic Code of Practice for the Medical Profession

Translation of the Arabic original prepared by the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, Eastern Province, it surpasses in scope and application the Codes of Medical Practices by which doctors take oath in most countries of the world. 40 pages.

16: Looking for God? Get Reasonable

Briefly but convincingly, this little book presents evidences in favor of God's existence, while refuting arguments against it from a rational and logical point of view. It does not shy away from latest atheistic arguments, and does not hide behind superficial homilies. Popularly adopted as primary books for Da`wah purposes. 56 pages.

17: Hadith Rejection, a Critical Review

The work exposes the fallacious nature of the claims laid out by the rejecters of Hadith – both from among the Orientalists, as well as their followers from among the Muslims – and demonstrates skillfully that the doubts raised by both the classes have little scholarly value. 96 pages.

18: Usul al-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence)

Few non-scholarly Muslims are aware that the extraction of Law from the Qur'an, the Sunnah and a few other minor sources is based on such solid principles as which cannot be shaken from the positions they occupy. This scholarly book is a short introduction to these principles. 110 pages.

Books available at:

1. Dar Abul-Qasim

P.O. Box 6156 Jeddah, 21442 store: (+966-2) 671-4793 (10 am-1 pm / 5-11 pm, Saturday-Thursday) mobile: 050-433-1535 (calls to this line from 8 am-4 pm please, Saturday-Wednesday) abulqasimbooks@hotmail.com www.saheehinternational.com

2. Dar al-Hadyan

Al-Ma`dhar Iskan Building no. 19, Office no. 04 Ground Floor Riyadh 11444 Tel./Fax: 463 1685 mrattique@gmail.com

4. Al-Attique Publications

11-Progres Ave. Unit #7 Scarborough ON M1P 4s7, Canada, Tel.: 416-335-1179, 416-615-1222 al-attique@al-attique.com

5. East West Educational Tools

c/o, Inst. of Higher Learning, Next to Hasanat College, Darus Surur Building, Basement, 43, Dickenson Road, Bangalore 560 042 Tel. 080 / 41133 504 9845 694 683, 9845 301 422, 9902 527 012. mzaki05@yahoo.com shareefhusain06@yahoo.com

6. Young Muslim Digest, No. 332

1st Floor, Darussalam Bldg., Queen’s Road, Bangalore, 560 052, India, Tel. 2228 9305, 9886 858 400 mzaki05@yahoo.com shareefhusain06@yahoo.com

7. Amazon

www.amazon.com

I hope this would be adequate!

Well, I also want to make an author page of Syed Iqbal Zaheer on Wikipedia, what do you think, will it be good enough to pass moderators review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheikhJunaidAhmed (talk • contribs) 11:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

About notability of an individual

The person I am writing about is senior journalist and has worked on many prominent projects with PM of India, Narendra Modi and CM of Gujarat Anandiben Patel. Can you guide me on what should I cite to justify the notability of an individual? How can I cite offline articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prafuldaga (talk • contribs) 13:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Prafuldaga. The relevant guideline is WP:BIO. Please also see WP:NOTINHERITED. Working with or writing about famous people does not confer notability. Basically, a person needs to coverage on themselves from independent sources to be considered notable. Please see Help:Referencing_for_beginners#References_not_online for the answer to your cite question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added few links as citations for the article I am trying to create in the sandbox at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prafuldaga/sandbox. How can I get it peer-reviewed before I submit it as article for main review? Prafuldaga (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prafuldaga: You can add the code {{subst:submit}} at the top of the sandbox page. I had a look and in my opinion, the article as it currently stands has little hope of surviving a deletion review. There are no sources provided that have significant coverage of the subject. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism

You claimed the edit/ section I created in Talk was disruptive editting and inappropriate discussion. I have looked up both these topics and do not agree with your views. There is nothing in my editting that can be attributed to it being disruptive editting or inappropriate discussion under Wiki policies. You are misusing the terms to remove my edits for reasons unknown. I guess it may be that you hold buddhist beliefs or that you are sympathetic to buddhist authorities, and unable to handle a challenge based on facts. If that is the case, then there is a conflict of interest for you to edit the topic, and you should not edit it. I seek to reinstate the section that you deleted. 86.180.152.25 (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are free to report me to WP:ANI if you think my behavior is problematic. Just as I will do if you continue to blatantly misrepresent sources. [25] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, are your accusations for real? When and where did I blatantly or unblatantly misrepresent sources? 86.180.152.25 (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The BBC source had nothing about cannabis-growing activities. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, surely if you want to edit or admin to an article, you would do well to know something about the subject. Just Google Vietnamese and cannabis and see the thousands of incidents and references that come up. 86.180.152.25 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to edit an article, you should read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BURDEN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. I don't see any problem. 86.180.152.25 (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In your careful two minute analysis it's obvious you missed, "All content must be verifiable. 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." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Labia majora

You talk about edit warring and said to talk with the editor about it but you did not talk with me until after the page had been locked. Did you not start the edit war by deleting an edit without talking about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipplewoman (talk • contribs) 22:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nipplewoman: See WP:BRD. You made an edit, you were reverted (by two different editors); now you need to discuss and get consensus for your edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I came to a consensus with the first editor. Then you decided to cause problems as well because you believe you know more than accredited medical school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipplewoman (talk • contribs) 22:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

With Flyer22? I very much doubt she would agree with your assessment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you talk to her? Obviously not because you have your head too far up your ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipplewoman (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nipplewoman: This is what she wrote: "You should take the matter to that article talk page." So, essentially, WP:BRD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Nipplewoman, I've commented on my talk page about the matter at hand. I have not come to a consensus with you on the matter (also see WP:Consensus), but I am open to hearing what you have to state on it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

NeilN,

Thank you for archiving my edit. I was reading through the page about the food chain and realized that my information was different to yours. It is possible that I may have gotten the wrong information. Thank you for the help and I will be more careful when editing something next time!

DrSheldonLeeCooper

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSheldonLeeCooper (talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 

Foreskin Page Image Reversion

I'm new to wikipedia. Can a page only have a certain number of images? Isn't it better to have more than only a few, for educational purposes? I don't view the image I added to the Foreskin page as redundant. The lead image is not representative of the average foreskin, so I believe it's good to have more images on the page. I'm not trying to argue. Anonymous 001100 (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC) And every guy thinks his johnny is something special... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games

Well I was trying to axe that entire section for being such pointless dribble, but apparently all I did was just revert you. Ooops! Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Zero Serenity, no worries. I saw the immediate re-revert and figured it was an accident. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply for your suggestion

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Political Cricketer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Web Design Royale Link is Deleted From Davangere Wiki

Web Design Royale Started it's company basically from Davangere City, and we are the First Firm To Introduce Technology to Davangere so kindly note it's not any advertising, but it's a fact kindly add the link and content back i can provide your reference website created in davangere city. Hotel Pooja International — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveenbhagawatihubli (talk • contribs) 15:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Praveenbhagawatihubli: No, this is pure and simple spam. Please stop trying to advertise your company on Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Laverne Cox 2

Hi, I made the edit on the Laverne Cox page and am now responding to your message. I don't need to hide images or things that may offend me, I am not the problem. However I am very well versed in trans issues and I know firsthand that after transition having your birth name known is less then ideal, especially because people often see it as an invitation to use that name in an attempt to humiliate the person. But what do I know, if you really think information from her birth certificate is vital to the point of the page then there is nothing I can do.

Thank you anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.219.33.4 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

edits

hi, I appreciate your concern, regarding this current problem. I never violate 3RR, and also I already wrote on the article talk page, a little while ago. And stated the points and positions. About "synthesis" and unsourced unwarranted POV statements. But again, I will not (and do not) violate 3RR. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet

Hello. Have you seen the long section about how I am a sockpuppet? Is it ok to use your user page to attack editors? I think not, that is why I deleted it. I explained the deletion, in the edit summary, and a message on the users talk page. However, the material has been replaced. What course of action can I take to remove the unsubstantiated, and insulting allegations? Or, alternatively, do you also believe me to be a sockpuppet? Read my articles, and compare them to something by this PassaMethod editor, and see if there's any similarity. Can I see some of his stuff?zzz (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

zzz, I do not see you mentioned anywhere. What are you referring to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Its the sockpuppet section. Pass a maethod is very specifically me - current editor of Boko Haram (which I wrote),and recreational drugs (which I also wrote). She has been accusing me of this for a while, and I just noticed it there.zzz (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, shes listed everything Ive ever done...zzz (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at his writing, and his grammar is just not good enough. Not even close.zzz (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

zzz, She's detailed the habits of Pass a Method. She hasn't mentioned you by name or even linked to any of your edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your point.zzz (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: There are no accusations against you on Flyer22's page. You have no cause to delete it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Everything in this para, except the Erection bit, applies to me.

If you find an editor doing several or more of the following things, that editor is very likely a Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppet: Significantly editing the Boko Haram article and other Islamic articles (I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article). Editing religious topics in general, including the addition of anything about Pope Francis (whether it's the Pope Francis article or, for example, an addition to the Recreational drug use article about him). Editing LGBT articles. Editing political articles. Editing sexual articles. Editing medical and/or anatomy articles. Editing science topics such as the Big Bang article, or topics about black holes; the Stellar black hole article, for example, could be a candidate. Visiting the WP:Help desk. Focusing on leads. Focusing on British topics; using British spelling. Using editing summaries that are meant to deceive. Using Urban Dictionary as a source, whether it's at the Erection article, or, for example, the Roach (smoking) article. Adding a picture of someone smoking to their user page or talk page. Makes notes on his user page of the articles he's edited, soon after editing those articles.

I don't understand, what diff does it make about mentioning my name? She has made certain noone can fail to know exactly who I am. zzz (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: No, until you brought it up, it's very unlikely anyone looking at her user page would think she was referring to you. I edit a lot of pages infested by socks. I'm not going to say, "hey, you're referring to me!" if I see a list of articles on a user page along with the sockmaster who has edited them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I didnt understand that comment. Are you saying , as you appear to be, that you believe I am "the sockmaster"? I asked you that to begin with, and you denied it. If this is just a private joke between you two, I can take my grievance somewhere else. zzz (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

zzz, I have no idea if you're a sockpuppet - I haven't looked at your edits that closely. I noticed you wiping out Flyer22's user page repeatedly so I stepped in to stop it. When you said it contained accusations against you I looked and could find nothing on the page pointing towards you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article" etc, etc, etc...zzz (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That is undeniably specific. I couldnt possibly refer to anyone but me, with this account, that is, not any of my illegitimate accounts. I dont understand what the problem is with removing a personal attack.zzz (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: "I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article" If you have concerns with a portion of her user page, the proper course of action is to discuss it with her on her talk page, and not just blank the whole thing repeatedly while issuing a threat. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Any means me, as you can see from the history of the article.zzz (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

But, your saying I should go and discuss whether she might take down the personal attack section of her page. If she feels like it. That's ok, she can just carry on attcking me, I guess. Cheers. zzz (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to remove the "any main editor" commentary that I very recently added, per my comment on my talk page about this case. Flyer22 (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• The Signedzzz account was created 26 May 2014, but the first edit was 10 September 2014see below. After that date, the only changes to User:Flyer22 relevant to this discussion were to add the following: "(I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article)" and "or talk page. Makes notes on his user page of the articles he's edited, soon after editing those articles". There is no way that text can be interpreted as an accusation against Signedzzz. Why all the fuss? Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Johnuniq, I was under the impression that I had been editing for months! This whole discussion has been most enlightening. Thanks to all concerned for revealing the way that WP is run nowadays. An experienced editor can attack anyone he/she chooses. I did not know that was how it was. Thanks again. zzz (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

People make mistakes and it's best to just point them out without circumlocution. Checking shows that I made a blunder above—I've struck it out because your first edit was 6 June 2014. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand

Who are u exactly? And why are you editing things on MY page if it's MY page. I completely understand the final warning I was just testing wikipedia this is my first day on this thing. Even if I didn't write what I did how did u find out. And could Kim and kanye find out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janaewiki (talk • contribs) 03:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Janaewiki: Nothing on Wikipedia is "your" page. Talk pages are there for editors to use for communication about Wikipedia and its articles. Anyone can see exactly what you've written. Right now, you're this close to being blocked so please start contributing constructively. You can read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia if you want tips on how to do that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok how do I protect my page like the others are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janaewiki (talk • contribs)

@Janaewiki: What page are you referring to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a page where I edit the latest updates but it's not protected with the lock on the pencil how do I get that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janaewiki (talk • contribs)

@Janaewiki: You don't. The only one causing issues at Wounded Knee Massacre is you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes you have told me that already. But how do others get a protected page from vandalism like beyonce or nicki minaj. But another page that I have which is very important can't have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janaewiki (talk • contribs)

@Janaewiki: Please read Wikipedia:Protection policy. Requests go to WP:RFPP. I strongly discourage you from making any requests until you are more familiar with Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Jairaj991

Hi NeilN,
Seeing as you've had a bit to do with Jairaj991 (talk · contribs) you'll undoubtedly be delighted to know they've created a new page Rajput warrior, with lots of references. Too bad only one out of the 45 or so 'sources' isn't a Wikipedia page. Just FYI!--220 of ^Borg 12:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

220, sigh. Thanks. Article redirected and editor given final warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

hello

I was responding to the individual who's page I was on. Anyone who could have assumed that his comments were racist. I assumed someone reacted that way via his comments. Upon review of the talk page of the article in question it doesn't seem that anyone has. Though you did react to the comments there it seems you were suggesting something similar. That they should focus more on the consensus process and watch what they say as it could be taken wrong. Though that is an assumption. Anyway good day.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: You've read the discussion incorrectly. He was calling my comments racist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's probably because I don't actually care. I contacted the user to ask them not to canvass. After further request I offered them some advice. Before more careful with their language because they have to work with the other editors involved. I'm unsure how or why a discussion between me and you came about but what ever. Have a good day.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit War on GamerGate

I'm trying to prevent an un-revert of my article that was trying to un-bias the article.

I'm requesting some official moderation on the matter, we need to skin the article and lock editing, or delete it entirely and take it from the top.

As it is, the whole article is an edit war and I'm trying to re-establish neutrality.EvilConker (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@EvilConker:. You believe your edit improved the article. Others don't. So... WP:BRD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Other users have raised concerns about the paragraph, saying that it not only is possibly biased but also repetitive as there already is a Wikipedia page for Depression Quest with the same information. So instead of reverting, I modified the opening paragraph to have a link to the article in question, which I think is appropriate in this situation.EvilConker (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

And yet only you are reverting to your preferred version. You need to stop and wait. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I will stop. However, let's be very clear that this entire article is contested. I believe it needs to be stripped entirely and locked, give the basics, what happened, no 'why it happened.' Looking at the comments section, it really looks like Masem and NorthByBrandford are the only two users both opposing neutrality and adding in biased edits. If that's what this article is, then it needs to be deleted entirely and rewritten by a true neutral team. I believe the same happened to the Occupy Wall Street/Ferguson/Trayvon Martin articles while the situation was developing.EvilConker (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Masem being biased. I've worked on the article for over a week already, and Masem tries to stay neutral - although he should be more aware of adding too much detail. NorthByBrandFord however (and RedPenOfDoom) are clear biased.MicBenSte (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, either the article becomes balanced again like it was viewing both the harassment and misogeny as well as the allegations of corruption and wrong ethics in the game industry, or the article shouldn't exist at all.MicBenSte (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I retract my statement about Masem. Looking over his edits I see he's not that bad. NorthByBradford, however, is a definite issue. I apologize for my accusations.EvilConker (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I second this. There is far too much 'opinion' and not enough facts. It's written far too much like an essay instead of a neutral, informative, article.EvilConker (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The only way to get rid of that article is through AFD. And a piece of advice: "Make the changes I want to this article or delete it" won't work. This will take significant time and patience to hammer out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not aimed at you, but I'm getting tired of being bullied around by some senior and some less-senior editors who like to think that their POV is everything just because RSes think it's best to copy&paste from other RSes without investigating and the editors agree with it. That's why I lashed out a bit at you, sorry for that.MicBenSte (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to say it's in violation of the rules, it's very biased. There is already a large call for it to be deleted and rewritten from scratch, but this anarchistic way of doing it on such a complicated issue that's leading to anti-GGs pretty much overpowering the narrative is just not alright. I consider myself a neutral person in this whole debacle, and I'm trying to keep the article neutral, as are a lot of others, but just because a person has seniority (though Masem is not a mod to the best of my knowledge) doesn't mean they are free of bias that is breaking the integrity of an article. How are we supposed to be constructive and neutral when every change made is reverted to something more biased? I'm asking for your support, I think you're a neutral person with no real connection with the issue, but you're giving the aura of supporting a person who keeps reverting every single change that has been discussed by several people. Reverting doesn't put you in the right, you can revert a good change just as well as you can revert a bad one.EvilConker (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

IP copyvio

Your edit[26] removed the same copyvio being added by 31.49.113.139 (talk · contribs), both from Wales. I see the IP has been advised to get copyright permission and copy it. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Thanks for the heads up. Added the article to my watchlist. The original IP added copyvios to multiple articles so if they pop up again, hopefully we'll spot it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope so, I've just blocked about 1/2 dozen Irish school IPs, a real pain. I emailed the listed abuse address. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I had a look at the book the webpage is likely copied from. 11,000 pages and $2,000. Holy heck. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if they know someone's copied some of it to a website. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Suicide methods

Ok. Please cite the information in said article that cannot be linked to any references. Please also consider the fact that the existence of the predescribed is a moral issue. Wikipedia is also go-to website which is accessible to all age groups, and thus the ability to access such a page might enfringe upon laws involving the protection of more vulnerable users. I'm sorry if my tone was impolite in any of the prior messages, but as somebody who has suffered with mental illness, I believe my stance on the topic is valid. The page has been viewed by 80,000 people in the past 30 days alone and many of those viewers will be mentally ill or distressed. Redzimus (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Redzimus: If you think content in the article is not referenced properly then you can bring it up on the talk page or remove the info carefully when you are autoconfirmed. You should know "but it's the moral thing to do" probably won't get you very far as that argument is used without success when people try to blank articles related to sex ("children are reading this") or religion ("that's against our religion"). I sympathize with your position but what we should be doing is making sure the information is factual, dispassionate, and does not fall afoul of WP:NOTHOWTO. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added a reference to a review on the talk page. Parzivalamfortas 10:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just wanted to say thanks for your last edit. The only reason I was communicating this way was due to the fact that I'm new to wiki. Have mainly been editing articles such as part-time terrorism (which is admittedly quite funny in concept) Redzimus (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I must be thoroughly annoying you (not the intention). That's fine, sorry for taking up your time

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Have the key admin explored this issue and been made aware of the article/ unnecessary overcategorisation?

80,000 have viewed it in the last 30 days, I mean I can't see need for its existence, it's just over categorisation of the already discussed topic (Suicide) I will look into the meedical issue too, I just want the key admin to do the same if possible. I think it'll save lives Thanks, Al Redzimus (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Redzim

@Redzimus: Again, there are no key admins. Admins do not dictate content. As for WP:MEDRS, I was referring to the Hüseyin Cahit Firat article you created. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like you to discuss it with them and no

It's about time somebody else took responsibility around here. I respect that you have a job to do, but I haven't deleted the article. I am actually in the process of creating a more balanced argument eg By writing about the potential for later liver damage in the majority of overdose cases. It's akin to alcohol abuse and thus my work is also scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redzimus (talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Redzimus: Your proposed header has no consensus. This topic has been discussed multiple times on the talk page. Also, Wikipedia does not want you to "take responsibility" for an article. See WP:OWN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss it with the user, but he's now unnamed and absent from Wikipedia

So he's absent, and used to go by DeirYassin. Can you pass on my details to him to discuss my edit (with his permission), Thanks, Al Redzimus (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)RedzimusRedzimus (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

==To discuss my edit and reach a potential agreement Redzimus (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)RedzimusRedzimus (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Redzimus: No. I'm going to say this is plainly as possible. No one editor can dictate the content of an article. Even creating the article does not give you a special say in content. Everyone needs to use the article's talk page. Again, see WP:OWN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I was not getting it because he was not really speaking clearly. Somehow you managed to make it clear in one sentence. See? Now I got it. The more time I spend on this Wikipedia thing, the more I like my job and Football, American Football, that is, the best sport in the world, not soccer. --Mondschein English (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mondschein English: "the best sport in the world" :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: We do not need a citation, we do not need reliable sources: it is a known fact, kind of like that "fire is hot". We don't need a ctitation to state that fire is hot, now, do we? :-) --Mondschein English (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mondschein English: Actually, Fire#Flame_temperatures is pretty poorly written and sourced... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Hmmm I am now wondering whether maybe my wife got a Wikipedia account with the nick "NeilN", because I don't think I can possibly win here: every single thing I say and/or do is inherently wrong!!! LOL Are you sure you are not my wife in disguise? Maybe my mother-in-law, if not my wife? LOL --Mondschein English (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mondschein English: You need to take your beautiful wife out for a nice dinner for thinking such thoughts! -- Your mother-in-law aka --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: WOW!!!! You are GOOD! I can tell a ladies' man when I see one! I will have to get pointers from you on how to be smooth with the Missus, Neil!!! :-) You have yourself a nice afternoon! It is just a couple of more hours for me and then it is finally going to be 5:00 pm on a Friday Night!! YAY!!!!! :-)

It's my right

As admin do you not want to take some responsibility for what you host? You have blood on your hands. 80,000 views mate. Accessible via a google search of 'suicide' and how many suicidal people will be doing that? Loads and it's the fault of irresponsible people like you who hide behind all this red tape. Frankly I think you have an over inflated sense of self worth. You're actually refusing to be of any help, which tells me that you're just as much as a psychopath as the people who have contributed to this article and maybe you even reach the level of people who referenced the suicide guides-Which have now thankfully been deleted. I think you should climb back up inside your arse where you came from, and quite honestly, you're going to need quite a powerful torch to find your way out. This is now a matter for the police web unit now. Why don't you actually show that you're human and demonstrate a scrap of morality? There's already an article for suicide, you don't need a 'methods category'. If you want some Wikipedia jargon then it's unnecessary overcategorisation and entirely irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redzimus (talk • contribs)

@Redzimus: 1) I'm not an admin. 2) You'll note that I removed the suicide guides based on your reasonable comments and Wikipedia guidelines (as I detailed on the talk page). 3) Diatribes like the above are only going to get you blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I know it's your right, I just think wiki needs to do more to protect its users and this has lead to me losing my temper a few times. Regrettably when you want to change the world for the better as badly as I do, you reach hurdles and often don't get the help you need. I'm sorry for the comments I made as they are a product of the latter. This is not an apology to redeem the warnings or for gaining leeway on the matter, I don't really care if I get blocked. However, I intend to follow the proper channels from now on so I can continue my campaign Redzimus (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)RedzimusRedzimus (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the continuation of the debate despite the minor disagreement, please find my counterpoint on the page in question under 'talk' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redzimus (talk • contribs)

Hi

Hi could you please remove the personal attacks on me that Cass put back on this edit [27]? If you look close he left the attacks in a dif and i want it removed but he won't do it and I can't because of the 3rrr rule. Caden ^cool 22:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Caden. I sympathize but both my attempts were modified by Cassianto. That discussion is now closed and if I changed anything, no doubt he or another supporter would revert my edit, continuing the drama. I see you've asked again on ANI - your best hope is that an admin agrees with you and removes the pointy diff. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. I hope another admin sees it and removes it. I don't know what more i can do. Caden ^cool 22:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Caden - you can thank Chillum for oversighting. Good call! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean its gone for good? If so, that's great. Caden ^cool 22:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Caden: Yes. See? [28] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you for letting me know :) Caden ^cool 22:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Request

My friend 88.108.126.68 (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Redzimus88.108.126.68 (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC) has been blocked without sufficient warning. Can you unblock him please? He wants to start again and he promises no daft edits this time.

No idea who you're talking about. Plus, I'm not an admin so can't unblock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sensible addition of current events

Hi, just added some content I wantec your opinion on, thanks Al. It is in 'Starvation' and also a very slight reword in 'Overdose' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redzimus (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Redzimus: There's now an undue emphasis on force-feeding in that section and you refer to a U.K. law without stating it's only applicable in the U.K. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean it is relevant, people can add right? Also UK law does only apply in the UK right? I will add more on US law — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redzimus (talk • contribs)

@Redzimus: Basically, you are coatracking. The section is about starvation as a suicide method, not force-feeding. Adding more about force-feeding will only exacerbate the problem. P.S. Can you please take a few minutes and read up on talk page guidelines? Please don't create a new section with every post and please post on the correct page (not user pages as you have now done twice). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I do

Look, I know I might have offended you and I'm well aware of this. I did say sorry and I am going to cease contacting you. I can reassure you that all I am doing with the article is hightlighting the physiological, psychological and sociological implications of methods and providing strong references for each statement. Other users like boneyard agree so it isn not biased like you say, in fact he article is currently biased itself and reads like a suicide guide. Regardless of my subjective opinion this is true and a knowledge of the facts is necessary for the article to read well. Any grudge won't help vulnerable people. I represent the people in my writings and thus I am neutral in regards to consensus. My intentions are good and not flawed in the slightest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redzimus (talk • contribs) 18:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Contention on Aquiline Nose Article

I find it interesting that you write to me with a source and then I get a reported message from another person with another name. I am not sure if you work together or are the same person: Bbb23. Either way, I have been reported, when it should be this person that should be reported. You said that mine is a "opinion" when I am actually removing something instead of adding something. The person with the opinion is actually the user who added the term Hook Nose, that is the person you should be questioning, which makes me think of your intentions as dishonest. The article is on the term AQUILINE NOSE, the article is not on HOOK NOSE, these are two different terms not interchangeable. Look for Aquiline Nose, and its definition, which is Roman Nose, eagle-like, prominent bridge nose, or curved nose; these are the official terms to describe this in all reputable pages on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wazzabee7 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't help you if you edit war, engage in sockpuppetry, and can't read sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I like your pretty name

How do you get your name all prettiful and colorful like you did? I copied your first line on this page, and tried to put my user name in it, but it didn't work right.

"{{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>}}"

Sarahrosemc (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sarahrosemc. Details on customizing your signature are here: WP:SIG#CustomSig. If you need more help or want me to come up with the HTML (after you tell me what you want your signature to look like), just let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, did you want to customize the name at the top of your talk page or your signature? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I can figure it out from here. Thx NeilN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahrosemc (talk • contribs) 20:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wanted some advice

Greetings. I recently came across Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, a page which certainly seems to meet GNG and so forth, is well referenced, but in which the majority of the content is non-english. Specifically, there are a lot of quotations from the original sanskrit verse. I am not entirely sure how to deal with this; would you mind taking a look? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde93. The main issue I see is with sourcing. All English translations and interpretations of the primary source need references. The modern world and current usage sections also need sources. I will tag it accordingly and material should be removed if sources are not forthcoming. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks friend. I guess I should clarify that "well referenced" was a misleading phrase on my party; what I should have said was that it seems to have some good references, which are not used enough. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi NeilN,

I have recently edited an article about premature ejaculation as the information was misleading. I really like wikipedia and am very interested in contributing but this seems very discouraging. I have been suffering from PE and promescent is definitely not the only one product available, and is not the one helping in my case. I believe people should know about the other alternative, moreover I have mentioned a substance benzocaine which is crucial for people and their health. I have submitted a wikipedia link, anchor tag and no extrernal links. I have nothing to do with the product and only wanted to do the good deed. I have also created a wiki article about the product with help of the company, again with no intentions of promotion, its not mine I am a patient.

Can you help me please?

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew74123 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andrew74123. In order to add this, you also need to add a source. Since it's a medical claim, it should be a medically reliable source (e.g., a peer reviewed study). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Youssef Bey Karam Foundation

Please review our website at http://www.youssefbeykaram.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saroufim1 (talk • contribs)

Hi Saroufim1. An organization's website does not establish notability. Please see WP:ORG: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello again

Hey NeilN,

Sorry for disturbing I am sure you are busy. I am not sure if i do understand completely, as if you go to the article, promescent only provided a FDA link which is not linked in no way to them.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew74123 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew74123: Where's the link to a peer reviewed study on Xperform? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your reply. As I said I do not work with the company and dont have material of this kind. I am just curious understanding the rules, as i read them a couple of times already. Is there any peer reviewed study for promescent in the article?

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew74123 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew74123: No there isn't, so I've removed that sentence. Feel free to remove any unsourced or poorly sourced content that should have a cite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy

Thanks for all the help NeilN and deletion of the tag, i appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew74123 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ill try to find some but as i said i am a customer of the company thats it. I never thought submitting a simple article on wikipedia is going to be a hell of a trouble :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew74123 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew74123: Yeah, you ran smack dab into one of our core policies - notability. There are millions and millions of "things" in this world and we don't want articles on every one of them. Only the ones that have independent coverage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Paris

The change was by User:Sesto Elemento: [29]
User:SchroCat is reverting that change, 3 times already: [30], [31], [32]. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Der Statistiker: You also have plenty of reverts. If other editors are contesting a change, the article should go back to its previous state (especially a Good Article or Featured Article) until agreement is reached. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

These editors have a history of ALWAYS contesting changes in this article. So what you are saying is they own the article and nobody can change it if we don't have their permission in advance. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Der Statistiker: To get outside views you can follow dispute resolution. RFC, WP:DRN, etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Why didn't you tell this to SchroCat in the first place instead of pandering to his warring instincts by reverting my edit back to his version? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Der Statistiker: It's not his version. You are edit warring to change something that's been there all year. [33] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The montage is itself the result of an edit war by Dr Blofeld and his friend SchroCat which they forced into the article last year (in June), thereby changing the picture that had represented Paris on top of the article for years. They did so without asking for people's opinion on the talk page, or withdrawing their montage when they saw that many editors opposed it. It's a case of brutal enforcement of their will against the wishes of other editors. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Speed of gravity

Zhuyin (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Dear Sir NeilN,

Thank you very much for your message.

I am very glad to be a Wikipedian.

According to your message, I am drafting my revised article here. If you should proofread it, I should thank you very much.

My best regards.

Sincerely Yours, Zhu

---

The revised article

In November 2013, Y. Zhu announced that he observed the speed of gravitational force, calculating the variations of the orbit of the geosynchronous satellites perturbed by the Sun. It is shown that the gravitational force of the Sun acting on the satellite is from the present position of the Sun. It indicates that the speed of gravitational force is much larger than the speed of light in a vacuum. From this observation and the recent experiments, the structure of the fields of a moving source (a body or a charge) is studied. A method to measure the speed of gravitational force in laboratory and a line to indirectly test the wavelengths of gravitational waves are presented.

End

Hi Zhuyin. Who has cited your paper? Also, I see no evidence of a peer review process. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Dear NeilN,

My article entitled “Measurement of the speed of gravity” is published in Chinese Physics Letters, 28, 070401 (2011). It was peer-reviewed while some parts of it have not been peer-reviewed.

From google scholar, it was cited by Syska J., Frieden wave-function representations via an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiment[J]. Physical Review E, 2013, 88(3): 032130. Трунев А П. СКОРОСТЬ ГРАВИТАЦИИ И СВЕРХБЫСТРОЕ ДВИЖЕНИЕ В ОБЩЕЙ ТЕОРИИ ОТНОСИТЕЛЬНОСТИ[J]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhuyin (talk • contribs) 01:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Zhuyin: I suggest you post the above on the article's talk page to get feedback. "It was peer-reviewed while some parts of it have not been peer-reviewed." gives some cause for concern. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN:These parts were added in arxiv after the article was published in Chinese Physics Letters.

report an admin

Hi, just wondering how I report an admin? It's just you seem to like the use of weasel words within the article on 'Mansplaining'. Why is this? Can you justify where it says that that mansplaining is a common experience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.132.163 (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are kind of bizarre. You put back in one of the phrases you wanted to remove. [34] And if you look at the sources:

• "Men explain things to me, and to other women, whether or not they know what they're talking about. Some men. Every woman knows what I mean."
• "Of course, it's not just my journalist friend who has experienced mansplaining. There are countless other examples of this phenomenon."

And I'm not an admin. BTW, your other edits also had issues. [35] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you say here that hearsay is sufficient enough to make quantifiable claims, yet I have just reported you for removing a reference... (see below).

I don't see why you are reverting edits on animal models of ADHD it was a paper cited 16 times. You obviously lack the science training to make changes to an important, otherwise you would really the idea of "just one study" is a fallacy. I have now highlighted your account on the report user page, as this you are clearly starting the early stages of harassment rather than trying to improve articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Apple Store

Birk just started reverting my stuff without any reason, did he confuse me with someone else that he has a vendetta against? BenefactorDubsta (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet can answer that. Meanwhile, it would help if you used edit summaries. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Reported

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm letting you know I have reported you here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#NeilN_2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And unsurprisingly closed quickly at ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It was closed quickly, but another user acted as a mediator - and now the point I wanted to remain in the article, has been included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you're more precise with any research you do. [36] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

^ actually originally I did disagree with the wording you used (hence why it sounds clumsy what I wrote), but then decided to let it go this time, and then change it at a later date when I generally improve the article by adding references etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I get the impression a lot of this from you was partly academic snobbery - trying to 'get one over' on somebody who works in science... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. It was about getting the article to state what the source actually said. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And the source says that the CR sourced animals are the better choice for animal research. Also, you never addressed my point about other metrics -- claiming something is not true, because it is only one reference is erroneous. If you feel you are qualified to continue editing neuroscience articles, then I suggest you take my comments about using other metrics such as number of times cited, pedigree of author etc, journal printed in etc, rather than using the folk-scientist argument of "it's just one paper". Although I feel satisfied that I've potentially benefited your science literacy and you've hopefully learnt something from this exchange :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This link contains some useful information for you: http://mamidala.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/25/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"...better choice for animal research." But, yet again, that's not what you added to the article. And, yet again, a link for you: WP:SYNTHESIS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Where have I made synthesis? I used three references to support the point. The final reference, the dynamic model, also mentions within the text the important of using CR strain. Please, explain to me where I have synthesised a point as I'm not sure you are comprehending correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And yes I did make the point that when modelling ADHD, the CR strain has been validated as the best. And there are all sorts of methodological reasons why that is so, that are beyond you, but the gist is -- one of the most influential models of ADHD was developed using rats, and the person who did most of the research on that model of ADHD, used the CR strain (he also authored the other papers I linked). So his view has more weight than the science fair reply of "its just one study". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Your second edit presented one source that stated that the CR rat "is at present the best-validated animal model of ADHD". Do you really not see that there's a difference between this and "with the main emphasis on models purchased from Charles Rivers"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

But then when I presented three sources which did support my claim, you still kept reverting. You know, its also fine to keep titivating an article. That's how it works in the real world.

And main emphasis on models purchased from, and present best validated do mean the same (and if you read the actual articles, you would see that I was correct as that point was explicitly made - to use CR purchased ones: Don't rely just on abstracts...). It's also a lot clearer than saying "used within ADHD research". how clumsy is that? Used how? As feed? As a reward? Perhaps as pillows for the animal model...

And also there you go again - one source. That is not a valid argument when it comes to science, look at the other metrics I presented. You just keep repeating the same, erroneous point. Really, do you actually feel comfortable editing this stuff? Like really, do you feel comfortable that you're gating important information from students etc (as trust me, many people head to those pages as a first glance, usually because you expect only people who know what they are talking about would edit such pages...)

Again, I hope you're more careful with your research. Might want to check exactly who was reverting and when. [37] Are you comfortable with your accuracy? I'm certainly not. If you want to write something like, "The Spontaneously Hypertensive Rat (SHR) is also used as a model of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, with the main emphasis on models purchased from Charles Rivers" you need to cite something like a Cochrane meta-analysis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't need that at all. You are wrong. People make claims such as "a main emphasis" constantly in published papers without referring to the Cochrane. Are you just making this up as you go along? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And check here again: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?client=safari&rls=en&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.76247554,d.d2s&biw=1784&bih=1038&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr=&cites=12080056026627108100

82 citations of a paper advising the CR strain.

Please tell me, what is your academic background/training to make changes to such an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And over 600 articles directly using the term "with a main emphasis on": http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22with+a+main+emphasis+on%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 care to tell me how many are linking to meta-analysis, reviews etc? Or perhaps it's now clear that "with a main emphasis on" is standard academic phraseology... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@147.143.95.63: If "with an emphasis on" is the point of contention, why have you not cited one of those 600 articles to support the assertion of an emphasis? —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Follow the discussion - I'm showing its accepted practise within science to use that phraseology without linking to a meta-review, its standard academic speak and perfectly acceptable. The main issue is a non-specialist wading in on an esoteric topic and acting as if they're an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's actually in the cites and if there are multiple papers agreeing with the assertion. If it's not in the cite, the phrase should not be used. If the papers have one primary author, the assertion should be attributed. The main issue is a self-declared expert thinking they don't have to follow Wikipedia guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the main issue is you got angry when I made some changes to an unrelated article yesterday and I challenged you when you reverted them, and then you started reverting changes to this current article. You lied about the reason for the first revert - when really this was just a personal thing against me. You have never, ever edited a science article before, and now you have, you come across as ill-informed and out of your depth.

And please, you've still not told me what your background is that makes you qualified to edit such an article as this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"You have never, ever edited a science article before, and now you have..." Holy hell, now I really, really hope you've got someone else overseeing your work. What methodology did you use to determine that out of the 25,000+ articles I've edited, none was related to science? P.S. It's standard practice to look at other edits if you come across a questionable edit by an editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Whats your level of education. Oh and expertise? As it's clearly not ADHD... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

More than enough to comprehend and analyze sources on a wide variety of topics. If you ask any veteran editor who has worked with me, I'm pretty sure they'll agree with that assessment. Reading Wikipedia:Expert_editors#Warnings_to_expert_editors might be useful to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, answer this: you said the other article it was fine to say "commonly experienced by" on the say-so of one author. Yet here you are now 'splaining why you feel the SHR comment was wrong... ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect again. I said, "Read the sources in the body.". And I provided two quotes up above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And as for getting people to check my work, seeing as I have ADHD, yeah of course I get the people I collaborate with to read over my work ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

":More than enough to comprehend and analyze sources on a wide variety of topics. If you ask any veteran editor who has worked with me, I'm pretty sure they'll agree with that assessment. Reading Wikipedia:Expert_editors#Warnings_to_expert_editors might be useful to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)"

Really? But you also seemed to think that here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross73, Ohnoitsjamie, C.Fred. What veteran editor has disagreed with me? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is not going well it is. I said you believed you were an expert in this instance too... Which you tried to demonstrate by deciding if articles (which probably took years to write in some instances) were corroborating a point I made solely by reading their 150 word long abstracts... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems pointless. The article now has proper wording. I'm not going to change the way I edit. You can continue down your road. Try to make less incorrect statements in discussions and refrain from edit warring. Good luck. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, although seriously, comments like "I'm an expert on a wide variety of topics" to the level that you can decide content on specialised things like this are arrogant and reflect poorly on you (especially when you're reading the articles wrongly and only going by the bit that most academic authors spend about ten minutes writing when they've finished the paper), otherwise whats the point of people like me spending unto a decade learning about this stuff... And as for not changing your editing style, perhaps reflect on if thats a good or bad thing for wikipedia and the public service it provides. Good luck to you too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Perfect illustration, thank you. "Whats your level of education. Oh and expertise?" "More than enough to comprehend and analyze sources on a wide variety of topics." turns into "I'm an expert on a wide variety of topics" Just perfect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adieu, Adijou

Sorry to beat you to the punch there! Seemed like a level4im was appropriate for someone making the same "lalala, can't hear you, delete delete" edit summaries minute after minute, and a quicker way to get it stopped. --McGeddon (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Actually that's a good thing! Yes, the user would have undoubtedly gone on reverting while the 3RR report sat there until an admin looked at it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

CSD notification

Hi NeilN. This is just to let you know I CSDed Talk:NeilN. I assume this was a misplaced comment directed to you. Altamel (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Altamel: Thanks. Yes, the editor added a comment here after. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Bible

Can you please join in a discussion on the Bible Talk page rather than simply deleting my edits?

Frankly, your one-line commentary seemed a bit moronic. Are you a moron? Can you prove you are not? I await your response.

Dynasteria (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It seemed moronic because it seems you need the obvious pointed out to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Cherokee indians

Yes I edited what you wrote because it was misleading and not factual about my people the cherokee / Aniyunwiya . We were dark brown , Tan as myself and olive colored . We wore our hair long down our back even to the ground.the long hair clan took pride in our hair..you said that cherokee shaved their heads accept one patch of long hair false not all cherokee did this ..This shaving of the head was among the wolf tribe the warrior of our society. So yes you need to not edit on my people if you do not know my people history customs traditions etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicfuture12 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Historicfuture12. Please read the article carefully. You actually deleted a quote from Henry Timberlake, describing the Cherokee nation as he saw it in 1761. If you think the quote doesn't belong in the article then please discuss that on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Henry timberlake visited one village of cherokee out of over 30. Also the chiefs he went to Europe with (2 of 3) of them were not cherokee by blood but adoption. Henry timberlake is not the only person who described the Cherokee John Haywood also did George Catlin an American painter early 1800s painting them dark also the Spanish which claim their skin was from negro dark to fair according to moyano and pardo in 1540s. ..so what you posted about henry timberlake holds no weight and doesn't explain the full range of the Eastern cherokee nation prior 1839. You posted this so as a cherokee indian I'm asking you to remove this as it is false ...Please do some research before you tamper with others history it's very ignorant and misinformed history..I'm very unpleased and assaulted.I recommend you look at all historians description of my people before you chose the most bias of them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicfuture12 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Historicfuture12: Again, use the article's talk page to discuss content issues - Talk:Cherokee - but be aware that being a Cherokee will give you no special say or status. Your deletion of existing text (that did not originate with me) had no explanation and left a leading sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Simple as put you need to remove it. I removed it from the Cherokee page and you added it again due to your lack of historian skills you put exactly what you found first that's need qualified research at all.You need to delete it, I tried due to its inaccuracy.Maybe you are trolling information I don't know why but I'm sure any historian or scholar would agree that your tactics are invalid case and point. **Delete the Bias description which doesn't depict my people just a portion of us ** If someone from China was reading my history they would be mislead, So you can do my people a favor and delete it. I am among my people everyday trying to better ourselves and we already had or land, People etc tooken from us we just ask for our history to be handle properly as it's sacred to us and who we are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicfuture12 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Historicfuture12: No, I don't need to do anything. Seriously, why aren't you making these points at Talk:Cherokee? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Do not edit any Wikipedia's if you do not have the right scholar/historian tactics/skills. Research have to be collected and analyzed before you post bias statements, some ones history is not to be misleading, gladly we have our own relatives and oral traditions to fall upon (because the pale man always distorted destroyed and covered up over people and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicfuture12 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Historicfuture12 The right historical skills would not use personal websites, etc. I (who have studied those skills), would be looking for the for academic sources discussing the original Spanish sources. More on Caitlin if I find time. Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Santorum

What is it that you think I should have done, or could do now?deisenbe (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi deisenbe. As I alluded to on your talk page, find a reliable source that covers the point you want to add to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen that policy before, it's not new to me, but for what it's worth, dealing with such obvious, easily available facts, I don't think it's good policy. If you care to, you can see what I said about it on my User page (not Talk page). deisenbe (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: It's not only about checking correctness, it's also about ascertaining how important the information is. Bits of trivia are being added to articles all the time. We use the depth of coverage in third party sources to determine what weight (if any) the new addition should have. If no one else has brought up those points, Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, should not engage in original research. Another thing - you say that we're dealing with obvious, easily available facts. Yes and no. The fact that Santorum has never won another election is easily verifiable. However "though the extent to which Savage contributed to his defeats has not been studied" is not easily verifiable as that requires research to prove (or close enough) a negative. That's why we need a secondary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, point granted, so what would you think about just saying "After Savage began his campaign, Santorum never won another election"? It's certainly important as the whole section is about Savage's intent to damage Santorum politically. deisenbe (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Well... I know you don't want to hear this and it's frustrating but anything like that would probably be reverted as synthesis if there were no sources. You are implying there might be a cause and effect here. Editors frown on that as all kinds of wild cause-effect theories could be added to articles if we allowed combining of sources in this way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25