User talk:NeilN

stana katic

i apologies for doing what i did i was upset when i heard the news it just i still indenial along with other people i speak to intill she confirms it and not her rep i dont believe cause mostly thing on the web are not true and with socail media it get blown up it dont mtter if there credible sources i need to hear it from her and the picture dont look like her hand and the ring on the wrong finger alot of people noticed that and mentioned iti mean no spotting together since june 2014 and all of sudden this drop and two of th cast members congratulate her an the rest dont if it true she need to confirm it if true why is it not on her website as breaking news i sorry for what i did just seeing that made me sick cause i dont believe it intill she says it tweets it post it i not going by her rep ad a picture and the other stuff again i am sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caskett2015 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Caskett2015. But it does matter that there are credible sources (her representative) speaking to reliable sources. Given she got married a few days ago, I doubt going on social media or giving interviews is at the top of her list. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Neil, at least you got an apology! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Caskett2015, the next time you see a problem like this, the preferred way to handle it is to use an edit summary when you revert the material — possibly something like "reverting per WP:BLP; claim doesn't appear to be reliably sourced". If others disagree and put the material back in, don't just pull it back out — that's a sure way to get in trouble for edit warring (or its cousin, the three-revert rule). Instead, go to the article's talk page and express your concerns there — if you really do have a valid point, other editors will come to your defence, and it won't be just you against the whole world anymore. Yes, it's true that we are required to act quickly when unsourced (or poorly sourced) contentious material is put into a biography of a living person (or any mention of a living person anywhere in Wikipedia). However, unless it is absolutely obvious to any sane person that the material in question is indisputable vandalism, repeatedly taking something out even as others are putting it back in is not the way we do things around here. (And if it's clear that more than one other editor disagrees with you, chances are the material in question is not "obvious vandalism", even if you think it is.) — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Emailed you

- Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictures in the wikipedia section of god

Your statement: "Humans create representations of many "unknowable" things. For this particular example, see God the Father in Western art."

Please understand that God is not only a "thing". And the article God the Father in Western art is more related to Christianity, but the article God should be from a more general point of view. And the pictures which should depict God are neither necessary for the completness nor for better understanding of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrobreak (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Judeo-Christian representation of God is fairly common and it's useful to show how God has been visually represented by believers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Question re: a Help page or Help template link

Hi Neil, three or four days ago I wrote a note to myself to look at your Talk page again and copy a link you had posted. It was something like a Help page or Help template and in my note to myself (scribbled at 3 AM) I called it "sources links" or "template sources links". Does something of that nature ring a bell? I recall it was a page with lots of helpful advice and examples on referencing, sourcing, or whatnot. I hadn't ever run across it on WP before, and I can't find it myself now either (like many helpful parts of Wikipedia, it is somehow buried or invisible to the naked eye, and isn't list on any relevant list or template that I came across). Anyway, I hope this rings a bell. As I recall, the page had a lot of yellow or something of that nature. I must have somehow looked on your talk page three or four days ago for some reason, and I could have sworn I saw a link to it there somewhere, I can't find the mention now. (PS: It may have been a Help template re: source links that when posted on someone else's Talk page, opens up to a big thing with lots of info.) Softlavender (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC) PS: If it helps, one thing I think(?) it might showed was how to consolidate refs by naming them. I may be wrong on that though. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender, no yellow but was it Help:Referencing for beginners? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles - NQ (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Neil and Nathan. Unfortunately it wasn't either of those, although they are both helpful. I'm thinking now it may be a template that isn't really visible (even on the template documentation page) until you post it on someone's TALK Page. In other words, I think it is a Talk page template for a user, but it's not a warning; it's information. I don't know why I wrote down Neil's name; it may be someone else's Talk page I saw it on -- but I can't remember who. *sigh*. Next time I am just going to copy these things right away rather than believe that when I am half asleep I can mentally file and remember to come back to them and remember where I saw them. Softlavender (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your outstanding and strenuous effort to keep Wikipedia's content reliable. P.S. - Exactly 78000 edits on en wiki as of now. Hope you fix the red link Zach suggested above. - NQ (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NQ. Coming from someone who basically is the Resource Exchange, this means a lot. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

explain your self

why did you warm me i didnt do anything wrong!!!!???? Nenon145 (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty surprised you haven't been blocked already. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, @Nenon145:, what you did wrong was removing the fossil range from Leopard Seal's taxobox.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Dawkins edits is what I warned them for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	You step in like a breath of fresh air and save the day. Thank you so much for your contributions. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 18:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I should have checked

The block message was at the bottom. He was already blocked three times. I had no idea that he was blocked again as i thought he will be careful for now. But I don't know whether he was blocked for that edit i mentioned or some other acts of vandalism. --C E (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Maggie Smith is Dead

Neil, Have you even watched the News lately? I am not vandalising! It is the truth, Maggie is dead, I'll miss her but she's dead. Please, don't ban me because I speak the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.108.209 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop playing silly games and do something productive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that you'd risk being banned for inserting a blatant and potentially libelous lie that insults the intelligence of all humans with even rudimentary ability to operate a search engine, and not for "telling the truth."--Mr Fink (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

My edit was deleted

Hi, NeilN, You deleted my edit to Korean cuisine because I didn't cite a website, book, etc. Unfortunately, I didn't see how. Sorry, I'm really bad with tech ;) but I think the story about how Kimchi was made would really spice up the cuisine section (no pun intended). I got all my stuff from a book called South Korea: The Country, People, Religions, and Diets of South Korea. by Geun Yeong. If someone could please show me how I'd love to add a citation to my contribution. Thanks, Seo Gi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.218.151 (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The claims in that edit conflict with the sourced information at Kimchi#History. It sounds like a folk tale at best. I'm not finding that book on Amazon, Google books, or even Google. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I haven't found anything that backs up the claims either. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Casual Query

How good are you at reading Russian?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr Fink, da, nyet, spasiba. Everything else goes to Google. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Just curious, as I just got my hands on an amphiaspidid paper by Novitskaya today, and the only thing that would make me even more excited would be if I knew how to read it.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I had to google "amphiaspidid" and that's in English! More or less. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I present to you (one of) my latest baby(ies) Amphiaspidida--Mr Fink (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Kashi Samaddar & another article

Dear NeilN,

I find some of you like to continue with mistakes as in:

1. Kashi Samaddar

2. List of people by number of countries visited

I have studied well, have much knowledge and edited with proper links as supporting but mistakes are being continued. Kindly check. Does wikipedia not need certificate? Without certificate, mere news paper article is wrong! Can you kindly and advise

Regards --Editwikigu (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Editwikigu: No, certificates are not required. Secondary sources like newspapers are preferred over primary sources anyways. Please mind the final warning I've given you. It seems you are only here to promote this person's accomplishments. Please stop jamming in puffery and irrelevant videos into articles. Also, please learn how to add references properly. I've pointed you towards a help page and offered to answer any questions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What do they hope to gain

Hi. Thanks for reporting 91.148.76.220. I was just headed there myself. I really don't know what these POV IP editors hope to gain - it's always going to end in rapid reverts and a block. Anyway, thanks again. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: I've asked Bobrayner if he knows who the sockmaster is. It's obviously the same person and doing this every day, asking them to use the talk page and watching we don't trip over WP:3RR ourselves, is a pain in the neck. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed! Cordless Larry (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR does not apply when reverting sockpuppets. bobrayner (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: The sockmaster has to be a blocked editor. So, either a blocked registered editor or an IP whose past IP is currently blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. bobrayner (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, do you guys mean that the sockmaster has to be blocked for the 3RR rule not to apply, or are you speculating on who the sockmaster is in this case? I presume the former, but just want to make sure I understand the policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I answered my own question. "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users" is an exception. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, just to be clear - unless you can definitively link the current IP hopper to a currently blocked account I would not rely on an exemption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, understood. Many thanks, both. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

One of my concerns is that this is a very active editor who has been doing it for several years. Probably deserves a WP:LTA case by now. As long as they're easy to spot, they're easy to revert. I am wary of publically disclosing the evidence that connects them to the specific permablocked parent account, because revealing their tells would make future abuse harder to deal with. But that name isn't actually necessary; since they're an obvious sock I'm happy to keep on following WP:3RRNO. (If we ever made it mandatory to name the parent account, it would be impossible to protect topics like this which attract multiple sockpuppeteers and a few enablers too). bobrayner (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I was just wondering if there was a way that confirmed users could apply to have a page semi protected or something similar? CaraDele (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi CaraDele. Any user can request semi-protection of an article. An administrator will look at the article's history to decide if there's enough recent disruption to warrant protection. The standards are relaxed a little for biographies of living people but if you're talking one or two "bad" edits a week it's unlikely protection will be granted. If you want more info, please see WP:SPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your Disruptive Editing on Bekka, Lebanon

Here is the link: to the discussion page of User:LeoFrank --Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Human Chlorophyll: That's not a discussion. That's one post by you with a vague assertion. Please use the article's talk page to discuss specific points. I suggest you point out a specific reference and state why it doesn't source the text in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your reinsertion of the paragraph is quite disruptive because none of the given sources corresponds to what is written in the paragraph.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Human Chlorophyll: That's not clear at all. The sentence "A temple at Bakka is mentioned in sura 3 (Al-i-Imran), ayah 96 of the Qur'an, where it is said to be the site of the first place of worship to God by Adam." has three references. I checked one and it says, "The Koran says: 'The first sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah, a blessed place, a guidance for the peoples' (3:96)" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the sources given, for example, is "The New Encyclopedia of Islam By Cyril Glassé, Huston Smith, p 302". When I opened the source on this link, I found that the source is actually saying: "Originally, Mecca was called Bakkah". The source doesn't say at all that "the Quranic Bakkah" is a place in Lebanon.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The another source is given is: "Muhammad and Jesus: A Comparison of the Prophets and Their Teachings By William E. Phipps, p 85". When I opened the source on this link, I didn't find it saying that the Quranic bakkah is a place in Lebanon, but rather, that Bakkah is an early name of Mecca.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk page for this discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I will copy this discussion and paste it on the talk page for a period of 3 days, then I will remove the paragraph again, but I expect you to remove it yourself as it has been explained for you that "the Qur'anic Bakkah" is not a place in Lebanon as the paragraph is saying."The Quranic Bakkah" is itself Mecca. You can check the article of Mecca and see yourself. --Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I have copied the discussion to the article talk page. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you very much! and I am really sorry because I misunderstood you. Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Human Chlorophyll. And thanks for persevering and clarifying your point so the article could be corrected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

About my edits

Thank you. I didn't notice the navbox, I will check it and see what are the existents links. I saw that other pages that have similar "See Also", I just trying to unify the layout. I will delete the links that are also in the navbox of this pages.Rupert loup (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: Thanks for your efforts. You might want to add the navbox to appropriate articles that don't have it and add links to missing articles in the navbox. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that in the "see also" section of the pages that I edited (i.e. Persecution of Muslims and Persecution of Jews), there are already links that are in the navbox. I think they should be removed. What do you think? Rupert loup (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: Yes, you are correct. We have a guideline on this: WP:SEEALSO - "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

And what about "Persecution by ...", I don't see it in the navbox and it's use in the Persecution of Christians's page. And why did you deleted the portals and the Commons Category in some of the pages? I didn't mean to be rude, I'm just want to know how this works. Rupert loup (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: Not sure what you're asking me. If you think I removed links that aren't in navboxes or in the "External links" section please feel free to revert me. I looked at what you were adding and just did a spot check comparison. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I see, thank you for taking the time to help me. Rupert loup (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Advertising agency

Could I get more clarification on my edit?i was trying to provide an example of a small agency just like there were for medium and large agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KansasCityRoyal (talk • contribs)

@KansasCityRoyal: Those other agencies have Wikipedia articles to show they're notable and they don't have links to their websites for obvious advertising purposes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

NORN

What's happened to NORN? Hardly anyone involved, people seeming happy that you can state that a source doesn't mention something, etc. The original editor has both reinstated all the text that others removed, and keeps messing with my edits to his talk page.[1] Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. And I know how irritating it is to have posts refactored [2], [3] but at the end of the day, sometimes you just have to throw up your hands and move on. [4] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:CABAL and WP:OWN

I have replied to your concerns on the talk page.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You can defend your edit warring at WP:3RRNB. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Prinsgezinde

If you saw this, then you know that I have my eye on this editor; this a very sketchy editor, who doesn't at all appear to actually grasp Wikipedia's policies and guidelines despite knowing of some of them. See here and here, for example, which show that he wrongly applied WP:COI. See his talk page for more inaccurate WP:COI descriptions. See this inaccurate WP:Inuniverse tag. I could go on about this editor's problematic editing. I think that this editor is familiar with me; where he might be quick to revert others, he has avoided reverting me thus far. This scare quote edit he made reminds me of Acoma Magic (talk · contribs), who would obsess over removing scare quotes from religious and LGBT topics. Since I'm not yet 100% sure which past WP:Disruptive editor this is, I'm alerting you to this editor so that you and/or your talk page watchers might help keep a lookout. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic/Archive#Comments by other users 9, I was waiting for Prinsgezinde to make a video game edit, and he very recently did so. If he did so before this, I missed it. So again, this editor might be Acoma Magic. And that is likely why he has been cautious as far as reverting me goes; he knows that I can identify him. WP:Pinging Sjones23, MrX, Viriditas and Black Kite to this section since they are other editors familiar with Acoma Magic's editing style. I know that it's been a significant time since any of us identified an Acoma Magic WP:Sockpuppet, but do any of you think that Prinsgezinde is likely one? I would have also cited British spelling since Acoma Magic was British and/or Australian and used British/Australian spelling; but with this edit, Prinsgezinde used American spelling for "lead" ("lead" instead of "lede") and British/Australian spelling with this edit for "grey" ("grey" instead of "gray"). Even if Prinsgezinde is not Acoma Magic, I'm convinced that he is a WP:Sockpuppet of a past WP:Disruptive editor; looking at his contribution history, or things he's stated on his talk page, it's easy to see that he is not at all a WP:Newbie. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing jumps out at me at the moment, other than both editors having edited Anti-Christian sentiment. Acoma Magic and his socks were obsessed with changing LGBT-related articles to reflect their POV. Prinsgezinde did make this faintly quacking edit to heteronormativity, so there may be something to Flyer22's suspicions.- MrX 21:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I've started an WP:SPI investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Acoma_Magic#08_May_2015. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sjones23 and MrX. The WP:CheckUser data is likely to read as stale in the case of comparing Prinsgezinde to Acoma Magic. So I'm not sure that the WP:Sockpuppet investigation will be too helpful. I was waiting to gather more evidence as time went on. After more evidence, I think that I would have been able to make an 100% match to Acoma Magic or to a different past disruptive editor. More evidence would mean a solid WP:Duck block. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That stated, a WP:CheckUser could state whether or not Prinsgezinde is editing from the same area Acoma Magic edited from (Britain or Australia). Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for immediately stalking me and reverting all my edits before notifying me even once. I understand this post may also be removed right away. First of all, I don't have to defend myself against any of those non-SI accusations as they are nothing more than personal attacks based on wild assumptions. Yes, I changed one LGBT article.. Wow, sure got me there. I'm certain you know that this McCarthyism is not at all in line with the rules and a gross violation of WP:GOODFAITH. I advise you both read WP:NOASSUMESOCK and particularly WP:SOCKOPHOBIA. Now, at least have the decency to communicate with me. You can also just get it over with right away and CheckUser me; you'll find out I'm from the Netherlands, and have, plus only ever had, ONE account in total. Before I made this account I had rarely ever IP-edited a pages before. Despite all that, I'm still honored to officially have my first (false) investigation against me, even if it's based on nothing. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde (talk · contribs), whether or not you are Acoma Magic, you are not at all a WP:Newbie, and I am 100% certain that you are a past WP:Disruptive editor who has returned. Your contributions, the way you have been editing disruptively and deceptively (including this recent mess), show that this is not a case where I should apply WP:Assume good faith. That you supposedly currently live in the Netherlands does not mean that you are not Acoma Magic, who, before this latest WP:Sockpuppet investigation, last had a WP:Sockpuppet investigation filed on him in 2013. And my response to you pointing to the WP:NOASSUMESOCK and WP:SOCKOPHOBIA essays, which is further indication of your non-newness, is what I state on my user page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

More assumptions. First of all I am obviously not Acoma Magic, as you said he was from Australia or the UK. I'm not. I can easily prove I live in the Netherlands by being able to speak Dutch perfectly. (Als je wil dat ik als test iets vertaal, ga je gang en stuur me iets.) Secondly, rules clearly explain not to fill your sockpuppetry accusations with critique of a user's edits. I doubt many started off great right away. Up until two days ago I thought "minor" just meant roughly any sentence-scope edit, regardless of significance. I haven't read every rule, but I try to be rational. Thirdly, compare this situation to: you, as a detective, accusing me of a crime -> me rejecting the allegations -> you subsequently saying: "Even if you didn't do this particular crime, I'm sure you did others!" If you are "100% certain" that I am "a past WP:Disruptive editor who has returned," maybe you shouldn't be on the Sockpuppet-SWAT. Once again, just go ahead and CheckUser me. How do I know about CheckUser? I have actually suspected another of sockpuppetry in the past. I didn't start rumors, but instead did it the formal way. And lastly, calling my edits "disruptive" hardly says anything. Let's take that GTA V article, then. What the blazes is "disruptive" about it? The relatively small controversy stirred by one lone lawyer and "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" was getting as much weight ("However, ...") as the thousands of overwhelmingly positive reviews, directly violating WP:WEIGHT. I didn't even remove it, just trim it. Furthermore, what could I possibly gain from messing with that article? The wide variety of topics about which I edit pages would make for a really odd personal agenda, don't you think? And as for my "disruptive editing," will you ignore the thank yous and agreement I have had on many of them? Cherry picking regretful and/or controversial ones is the sole basis of this sockpuppetry theory. Do you see me accusing you of disruptive editing? And yes, I sometimes like to look up Wikipedia rules as guidelines when discussing their subject with someone. Doesn't mean I knew these ones before the fiasco started. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's common sense/years of experience editing this site, not mere assumptions. It's not obvious that you are not Acoma Magic; if it were, I would not suspect that you are him. Do I fully suspect that you are him? No; I made that clear above. Do I fully suspect that you are a returning WP:Disruptive editor? Yes; I made that clear above. And I know that you are disruptive/deceptive with your edits based on what I've seen, and some of it is noted above. Your WP:COI accusations are ridiculous, for example. I don't trust you, and suspect that you won't last long here as a Wikipedian. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

And you should stop reiterating that you are from the Netherlands, as if people don't move. I stated above, "That you supposedly currently live in the Netherlands does not mean that you are not Acoma Magic, who, before this latest WP:Sockpuppet investigation, last had a WP:Sockpuppet investigation filed on him in 2013." Either way, I have gathered more than enough evidence that shows that your edits should be scrutinized; in addition to various other examples, this is another one. You either have a very poor grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or you intentionally misapply them. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Something else: Yes, I sometimes come to NeilN's talk page about disruptive editors, including suspected WP:Sockpuppets. Before you, the most recent matter is seen at User talk:NeilN/Archive 22#User:AbuseResearcher. That worked out. And so has this case, since it means that more people will be assessing your edits. Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Aka "The Striesand effect"--Mr Fink (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record (I might as well note this): Even though it's likely that your account would have been identified as a Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet already if you were him, given the number of times I've recently reported him at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298, I have not ruled out that you are Cali11298. Some of your editing, such as your inaccurate WP:POV claims and editing of political topics, reminds me of him. There's also the fact that you've gone deep into the edit history to restore material that was removed by one or more editors who are now indefinitely blocked, just like Cali11298 has done; compare this to this. And even your defense in this link is like Cali11298's defense seen here and here; the use of the words "warn," "utterly," "that other user" and "the other user" especially. When I made this note to my talk page, Cali11298 and Acoma Magic were the top editors I suspected you of being. But no matter what I suspect, it's not like you are blocked. You likely won't be indefinitely blocked any time soon. And as long as you edit productively, others (including me) are not likely to focus much on you. Flyer22 (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Confused and frustrated

I need to edit 10 things to become verified and i went to do that and that you wrote me a rude remark about making random comments on pages. and the change i made on the human trafficking page was not advertising it was just to say there are established organizations that help rescue sex slave victims and help counsel survivors which i know first hand because i volunteer for human trafficking outreaches and am certified in victim advocacy, how am I supposed to become verified if im not allowed to write anything without you deleting it and writing me a rude message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchandler735 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dchandler735. You can make your ten edits to any page, including your user page and talk pages. However, when you do become autoconfirmed, you still can't add things like this and this to articles. Content needs to be written in an encyclopedic manner, without advocating for a cause, and verifiable, through the use of references. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't even attempt to find references for Prasant maths, why?

Why were you so partial towards my created pages? You are working on a project to help the unsourced articles find source. They why you were absent when prasant maths pages needed help in the matter of ref? You didn't attempt to find even two months back already published ok reference from AIFAS astrology research journal?SillyLilies (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

SillyLilies, I was not involved in the discussion but I've looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasant Maths and saw you had ample opportunity to provide independent sources. Instead, you engaged in silly accusations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

But, before the accusations [they are intellectual, not silly], I had openly called for help from wiki. You were absent. You have been awarded for reverting vandalisms in a blink.. but you didn't help me then, why this partiality? SillyLilies (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

SillyLilies You realize that no one person is watching everything that happens on Wikipedia? I only got involved because you posted on Cullen's page which I happen to watch. Other people got involved in the deletion discussion because they regularly participate in deletion discussions or are watching for deletion discussions related to science or cricket. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Your team is rejecting any/every kind of reference provided by me. I am totally confused what wiki finally considers as ref? It is calling AIFAS journal as 'profit' based, height of fraud. Which news channel/source is non-profit based, are there any at all? Can you spot a single reference amidst the indian/bollywood films wiki pages which has ref from 'non-profit' news source? AIFAS ref not satisfactory, questioning its quality/authenticity is height of fraud.SillyLilies (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@SillyLilies: You are misrepresenting or not understand what Bryanrutherford0 said. I will repeat it here, emphasizing key points: "The new link that's been added appears marginally more credible than the previous ones, but the publication seems to be an astrologers' trade magazine (however much it wishes to present itself as an academic journal), and the article is, like all the others, written by Prasant. What are the criteria for the inclusion of articles in this "journal"? What sort of peer review have its articles undergone? What sort of attempts are there to replicate the "research" published in this magazine?"

To show notability, we need sources independent of Prasant, published in non-fringe periodicals or magazines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Its still not late, you can help me, suggest me what are the 'correct forms of ref? wiki ref article is too much confusing... at one place research articles not allowed, book published under own name not allowed, but lillywhite new ref is from book published by lillywhite itself.. it is totally confusing..

And what more, the second ref is pointing towards error page!SillyLilies (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC) ALAKURTTI air base page created without anything, not even an article, in 2006..and still breathing happily in wiki. How, why? SillyLilies (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'm done here. See Cullen's page for my comments. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Same is the case with Alanya Kebab..since 2006...without even an article? Why were you wiki team quite particular about my created pages? Airbase is non commercial, and simple maths is commercial, why this partial treatment? You are a popular id here, your team could have passed my articles, too, to you.. even now it is possible because my pages are not that much defective as the above mentioned, isn't it so?SillyLilies (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you feel another article shouldn't be in Wikipedia, you are free to nominate it for deletion yourself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Manhattan Literary addition on Ghostwriter page

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ghostwriter for the flow from earlier paragraph, and fuller edit of 'Remuneration and Credit' section to accommodate this change)

Here, NeilN, is the paragraph referencing Manhattan Literary, isolated:

This price range reflects a standard that was in effect for several decades. It began to shift only recently with the emergence of new markets for shorter books. The novella-length text (about 35,000 words and under) was formerly a very small market, but has widely expanded with new imprints like Amazon's Kindle Singles. [9] As a result, starting prices have come down by as much as half. This level of remuneration for a professional ghostwriter now makes sense, but only if the work is shorter. Manhattan Literary states that "book projects on the shorter side, tailored to new markets like the Kindle Singles imprint and others (30,000-42,000 words) start at a cost of $15,000." [10] [11]

Mariwiki77 (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariwiki77 (talk • contribs)

@Mariwiki77: I've copied your text here: User:NeilN/sandbox and marked some problem areas (note that other Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources). Feel free to work on that version if you want or if you have questions, just ask. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I've come up with a new version of this, Neil, following your edit requests. Done in the sandbox. Rgds/Mariwiki77 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Judas mistake

Hi I did not mean to edit Judas's name to Judas Hogg. It was a mistake. Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.117.85 (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, no harm done. Hmmm --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Also note the IP changed Judas Iscariot to Judas Hogg twice — quite a mistake. Blocked. Bishonen | talk 23:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC).

Meghan Trainor discography

Hi NeilN. I was wondering if you could return to the Meghan Trainor discography article and help out with bringing the opening back to focus on the article subject. I have been fighting to keep it in a manner consistent with the MOS for formatting as well as other discography articles [5], but a chronic edit warrior is insisting on putting it back to where it was before you improved it a week or so ago. I'd really appreciate you help on this as well as at the discussion I started at the article talk page. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Saw it. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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

So...

Who's this troll who keeps popping up? Amaury (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Amaury: Poor Malik Shabazz might have a clue as he's one of their constant targets. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Treatment of Newbies

OK, Thanks for the email Now I understand. You are trying to figure out what I see as having caused Chandler to leave, and how you might be able to do it better. Certainly a fair question. This is how I see her thinking as she decided to leave:

1. The newbie gets reverted.
2. The newbie does not receive any welcome Template on her talk page.
3. The newbie gets notified in a very cold and official voice that she is a "Promoter".
4. This cold and officious voice then strongly implied that the Newbie was posting here for commercial purposes when the word "Advertising" is conspicuously highlighted on her talk page.
5. The newbie gets reverted again.
6. The newbie is again told in a very cold and officious voice that she does not undertand what to her is this seemingly arcane and cryptic policy called "reliable source", a policy that usually takes newbies at least several hours to digest
7. Again the newbie is reverted by you.
8. She begins to feel exasperated in an environment that is totally alien to her, and so far as she knows, is filled with cops who will only revert her and tell her she is some kind of a cyber-criminal, when she knows she is not.
9. At this point she has had a total of 8 highly negative interactions with this cold and totally cryptic "official", all of her first five edits have been reverted, she has not yet received a single positive word of encouragement from anyone, so she bravely spends some significant time trying to figure out how to respond on your own talk page, and she reaches out to you, telling you exactly what her experience is at this point, essentially begging for help and at least a small ray of hope. She explains that she is under the impression that she will never be "verified" (by the first 10 edits) because none of her edits are being accepted.
10. The official responds in the same flat seemingly accusatory tone, seven hours later, and only after I started to try to save her from throwing in the towel. Your reply still does not reallly answer her question about how she can ever get her first ten edits accepted if all of her edits are being reverted, but only lists all of these pages that she has no idea what they are, suggesting that she try editing there, still the accusatory tone of the answer suggests that she is now "guilty" of this same type of "advocating for a cause", which is the only reason she came here,
11. She comes to the only logical conclusion that anyone in her position would come to. She concludes that she has been asked to pack her bags now before she gets in further "trouble". Still no welcome template, not a single kind word, no explanation that her first five edits still counted to her first 10, and no explanation as I gave her, how she actually could advocate for a cause in a sense, if she was able to report on properly cited things that added to the quality of an article, that might happen to also be aligned with her own perspective.

What did you expect? The outcome was almost 100% precictable from my perspective. Yes you followed policy to the letter, but that is what killed her. Scott P. (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Neil, when you adopt your "cop voice" you scare me too. The only reason I feel comfortable telling you all this here now, is because you responded to my emial plea in a non-cop way. Scott P. (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Scott P., I did not ask you for your personal recap as you've made your feelings quite clear. I asked you (twice) if you had any ideas how the wording could be changed while still getting the message across. Right now I think this is markedly superior than the mass of text you later added to the user's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion of what made her leave, I am entitled to mine. I thought you asked me why I thought she left. I told you. Now good night my friend, please.... Scott P. (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"Unfortunately there's only so much you can soft-peddle "Please stop doing that" or "You can't do that" before the message becomes meaningless. Dchandler735 was making advocacy edits but if you can come up with better wording to stop that, I'm all ears."

"I said if you had any ideas how the wording could be changed while still getting the message across, I would be happy to hear them."

Don't know how I can make it clearer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have now deleted my reply to this question of yours over at my own talk page, as you requested...Thanks, and I suspect that my little bru-ha-ha here is not easy on others too, besides myself. I apologize for this, and I thank you for all of your contributions to that discussion. Scott P. (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no good way to handle the firehose of Special:RecentChanges. Neil might have taken an hour to attempt to engage the user, but those of us who have tried that know the success rate is extremely small. Most new edits (that aren't vandalism) consist of puffery or promotion. Outside those categories, I rarely see edits as naive as those in question—sorry to be blunt, but it is hard to see how someone who might develop into a useful contributor could imagine that posting their thoughts into articles was appropriate. I confess that sometimes I just ignore misguided newbies because I'm busy off-wiki, and I know that someone else will notice and clean up. So I am also responsible for the cold reception, and the above shows that Scott is another with no ideas for what to do. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I remember that. Neils efforts were doomed from the start. Newbie with no wiki experience wants to edit stuff, thinks "ooooh, the 'pedia anyone can edit" and tells all her mates on bookfarce, twitter, linkedout, linkedin, linkedover, tinder, tander, tonder and instagram, then jumps in and writes just like she does on all those other sites, where you can write what you want to without any cares in the world. 'rules? c'mon, i'm just writin stuff widout any capitols or punchewatin or knowin about cap i's, it's just like any other public site eff off i'm doing no harm.'

Very difficult knowing what to do, and I made the value judgement about chandler at the time. (It was ... "No more time to be wasted on this one Neil") My initial wiki experience was not the best, and so I went away for years, and didn't get a ban or block until last year. That admin is a twit. This is "Teh Internetz", be careful out there, and perhaps take some time to learn the groundrules, newbies. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 09:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Even just explaining about how Wikipedia isn't the USpedia could have been a challenge with this user — an aspect Scottperry didn't address in his long message to the user. (Scott, I think you made very good clarifying points in that message, for instance the comparison to doctors, but concise is still king.) She'll post things like "Instead of thinking of something foreign people are now realizing this is happening right here in our own backyards."[6] (So much wrong with that sentence) and "On the bright side it is statistically proven that Teen Pregnancy has dropped over the last 5 years."[7] (Globally? I really doubt it.) But I think the biggest problem is that people from charitable organizations come to Wikipedia with a feeling of righteousness, and are highly offended when you call their contributions "adverts". Perhaps we should have a special warning template for non-commercial promotion, which really explains that you don't get to promote good causes here either. I think emphasizing that to the user, and acknowledging the worthiness of their intentions, might help with such newbies, Neil. Bishonen | talk 10:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. An actionable suggestion which I will take on board. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, your "linkedover, tinder, tander, tonder" commentary gave me the giggles. Thanks. Yes, there are far too many social networks out there. Flyer22 (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And "bookfarce"? LOL!! Flyer22 (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, so she was sent packing because of an over-abundance of spelling, grammar, punctuation, word-usage-errors and policy-ignorance errors in her first four edits. That thinking certainly has a somewhat reasonable ring to it, no doubt, but..... Why have a system where newbies seem to be used simply for backyard target-shooting-practice shenannigans? Is that fair to Chandler, or to Wikipedia itself? Why not simply be honest and set up a new policy about the special rules for Newbies?

Such a new policy could read something like this: Newbie Verification: New contributors who have 5 or more spelling, grammar, or word usage errors in their first 5 article-space edits will be banned for one year? Why not merely state simply and fairly what is required of Newbie editors, and at least let them know why they are being effectively banned from here?

Maybe now is the time to consider such a new policy that would clarify the true "entrance requirements"? If we had such a policy, I would bet many would carefully take it upon themselves to improve their writing quality, and their policy-knowledge over the course of that year, and then would be capable of writing truly good edits at first go upon their return, thus simplifying what is obviously now a very difficult and painful process for Newbies, and for peole trying to put out the fire-hose with another fire-type behavior of their own called Newbie Abuse, plain, simple, and clear to all? Scott P. (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And yes I know that the policy pages is where I should be making such a proposal, but there again, why not administer that process more fairly as well while you're at it? My last proposal was essentially gunned-down using procedural maneuvers, not fair and transparent reason and logic. Why would I want to go back there at all? Is it not true that in that place too, it has become a place where brute-force and censorship seem to prevail, and policy-newbies like myself are essentilly routinely gunned-down too, but in a much more sophisticated way, as is necessarily required when dealing with slightly more "seasoned" editors such as myself. Scott P. (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I notice you paid no attention at all to my post and my practical suggestion, Scottperry (indeed not even to my compliment to yourself). But when you're on a sarcasm roll I expect that can easily happen. I'm done here, it's too noisy. See you later, Neil. Bishonen | talk 12:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC).

Now continuing this discussion at my own talk page, as per Neil's request. Thanks Neil, and sorry about all of this, but I still do appreciate each of your edits. Scott P. (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Scott P., what requests? I made no request to move this discussion or for you to delete a reply. The "I have no idea what you're talking about" moments are getting more frequent... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Scott P., please stop emailing me. I have no idea what you're referring to and would prefer to communicate with you in public. Please provide diffs of these requests. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Very good Neil. That was exactly the type of reply I had fully expected. What has happened to Wikipedia in the last 6 years is shameful. Before 2009, what some call old fashioned common sense, and what I call Wisdom seemed to rule here. It was a place of light that seemed to be dominated by logic and reason. Whoever had the best sounding idea won. There was little or no maneuvering, secret communications seemed to be kept to a bare minimum, and certainly not the routine encouragement of "deulling" in order to dispose of the dead body of one's enemies. Now all with whom I speak that I would consider to be encyclopediasts tell me they have noticed a subtle degradation of Wikipedia itself from stem to stern. I say, this is because Machiavelli now rules here in Wisdom's sted.

No Neil, I don't really have any plans at all to get into a deull with you. I am not a good deuller, and would undoubtedly shoot myself in the foot. You all would gladly be my pall-bearers I am sure. Instead, I will now walk out of here on my own two feet, a bit bloodied up by my rough-housing friends I suppose, but still standing. Much to the dismay of Machiavelli I am sure. Good bye again for a good while I pray. May you all be so fortunate as to learn Machiavelli's greatest lesson which is simply that:

"Everyone who plays the Machiavelli-game ultimately, in the very end, only loses".

Scott P. (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Why can't you simply provide diffs of my supposed requests instead of going on completely irrelevant tangents? Seriously. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Equality before the law

That was Badmintonhist, probably stalking Roscelese. He uses the Rhode Island Educational Network to evade his block. I'm not sure if you were serious or sarcastic, but it did uncover the fact that the Cato Institute was being used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Unfortunately, I was being serious as I had no idea about the socking or the questionable source. All I saw was an effort to make the article adhere more closely to what the source was saying. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It did look good at the time if you didn't know the whole context. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Cato's back. [8] No idea about the editor's bona fides. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for calling my attention to Anupamsr/Cubancigar11's sockpuppetry. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)