Jump to content

User talk:NeilN/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:NeilN

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 22:37, 13 April 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Objections to Evolution

Neil - OK, so between 1612 and 1637 you've now seen that I did your previously mentioned "This needs to be worked out on the talk page" a few weeks before posting ... hope that helped a bit.

Privately, I'm not sure that guidance works in general. It's useable to sort out background some of the time, but the volume posters seem to be naturally of the short attention time, post-only, non-reading behavior, so not much discussion. Binksternet being an example -- deleted twice before any comment why, and talk post only after third ... and he's not added to article or discussion. That's part of the readership too so a good viewpoint to have, just not going to be part of work in TALK discussions I think. Markbassett (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Markbassett, silence does not imply consensus, especially when you're adding content contrary to Wikipedia policy. Binksternet gave you a succinct and accurate reason in the edit summary, "rv... no sense in adding an unclear paragraph with a fact tag." That's more than enough to keep the content out of the article, especially a good article. An agreement between you and one other editor doesn't change that. If the content is unsourced, it's unsourced. Wording can certainly be discussed after sources are provided. --NeilN talk to me 17:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, you look but do not see that content start date I guess. Eh, seems moot now, bye. Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring and discretionary sanctions

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

I have already written on ARTICLES TALK page. Why youre not discussing it there ? Not tata (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Because you are very likely to be blocked as yet another IAC sock/meatpuppet. --NeilN talk to me 07:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Link deleted in "Translation" article

Hello Neil:

I'd like to ask you to reconsider the deletion of the link I included recently, for the following reasons:

- The link takes people to a comprehensive glossary of Translation Terms. - Many of these terms are not yet explained in this article or in other Wikipedia articles. - There is no other link to a similar glossary, and as far as I know, after doing the appropriate research, there is no other glossary as complete as this one (in this field), and in my opinion, not as good. - At the end of the Glossary there is a list of references used to compile the glossary. Some of these references are very recent, academic and are not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Specially those of Anthony Pym, Mona Baker, Lachat, and Beeby, Ensinger and Presas, deserve to be quoted although that would require editing the body of the article. - There aren't so many external links at the end of that article. I have seen articles with much more links and even with very similar material.

Thanks, I'd like to know what you think.

186.107.36.37 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Link edited: http://www.sinclavos.cl/transgloss.php

Hello. My initial check left me with the impression that the site was just translating some terms. I see now that it's also defining terms used in the area of translation. I've undone my revert. --NeilN talk to me 18:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Neil. Thanks for your work and understanding. Have a nice week.

186.107.58.82 (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Neil, re: this reversion, I reported their link to the spam noticeboard yesterday, so fingers crossed. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks. This shows no presence of the link right now. --NeilN talk to me 19:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal blogs

You cited a rule regarding self-published materials, but the key word in that citation is "largely." The rest of the section reads "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." We published a book at Gunderson Dettmer on how to structure VC funds--see http://www.gunder.com/about/publications. Did you even research beforehand whether I am an expert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallacrw (talk • contribs)

@Wallacrw: I note you said "we". I don't see your name anywhere on the page you linked to and there's no reason to make an exception for your personal blog. And, as an "expert" on venture capital, you should be aware of what conflict of interest is. --NeilN talk to me 20:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I actually don't see any conflict here other than what would always apply with Wikipedia links: I wrote helpful info, and I'd like people to read it. In that sense, I do have an interest in the link, but it doesn't conflict with the interests of Wikipedia, which is sharing authoritative info. Would you care to explain the conflict you see here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallacrw (talk • contribs) 21:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Wallacrw: You are adding links to your own personal blog which helps promote you and your views. Pretty simple. Similar to a VC adding links to an article on a company they've invested in which lead to "helpful" views on the company. --NeilN talk to me 21:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
So is the issue who made the edit or the citation itself? You've completely changed your reasoning now; just looking for some consistency in this kangaroo court... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallacrw (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Wallacrw: Perfectly consistent. Your blog is not a reliable source and you have a conflict of interest. --NeilN talk to me 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Jill Kelley

Neil

Please understand that TParis seems to have a suspicious motivation, and it's ironic that I noticed he's called every editor a PR agent or a relative of the subject. The new edits I made included the reference from a national media article, detailing the former appointments and positions. It's as ridiculous as not acknowledging that Bush was a former President. I find TParis to be abusing this page and harassing editors continuously. Can you please allow the 1250 characters remain that have been on this page for over a year -with corrected grammer and facts by numerous editors. I find it unecssary and inappropriate to remove all those characters that have been there over a year, including the newest addition of her former appointments which is significant piece of information that should be listed on a wiki page Thank you for understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewstokyo (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Chewstokyo: What I see are three experienced editors - TheRedPenOfDoom, TParis and myself - trying to keep a neutral point of view in the article. IP editors and editors with few edits have stuffed the lead with the subject's POV. If you disagree, the place to discuss this is Talk:Jill Kelley. --NeilN talk to me 22:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Quelle surprise --NeilN talk to me 22:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Problematic editing going at the Sex offender article and related articles

I'm probably going to need your help with this and this matter. It's about two "new editors" (ViperFace (talk · contribs) and Noterie (talk · contribs)) popping up to edit the same relatively inactive articles, with one of them (ViperFace) engaging in noticeable POV-pushing at various articles. They want me to believe that Noterie simply popped up to edit the same relatively inactive articles as ViperFace. The only articles so far that Noterie edited that ViperFace has not yet edited are the Hebephilia and Ephebophilia articles, and that is only after I told ViperFace that I would not tolerate his type of editing at the Child sexual abuse and Child pornography articles. If they are not WP:Sockpuppets or WP:Meatpuppets, this is a strange coincidence. I'm also going to alert Herostratus and Legitimus to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please conduct the investigation, I have no connection to other user. Also if you wish you should see the talk page of [sex offender]. I'm being accused of POV-pushing for adding critical views that have been presented on several sex offender related articles, but I maintain that my edits are covered with sufficient references. I don't think that editing articles covering controversial topics "too keenly" should be reason to automatically flag POV-pushing and bias. Since accusations are thrown out, I might as well accuse Flyer22 of POV-oppressing. ViperFace (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, please check the history of the talk page to see where we are at. Some of my messsages got deleted by a bot. I don't know why. ViperFace (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Your messages didn't get deleted by a bot. Flyer22 (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Lots of new editing going on in these articles. I'm guessing this IP is Noterie. --NeilN talk to me 12:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No. The list of things I saw when I clicked on "this IP" are not mine.Noterie (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this really how things work around here? Accusations fly, both ViperFace and I say to run whatever check we're being threatened with, but no check happens and Flyer22 (and whomever else she recruits into the discussion) just assume the result of the check never run?Noterie (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You are asking us to believe that it's a coincidence that there is all of this sudden editing at these different, relatively inactive sex offender articles. Yes, these articles were relatively inactive before this sudden editing. What has caused it, if not WP:Sockpuppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry? A big commotion on the news, and news affecting people from different regional IP locations? NeilN and I are far too experienced at editing Wikipedia, and have seen this type of thing over and over again, to believe that all of these are coincidences. WP:Assume good faith does not mean "play stupid." Flyer22 (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, NeilN, that IP is very likely ViperFace instead of Noterie, if going by ViperFace's expansion style and Noterie's WP:Copyediting style. Flyer22 (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
ViperFace, if that's you, you need to remember to log in. --NeilN talk to me 13:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, ViperFace claimed the IP at the Sex offender talk page. Given the different editing styles of ViperFace and Noterie (though editing styles can be faked), I am willing to believe that they are two different editors. Flyer22 (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN The IP is mine like I claimed on the [sex offender] talk page. I have forgotten to log in on few occasions, I try to pay more attention to that. Also I don't like the tone this discussion took with Flyer. IMO he is implicitly asserting that I am some kind of NAMBLA member for editing those articles. I think I have used pretty reliable sources, but I assume that Flyer didn't even check them, but instead started to accuse me of lying and using double account or something, merely because I have added majority opinion of academics and treatment professionals, which contradicts with the majority opinion of general public. ViperFace (talk)

ViperFace, I am female, and I explained on the Sex offender talk page what my problems with your edits are. Your characterization of my problems with your edits are off-base and a sign of your bias on the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeated bad edits with self made non referenced material by the same user

Hi, on 15:34, 26 November 2014‎, you removed the repeated bad edits, probably vandalism of the page Afghana by the user 80.56.86.118, a user who continued his bad edits despite being informed about it. Now it seems he is doing it again under the name of Work number1987. It seems to be the same user because the edits are more or less the same i.e. self made erroneous non referenced information written completely out of context to the material on page Afghana in poorly written English and bad grammar. Giving this person the benefit of the doubt, I think he is mistaking Afghana with an unknown figure of his own family as per his family history. He wants to add info about this historically unknown figure without any references to the page Afghana.

Please look into the matter and providing protection to the said page might also be advisable as he has been doing these edits despite explanation for the last few weeks.
Thanks Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC).
@Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan: Not sure that Work number1987 is the IP as Work number1987 edits differently. However I have reverted their change as it was unsourced. --NeilN talk to me 16:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Fallon edit that was deleted.

The comment about Jimmy Fallon butchering the English language is neutral because it is objective. He constantly uses terms such as "so fun" often more than once an episode. His use of English is a fact and objective. Please restore the comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.23.205 (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Butchering the English language" is your opinion. Another opinion is that he uses catchphrases and colloquialisms. --NeilN talk to me 04:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC re-worded for clarity

FYI, I have reworded the RFC on the wikiproject Buddhism page if you are interested. Dorje108 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dorje108. It's probably not a good idea to change the wording of an RFC after there are responses but if no one objects I guess you're fine. I think my original objection still stands. You could have asked that these types of sources not be automatically excluded from being considered reliable. Being considered reliable automatically prompts the question, "for what?". This is nicely illustrated by the info you're asked to provide when posting to WP:RSN:
1. Source. The book or web page being used as the source.
  • If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc.
  • If it's an online source, please link to it. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].

2. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. For example: [[Article name]].

3. Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".

--NeilN talk to me 22:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Neil. I agree that your wording is more clear. I may propose to the group that I reword the RFC. I doubt there will be any objections. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI, please see proposal for new RFCs here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Wording_of_RFC. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Afghana page

Yes alright thank you for the neutral point of views, must stay untouched with sources and a Master Wikipedia. According to the timeline Afghana died in Indian Gandhara, nobody has filled in that Afghana died in India. Did Afghana died in Afghanistan or in India around 920 BC. Qais Abdur Rashid has claimed to be a descendent. Their are many others of that place to claim descendents as well. There are also some Indians to claim to be descendents at Gandhara timeline. I don't want to ad information from my own familyline because Afghana is in a Indian timeline and not in an Afganistan or Pakistani time line. Afghanistans and Pakistans are mistaken an Indian timeline and they want to ad their timeline for Afghana. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan must be coming from Afganistan or Pakistan and is aiming for a Pathan Islamic timeline for a Jewish king that has an Indian timeline. Ofcourse it must be of a neutral point view with reliable sources, books and media but the timeline is Afghana of India and not from Pakistan or Afghanistan, the claims Qais Abdur Rashid are seperate of king Afghana. But it stays untouched ofcourse Afghana now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs)

Hi Work number1987. I don't quite understand the points you're trying to make so I'll leave this general advice: If you want to add/change something in the article please provide a reliable source for the change. If you don't think something is right in the article, and it's unsourced, take it out. If you don't think something is right in the article, and it has sources, start a discussion on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 22:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Neiln, thank you I understand now, so no changes can be made without sources. There is nothing Wiki Users can't do without valid sources others it will be count as an act of vandalism. You can only see if people make changes when it is done it will be counted as vandalism, when people don't know nothing and don't have sources it is not true. But of you are an South Asian for the Afghana page like me you always know the true story Neiln, you have normal Wiki User and you Neiln are a very good Wiki User, so you can see the timeline of Afghana, ofcourse nobody can touch the timeline of Afghana but can't you see when Aghana died and where? Don't you see information is missing? Can't user NeilN see where Afghana died and maybe he see any effort in it? I just would not to dare touch anything on the Afghana page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs)

  • Neil, re your comment higher up on the page: I think it's become clear now, from the edits to User talk:Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan, that 80.56.86.118 and Work number1987 are the same person. There doesn't seem to be any avoidance of scrutiny involved, just newness. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC).
    • Looks like you're right, Bish. Work number1987, I don't know why you're changing another editor's comments but please stop. Adding/changing article content without sources is not vandalism in that it is usually not a deliberate attempt to damage articles. However repeatedly attempting to add unsourced information is seen as disruptive as facts like the ones you're trying to add must be published in reliable sources. The article provides two possible burial places for Afghana and provides sources. Do you have another published source (not your own beliefs or education) we can use to add more information? --NeilN talk to me 05:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


Afghana Jewish King topics who are Indian related, The guardian article saids that Indians are also close to Afghana DNA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/17/israel-lost-tribes-pashtun

The Jewish virtual library in the link information: They had found a manusscript 1000 years ago in present Afghanistan but it was still then in India, does this count as a reliable source, it also saids in the 7th and 8th century Persian Jewish settles in India (Now Afghanistan, North Pakistan

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Afghanistan.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Town School for Boys

Hi NeilN. I'm sorry I'm not posting my message in the proper form, as I am new to editing and do not know how to leave the message in the forms like the ones below. Anyway you deleted some of my edits. I added a citation but it is not saving it for some reason. Here it is as I would like you to put my edits back. - BitFarmer ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by BitFarmer (talk • contribs) 08:08, 7 December 2014

Hi, I noticed your message and moved it down to here. On a talk page, you can click "new section" at the top, then enter a subject line, and your message, then add a signature consisting of a space then four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the last line of the comment. It looks like this relates to Town School for Boys which you have edited. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Pune

Hello NeilN thank you for getting in touch. I have redone the changes that you have done and added references to buttress the point that I was trying to make. I believe that this is in accordance with Wikipedia standards Harshavardhan deuskar (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 19:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sangram Singh

Hello NeilN

Thank you for telling me what you think. But I am from Sangram Singh's office and I even have the official email sent to him from the office of Dr Amit Kumar Agrawal, Deputy Commissioner cum Returning Officer, Rohtak Parliamentary Constituency, Rohtak (Haryana). If you want I can email it to your email id. I am just trying to let people know about Sangram Singh being a part of this awareness campaign. I did attach the news Links related to it too. Later on he went on to host a Show for a Indian News channel Live India called "Tau & Bhau". The youtube links of that show I was attaching for you to see, plus get to their website links/ wikipedia page too. But before I could do that you Undid my Update. Please check again the links that i posted. I am just giving the audiences the career update of Sangram Singh. Sangram Singh (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivraj1978 (talk • contribs)

Sir can you check the links and update the information according to your views. As I posted all the original links but I dont know how better to rephrase it. You may check the links and rewrite the content but please do not completely remove it as it is a career update.Sangram Singh (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivraj1978 (talk • contribs)

Hi Shivraj1978, a couple things:
  1. If you work for Singh's office then you have a clear conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly. Please carefully read the guidelines I posted on your talk page.
  2. If you are not proficient enough in English to rephrase the source text in your own words then add the link to the article's talk page and ask other editors to help. Under no circumstances should you be pasting copyrighted content into Wikipedia pages.
--NeilN talk to me 19:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Does misusing links to copyrighted work fall under that? Obotlig ☣ interrogate 09:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Obotlig. What do you mean by misusing links? Obviously you can't link to copyright violations but did you mean something else? --NeilN talk to me 13:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
No, that's what I meant. I was not asking whether you "can" link to them or not, however. :) Obotlig ☣ interrogate 17:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Jewish King Afghana ment for Pathans of Hindu descent and ancient India

Afghana Jewish King was born around 1000 BC where Islam and Christianity did not excist. When he was send by King Saul and his father Irmia (Jeremiah) he had to travel Asia and finally ended at one of the places of the North West Indian Kingdoms where the Hindu Pathans once lived now Afghanistan. The number of Hindu Pathans are in India as well but it seems that the Pathan etnicity has given to all Islamic people of North Pakistan and Afghanistan. The story of Aghana only excist in an Indian storyline and a time that muslim people did not excist. Second Jewish people of European descent who have lived in Afghanistan and Pakistan had to made the storyline of Afghana related to the Muslims who already lived there while discriminating the Jews who where married with the Hindu Pathans. That a muslim of Pathan descent can claim to be descent of Afghana so can a Hindu Pathan because Afghana only escist in Gandhara. Many Afghans steal Indian Jewish stories of North Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is full of Asian relics and only existed because England had devided India. Second those Afghans used to be Pathans Hindu to the late 14 century and the Afghan royal family used to be Parsi converted to Islam. Second Afghans and Pakistanis are mistaken to be Jewish that actually Hindu Pathans are the descendents or real Afghana blood line.

There are topics who are Indian related, The guardian article saids that Indians are also close to Afghana DNA because they have been Pathan as well. The Jewish virtual library in the link information: They had found a manusscript 1000 years ago in present Afghanistan but it was still then in India, does this count as a reliable source, it also saids in the 7th and 8th century Persian Jewish settles in India (Now Afghanistan, North Pakistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/17/israel-lost-tribes-pashtun

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Afghanistan.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Work number1987: It would be easier if you write the text of the exact change you want and the source you want to use. --NeilN talk to me 17:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
You speak ESL? I couldn't make anything out in what the troll, excuse me, qualified and earnest editor, typed. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 17:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Afghana or Avagana Father Irmia (Jeremiah) Born Jerusalem 1000BC Died Ghor Province Afghanistan, alternate version; buried in Zhob Sulaiman Mountains Pakistan Religion Judaism

This are the links who I going to use

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Afghanistan.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara

The text must be changed in this because of the Indian time period where Afghana ruled, died and buried are two different things, Afghana can die in Ghor Province but had a preference to be buried at that place Zhob Sulaiman Mountains that was Gandhara, there is no alternate version because he was buried somewhere else then Ghor.

Afghana or Avagana Father Irmia (Jeremiah) Born Jerusalem 1000BC Died (Greater India) present Ghor Province Afghanistan, buried at (Gandhara) present Zhob Sulaiman Mountains Pakistan Religion Judaism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Work number1987: The Jewish virtual library does not have that information and that sentence in Gandhara is unsourced (Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other articles). --NeilN talk to me 18:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This really seems spurious on the face of things. User:911, excuse me, User:Work number1987, is pushing some kind of agenda content and not even explaining why, or cannot or is feigning the inability to express ideas in English while trying to add content to the English Wikipedia, and is being insistent about it. I know we are supposed to assume good faith but this is either a mockery is a mockery of a mockery to my eyes. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 18:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
@Obotlig: Working on non-Western-focused articles sometimes means you work with editors who have English as a second or third language. You try your best to accommodate, as long as article content is not degraded. --NeilN talk to me 18:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes in Afghana page if possible because of Indian timeline

Afghana or Avagana Father Irmia (Jeremiah) Born Jerusalem 1000BC Died Ghor Province Afghanistan, alternate version; buried in Zhob Sulaiman Mountains Pakistan Religion Judaism

This are the links who I going to use

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Afghanistan.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara

The text must be changed in this because of the Indian time period where Afghana ruled, died and buried are two different things, Afghana can die in Ghor Province but had a preference to be buried at that place Zhob Sulaiman Mountains that was Gandhara, there is no alternate version because he was buried somewhere else then Ghor.

Afghana or Avagana Father Irmia (Jeremiah) Born Jerusalem 1000BC Died (Greater India) present Ghor Province Afghanistan, buried at (Gandhara) present Zhob Sulaiman Mountains Pakistan Religion Judaism


Other changes of the first Afghana page with the link because Hindu Pathans als excist also in India who have left from North Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pathans of Hindu descent also believes in Afghana story and married Persian Jewish. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/17/israel-lost-tribes-pashtun

Afghana or Avagana is considered in Pashtun folklore a tribal chief or prince of Bani Israel (Israelite) origin and a progenitor of modern-day Pashtuns, The largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and second largest in Pakistan. The ethnonym "Afghan" is believed to derive from his name

must be changes in to this

Afghana or Avagana is considered in Indian Pathan Mythology or Pashtun folklore a tribal chief or prince of Bani Israel (Israelite) origin and a progenitor of modern-day Pashtuns, The largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and second largest in Pakistan and a very small Pathan group of Hindu descent in Afghanistan, Pakistan & India. The ethnonym "Afghan" is believed to derive from his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Work number1987: I've addressed your first paragraph already. Please read the preceding section. The Guardian source does not mention Afghana. Any conclusions using this source would be synthesis. --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheryl Cole

Perhaps this was unneeded, but it's certainly not disputed, hence why after four requested moves, the article it still named Cheryl Cole.  — ₳aron 14:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Four requested moves = disputed, no? --NeilN talk to me 14:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
No, not when it keeps being opposed by the majority every time. Just because one person thinks it should be changed...  — ₳aron 14:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@Calvin999: One person? That's not what the discussions indicate... --NeilN talk to me 14:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Two out of the four nominators are vandals/IP users who are just irregular contributors/fans who want the name changed. Everyone else who understands that Cheryl Cole is still her most commonly associated name gets that it shouldn't be changed. Fact is, people keep voting to oppose because changing it wouldn't be reflected of what people search for when searching for her. That it also why there is a three month interim period of all requests to change the name of the article being denied. If everyone agreed that it should be changed, then four requests to move wouldn't have been denied. Just because her legal name changes, doesn't mean it changes with her.  — ₳aron 14:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@Calvin999: "Two out of the four nominators are vandals/IP users..." -> Excellent demonstration of WP:AGF there. "Everyone else who understands that Cheryl Cole is still her most commonly associated name gets that it shouldn't be changed" -> Yes, yes, ignore all the other Supports. --NeilN talk to me 14:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh please, you haven't had to deal with the vandal. Leave all the WP stuff out. Yes there are some supports, but not enough to change it. Fact is, people still Google "cheryl cole" above everything else.  — ₳aron 14:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@Calvin999: I did not know that WP:COMMONNAME changed from "(as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)" to "(as determined by what we guess people Google)". --NeilN talk to me 14:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Earth

You can't say "the Earth", just say "Earth". You would not say "the Venus" etc. Jodosma (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Already posted here. --NeilN talk to me 19:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
This linguistic exception has already been discussed at the Earth talk page. One editor noted that while extraterrestrials might refer to our planet as "Earth" (just another planet waiting to be conquered), we, the residents of our planet, mostly call it "the Earth". It is the only Earth we have, after all. Grandma (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Santa Baby

Hello Neil ,

Its great to see you are here for help other editors . I edited Santa Baby page for few additions of it for 2 times but i saw you always revert back my changes .

Here is the source link for you http://theconcordian.com/2007/12/cynthia-basinet-ten-years-of-being-santas-baby/ About Text that you referenced " Cynthia's version has influenced nearly every version recorded after 2000 "  !

Also we found some one removed Cynthia basinet page Noble Peace prize nomination .Here is th references for it . http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeaceWomen_Across_the_Globe

Now Help me in few things such as you mentioned in a comment info box was not necessary because you did not found a Chart on "Cynthia version"

Tell me what are the Basic requirements for published a info Box and what kind of references you need for it ? Now Am i able to revert back my changes for Santa Baby page else what kind of references you need for that !

Looking forward for your reply . Thank you ≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by CynthiaB2014 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@CynthiaB2014: As far as I can see, the Concordian source has nothing about "Cynthia's version has influenced nearly every version recorded after 2000". The Peace Prize nomination is not notable - the committee awarding the actual prize takes no notice of such nominations. I also see you are part of the organization that nominated you. Lastly, based on the present version of the article, your version must have at least charted to get an infobox. --NeilN talk to me 20:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Attraction to transgender people

Please stop to rollback my editions, i'm patriotic and my country is not gay!. 186.212.216.71 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

See homophobia. --NeilN talk to me 21:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Earth

Can you really not see the difference between earth and Earth. "Earth" is the name of a planet in our solar system. "The earth", or "earth" is the ground we walk upon, Would you say "the Venus", or "the Mercury". If we are talking about the ground we walk upon then it is "earth", people living on Mercury would call it "mercury" and people living on Venus would call it "venus" unless it begins a sentence, when it may be "The earth upon which I was walking", but " I was walking on Earth" means that I was walking on the surface of the planet which we have named "Earth". Jodosma (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jodosma: Right now, I don't care. I do care that the article uses consistent terminology and not "Earth" for one half and "the Earth" for the other. Half of your ongoing changes was undone by I'm your Grandma. who probably didn't notice you did two consecutive edits. --NeilN talk to me 21:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
There is only one right answer there, to use the capitalization and implication of the definite article exactly as Jodosma stated. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 19:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@Obotlig: Talk:Earth#To_.22the.22_or_not_to_.22the.22. Have fun! :-) --NeilN talk to me 19:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeonmi Park

Hi Neil, I just updated the photo on Yeonmi's page to a version without my watermark. I hope it's alright now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juddweiss (talk • contribs) 22:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Juddweiss: Thank you! Great photo! --NeilN talk to me 22:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Provide Valid interviews for Mandela

You continue to engage in war over edits and it is you sir that does not comply with Wikipedia rules in regards to editing. None of the links provide is valid and none can show an interview or actual quotes from Mandela. This is not a gossip site or a liberal vs. conservative war. In the name of Academia please do a better job. You also violated the three edits rule. After reviewing you editorial history it appears that you do have a "gay" agenda instead of a "fact finding" agenda.Rfrf101 (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Rfrf101

@Rfrf101: I'm not the one who removed properly sourced info three times from a good article without bothering to discuss on the talk page. Your "review" of my editing history is about on par with your understanding of sourcing. --NeilN talk to me 23:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@Rfrf101:; as one of the two editors that ensured that the Nelson Mandela article attained GA status, I can confirm that NeilN's actions were appropriate here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

White Privilege

"White privilege" is a theory used to explain racial disparities.

A theory is simply one potential explanation. A theory has NOT been empirically proven.

Hence, to maintain objectivity the word "alleged" or a similar such word MUST be included in the "white privilege" explanation.

As it reads, the existence of "white privilege" is not in dispute.

The explanation of "white privilege" for racial disparities is in dispute, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.7.36.191 (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"The term white privilege (or white skin privilege) is an alleged phenomenon..." makes little sense. Terms aren't alleged phenomena. "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges..." is correct as that's how the term is used. If you disagree, please use the article's talk page to continue the conversation. --NeilN talk to me 14:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Some unknown people are editing and vandalizing Indian articles (latest being Goa)

Dear Sir,

My Apologies to you and Wikipedia. the Goa article was fine and in good condition till 2012-13. all data was true and were based on facts. The Portuguese editor whoever he may be, is unnecessarily editing the article based on his local facts. I appeal to you to kindly go back in time and compare the 2012-13 article with the current edit of Portuguese explorer editor and find out the truth for your self. if any changes needs to be done it has to be done by an indian, who understands this issue more then anyone else.

best thing is to revert the article back to 2012 version and to lock it, until a Govt person comes and rectifies all the issues.

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty3594 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Qwerty3594: Unfortunately you show little understanding of how Wikipedia works. Articles are not locked to your preferred version. Any editor in good standing can edit any article they wish to. And we're certainly not going to wait until a "Govt person comes and rectifies all the issues." No editor, no matter who they claim to be, can control article content. You'll have to actually discuss and analyze the changes on the talk page. This does not mean asking for the article to be reverted to a two year old version over and over again. --NeilN talk to me 15:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, for understanding, Ok I agree to you that all editors have the right to edit here, but SIR, a person living in another country (Portugal Explorer Editor) cannot edit or make changes as per his wishes of another countrys article. Its not fair to add what one feels to another country article. And yes I will abide by all rules, and also respect the same.

Sir, the User:Portugal Explorer Editor keeps undoing and vandalizing the revert you had made in the article. Sir I request you to revert it back to its previous form and to take strict action against the User: Portugal Explorer Editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty3594 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

regardsQwerty3594 (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Qwerty3594: You still don't understand. "a person living in another country (Portugal Explorer Editor) cannot edit or make changes as per his wishes of another countrys article" - yes they can. Wikipedia does not care where you live as long as the content you're adding/changing meets content policies and guidelines. And there's no guideline that states that natives of a country get to control that country's article. That being said, PEE has been reported for edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 15:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

hI,

Change the current contents only if there is a reference that contradicts the present information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugal Editor Exploration (talk • contribs)

@Portugal Editor Exploration: When you get back from your week-long block, please use the talk page to discuss and defend your changes. WP:BRD would be a helpful read. --NeilN talk to me 15:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

New Deal

Regarding the New Deal, I would like to know why you left a portion of the entry that clearly invoked facts that were entirely fraudulent. Specifically, with regards to the content I attempted to remove, the content makes the claim that there were 70 non-southern Democratic senators and fully 270 non-southern Democratic House members in the 1935 Congress. This is completely wrong. From my reading of the membership composition among Democrats in the 1935 Congress, there were barely 50 Democrats in the Senate who did not qualify as being from the South at the time, if even that many. In turn, there were barely 200 Democrats who were non-Southern at the time in the House. So I found the content you restored as being factually incorrect, which is why I removed it entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Saiyan Master (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Super Saiyan Master. If you look at the edit summaries [1] and the note on your talk page, you'll see why your deletion is being reversed. You need to at least give a brief explanation in the edit summary about why you're deleting content. --NeilN talk to me 19:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Breaking Bad

Regarding the Breaking Bad page, I attempted to install an entry outlining the retired program's notoriety among viewers, referring to its rating as listed at IMDB, as was augmented with a clear indirect link to the page itself. I could have provided a direct link proving specifically, per IMDB, the expired program's viewer acclaim exceeding that of all of the other listed 858 nationally broadcast and syndicated television series going back to 1951. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Saiyan Master (talk • contribs)

@Super Saiyan Master: Once again, look at the edit summaries. [2] - "Not sourced properly.", "Imdb is not a reliable source and wikipedia doesn't use Imdb content unless really necessary" --NeilN talk to me 19:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Marhc vandal

Hey Neil, with regard to this vandal, I'm not sure what other info you have on them, but I've been calling them the "Marhc vandal" because their edit summaries are typically meaningless, but occasionally he would misspell "March" and it seemed an easy identifier. See also:

Lemme know if you gots any info or questions. And thanks for sending them to AIV. I stepped away from my desk for a little bit, else I would have participated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for the info. They hit an article on my watchlist so I took a look at their other edits and had to chase them around for a little bit. --NeilN talk to me 20:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith a fatal mistake

Assuming good faith was a fatal mistake I made when I started out writing. There are people out there for them who bank on other user's good faith to perpetrate their sentimental biases over the entire philosophy of free and fair information and knowledge. For the people out there a knowledge is free as long as it doesn't hurt their religious sentiments and biases.Thinkmaths (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: WP:AGF isn't really optional here as it's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. In practice, it means don't make accusations against another editor or a group of editors without providing specific diffs to back up the accusation. --NeilN talk to me 06:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN: There are some things which are so obvious that I need not even point them out. In fact, sufficient evidence can be obtained from the talk page of the article to accuse a particular editor of biases. There is a reason why the page of Islamic terrorism is not subjected to such scrutiny in context to the usage and validity of the term while so much of noise is made about it on the talk page of Saffron terror, and it is obvious enough for me who has already experienced these kind of people on the Hindi Wikipedia article. I care about what's true, and I am going to protect whatever's true.Thinkmaths (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Thinkmaths: Actually, Talk:Islamophobia and its 17 archives makes Talk:Saffron terror look like a walk in the park. --NeilN talk to me 06:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN: Oh, wait, this is just the beginning.Thinkmaths (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
There must be some rule about threatening to troll. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 18:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Obotlig: I read that as Thinkmaths is expecting more editors pushing a POV to post to the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 18:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"halv timme" Swedish Language. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 03:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

With less than ten edit in all from Thinkmaths and jumping right on a contentious discussion to claiming "when I started writing"... this is an obvious sock account! With the latest IP edit on the talk page... I think I have a fair guess about the sockmaster, but I can't take it to SPI just now because the evidence I know is from real life, the IP revealed just enough info. That talk page section is better collapsed, there is no positive outcome going to come from that brawl. --AmritasyaPutraT 05:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@AmritasyaPutra: [3] Special:Contributions/14.139.128.14 - NQ (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@AmritasyaPutra: What gossiping about me, behind my back? I am Thinkmaths, I am no one's sock. And why do you think I have less than 10 edits in all. Go and check the Hindi version of Saffron terror, it is all my work. Isn't it a splendid piece of work? And why do you say that the talk page has collapsed, why not just say that your plan has collapsed? So many interesting arguments and counter arguments have been made there and the talk page reflects a lot about everyone who has ever been involved in a discussion there. Future contributors might look at the talk page would be able to get a glimpse of who we might be in real life.Thinkmaths (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN:See, did I not tell you that you only had to wait. Do you still think the discussion is like a walk in the park?Thinkmaths (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
fyi. --AmritasyaPutraT 07:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihar Brahmins..

Please change the page bhumihar... Bhumihar Brahmins are one of the branches of Kanyakubj brahmins. Go to .. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyakubja_Brahmins. But wikipedia says that they are not brahmins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anant57 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anant57: The article already has, "The Bhumihars claim Brahmin status, and are therefore, also called Bhumihar Brahmins." --NeilN talk to me 16:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Its too funny.. Wikipedia says Bhumihar Brahmins are known by this name just because they claim that they are brahmin. That means if I clain that I'm President of India I will be known as Pesident Anant. Wikipedia is giving wrong information at the page Bhumihar. The real fact is that bhumihar brahmins are one if the branches of kanyakubj brahmin. Please change the contents of the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anant57 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anant57: No, sorry. There is ample discussion on the article's talk page on this and you can make your case there. --NeilN talk to me 17:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this needs to be addressed

Kautilya3 continues to allege canvassing on AfD page instead of taking it to the right place(ANI) despite being warned on his talk page that it is considered attack to repeat it indiscriminately. He alleged WP:FACTION before and was warned for that too by Sarvajna. I feel the accused editor is being baited. It is not warranted on the AfD page and Kautilya3 has been politely pointed about this but the behavior continues. --AmritasyaPutraT 01:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Added a note here. --NeilN talk to me 02:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks NeilN. --AmritasyaPutraT 04:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

From before

I detailed the issues at Talk:Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor). I've gone through Parloff's misguided arguments, rebuked Sullivan's manipulation claims and Toobin's lack of research. I've highlighted Cintron's invalid arguments based on error which ignores the actual problem McCulloch made. Lastly, Rudy Giuliani's comments of support were turned to criticism and I highlight how it is an issue. Cwobeel's additions actually gloss over the reality of the situation and provides no insight or balance. In my own arguments on Toobin and Cintron I give two very clear points of valid criticism that does not rely on malice. Sorry for the delay, life calls. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your role as editor is neither to question the validity of opinions, nor to question the motivations of those holding these opinions, all you need to be concerned about is reporting,. without bias, the significant opinions published in reliable sources, in proportion to their prominence. You argumentation is simply outside of the remit of Wikipedia. That is WP:NPOV 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@ChrisGualtieri: I have to say that I largely agree with Cwobeel. You seem to be refuting the opinions of experts with your own analysis. That veers towards the territory of WP:NOR. If you wish to challenge these opinions you can either a) find other sources that contradict the opinions, b) show the sources are not considered reliable, or c) show these opinions are the minority viewpoint. --NeilN talk to me 16:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
No. I sourced the parts that would be controversial. I presented the evidence and provided context. In the first case, I mean seriously - I can source that like nothing, do I need to point out how an accusation of bias and manipulation in a BLP is an issue? I do not think we are in dispute that criticism exists, but most of it is in gross disproportion to actual fact. I did apologize for the Godwin's law reference, but Adolf Hitler is far more NPOV than McCullough's page. Since we cannot possibly disagree that there is overwhelming bulk of negative sources on Hitler, why would McCullough's page be given such wide latitude when counter information exists.Here and here and here. The whole fact that the state law was not changed and this is a criminal not civil case means that on inspection, Wilson could have challenged any conviction because of the state law. The Garner ruling likely does not apply and the state law remains on the books, McCullough deserves criticism for having the grand jury ignore the state law and make said request before deliberations. I make a fuller argument on the page, but the criticism exists - the criticism is just not well-founded. A source of real criticism is ignored in favor of a far weaker complaint. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is a real problem. Not having these basics in place will mean that our discussions will not be productive. If you have an issue with content policies, best would be to bring these to the attention of the community, rather than argue against them in content disputes. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

but most of it is in gross disproportion to actual fact - To put it bluntly, though. We are not here to question what sources say, or if the preponderance of sources got something wrong. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

As for the St. Louis public radio articles, nothing is stopping you from adding relevant passages to the article. But deleting significant opinions is not an option. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

thank you

Just wanted to thank you for warning user Tarnhall. I have noticed on too many occasions that he's trying to jeopardise The Danse Society page at his own amusement, as he is clearly Gilmartin that left the band in January.

May I please suggest some more edits? I have noticed that on the official website of the band, which is reliable since 2011, more edits should be added but I would prefer not to do it myself to avoid confusion due to the repeated vandalism. Their website suggests that the lineup has currently Sam Bollands at Keyboards and Jack Cooper at the bass, while Paul Nash (founder), Maethelyiah (member since the reformation) and Iain Hunter remain in the lineup. Their website is still being updated on a weekly basis since 2011 and it's here [1] Please have a look as the band are still in business and have now a new single out with a new album coming soon, which should be included on the Wiki page, but as I explained I would prefer not to edit myself and see what you think first.

Thank you JA Journalist astronomist (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ www.thedansesociety.com

Ans van Dijk dangerous Nazi women in the Netherlands during world war 2

An English wikipedia page about Nazi women Ans van Dijk during the second world war 2. I do find it an interesting topic for people who wants to know who could be a Nazi women in the Netherlands or in the German empire. Second she has done high treason on innocent Jewish families, making counts from 700 to 1000 to Auswitzch. Innocent people who where caught by this Nazi women who lived in the Netherlands. I mean these are innocent people lifes during world war 2 who head to live so many years and still now, could there be an English wikipedia page about this women Ans van Dijk or created.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/12/on-traitors-and-victims-the-ans-van-dijk-story/

http://www.annefrank.org/en/Subsites/Annes-Amsterdam/Timeline/After-the-war/1946-1949/1947/Betrayer-Ans-van-Dijk-sentenced-to-death/#!/en/Subsites/Annes-Amsterdam/Timeline/After-the-war/1946-1949/1947/Betrayer-Ans-van-Dijk-sentenced-to-death/

https://books.google.nl/books?id=XnMAAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=ans+van+dijk+nazi+women&source=bl&ots=neG0KLLo1E&sig=qsUcgwxr_dSDZ5Wwy5jYTynDM74&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=Os2VVOqxK87easOYgbgO&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ans%20van%20dijk%20nazi%20women&f=false

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 20 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Thank you so much this Nazi women has done so much harm to Jewish families in the Netherlands at Amsterdam but now there is a English wikipedia page, but it does not stands that she might be the one who knew Anne Frank family hiding place, that's also in the English sources, she might be the one who knew where Anna Frank's family was hiding and given to the Nazi, it's in the English sources, well she is at least a suspect for given false hiding adresses to Jewish families during world war 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

(Friendly neighbourhood page stalker) My major concern here is that of one of the sources cited. The "Occidental Observer". It appears to have a white supremacist agenda. The site is littered with anti-semitic and anti-black articles. The source talking about this wretched traitor (for that she certainly was) has an element of almost schienenfraud (I can never spell that excellent German word that conveys so much) that this was a Jew. I would be more comfortable if a different, more respectable source on this individual could be substituted. I am sure there are other sources that could be tapped. User:Kudpung,User:Diannaa sorry to disturb you but can you take a quick 5 mins checking the site? Is this a reliable source? You know how much I respect your knowledge. Regards all and happy holidays! Irondome (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I took the article content straight from the other one, pretty much, and it doesn't seem to be phrased in a negative manner. If there is a serious question about the source then we should definitely fact check it. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 22:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I hear you on that. However, my fear is that using extremist websites (their modus operandi can be very sophisticated) brings the project into potential disrepute. It may be a seemingly straightforward article, but with a sinister subtext within the context of the ideology of the site. ("See? the Jews worst enemies were their own" etc etc) That it agrees with the facts does not lessen its dubious veracity as a source I would argue. Cheers for getting back Irondome (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Almost any source on this topic is going to have a heavy bias but if there is a single source for the material and it is questionable maybe the article should be AfD? Obotlig ☣ interrogate 02:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Nah not AfD. It is a perfectly sound article and I would support it's retention. As I keep saying, its the NPOV of the source in question that disturbs me. It is a racist website. The Occidental Observer. Please take a look and note its contributors, especially Martin Webster, the onetime leader of the British neo- Nazi National Front (UK). Note that our own article on the O.O. is outdated source wise. The site seems to have become more extreme. (Check out its current offerings. "Are Jews whites?" is a sample of whats being carried at the moment) Does an extremist website holding extreme racist views be a RS? Your statement "almost any source on this topic is going to have a heavy bias" is questionable IMO. The only bias should be for the truth, both physical and ideologically NPOV. The occidental observer article may be light on direct attacks (I will re-read it, been a few hours), but it is hijacking history arguably to push an extremist agenda. I still support the article validity. I object to the occidental observer being a source for an otherwise clear and objective piece. That is why I pinged User:Diannaa, because she very likely knows an additional source which would be far stronger academically and with none of the faint stench of neo-Nazism that site gives out. I pinged User:Kudpung for his overall WP knowledge and any steers based on precedents. I think the article is better off without the so called occidental observer. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:48, 25 Decembeer 2014 (UTC)
AFAICS Ans van Dijk in its current cast - and that's all that intrests us here - is a perfectly legitimate article (I haven't checked for COPYVIOS, etc.) Unless I'm gravely mistaken or have missed somthing so obvious that I didn't see it, the only reference is to a Dutch book review site (which I took the trouble to read in its original Duch). FWIW, I do not consider the http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net web site to be even a remotely Reliable source and in my opinion even its notability for a Wikipedia article is questionable. It's nearly noon on Xmas Day here and if I'm wrong on anything, I'll gladly stand corrected. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Have a good day K :) Thanks for taking the trouble. regards Irondome (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The article checks out okay from a copy-vio point of view.Much of the article is a copy vio of a Google translation of this article. I will clean it up -- Diannaa (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time out Diannaa. Hope you are having a good day! Regards Irondome (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Irondome: @Obotlig: Tip: I usually search WP:RSN as a first step if I have questions about a source: [4] --NeilN talk to me 00:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the ping Neil. A belated good new year! Regards Irondome (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Create a seperate section of Hindu Pathans

Well people call Hindu's living in Afghanistan Hindki's or Hindkowa's but those people are mostly called Hindu Pathan. If a Hindu lives in Afghanistan that person is given by Muhammedens the name Hindki but I am sure that those people are called Hindu Pathans because the Pathan name is derived from a Kushan dynasty, and Peshewar and North Pakistan. Hindki or Hindkowas name does not excist in India for Hindu's normally coming from Afghanistan, because it is given by persons who don't follow Hinduism. The name Pathan also said in the link is already known in India. The Pathans are a Caucasoid race, who emigrated from the Middle East during the first millennium B.C but that is an Indian theory of an Indus civilization or Indian population migration theory. The Middle East did not excist first millennium B.C and was a Persian Zoroastrianism empire of Asian origin that now only excist in Mumbai. Is there any chance to make a seperate section on the wikipedia of Hindu Pathans, because the Hindki population is 300.000 and classified as Pathans?


http://www.hindukushtrails.com/tribes-pathans.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindkowans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello NeilN, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Haredi Judaism comes from Eastern Europe

Mostly the Ashkenazi Jews comes from central Europe but the Haredi Judaism really comes Central and Eastern Europe, countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Russia, Czech Republic, Slovakia. I red a while ago that Haredi judaism came from Poland but that's not true according to wikipedia timeline of Poland, Poland was always Germany untill 1947, it is dominated with a Christian religion. Eastern Europe is dominated with a strong Haredi Judaism culture. One of the biggest Jewish populations was found at Belarus at a total amount of the entire population. Is it not important to have countries where Heredi people come from at the Heredi judaism wikipedia page, to show difference in Heredi and Asknenazi? Belarus is a beautifull example of Heredi Judaism and culture. I added the Belarus population page of the Jewish people before second world war 2 and the numbers where around 800,000 and even in 1979 the number where 135,400. You can see on the country image file where the Orthodox Jews of Haredi descent are living in the red area's. I believe next to other area's the Orthodox Judaism and Haredi culture comes from Eastern Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_Judaism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Belarus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Belarus#mediaviewer/File:Map_showing_percentage_of_Jews_in_the_Pale_of_Settlement_and_Congress_Poland,_c._1905.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Belarus#mediaviewer/File:Jews_in_Belarus,_censuses_1959-2009.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#mediaviewer/File:Juden_1881.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Haredi_Judaism.html

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history/Jewish_World_Today/Denominations/Orthodox/haredim.shtml


List of Dutch Nazi during the second world war missing on English wikipedia page next to German Nazi's

List of the Dutch Nazi's during the second world war is missing next to German Nazi's, I mean when seeing the list of the German Nazi's party I see people of Slowakia, Hungary, Osteria decent, but where are the Dutch Nazi's on the wikipedia page, men or women are a completely gone at the list, the right Christian party was even with some people with Jewish background.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Movement_in_the_Netherlands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work number1987 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Work number1987: You really need to make specific suggestions for modifications, listing the specific sources you want to use. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources and neither is a site with this disclaimer, "This content of this page is taken from Wikipedia, and may not be up-to-date. The objective of this website is NOT to provide information, but to demonstrate an automatic document organizer and browser." --NeilN talk to me 00:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year !!!
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Thanks for the notice

Speedy Deletion was prematurely removed, but the page has been vandalized many times since 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemoguls (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Moviemoguls: The article has spent most of its history in a deleted state [5] --NeilN talk to me 05:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

From 2007 - 2012 the article was on-line, it was only deleted from 2012 - 2015, so it has spent most of it's life undeleted, and significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemoguls (talk • contribs) 11:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Moviemoguls: And now it has been deleted two more times, the last time for copyright infringement. Suggest you use the Article wizard to draft the article and get it reviewed by experienced volunteers. --NeilN talk to me 16:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Manhattan

So your plan is to force me to deal with that person that makes me sick? talk→ WPPilot  09:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@WPPilot: Take a break or simply stop posting there. --NeilN talk to me 09:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Take me out of the conversation. talk→ WPPilot  09:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@WPPilot: Suggest you strike-through your comments. --NeilN talk to me 09:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Me not Drmies

I think you meant me, not Drmies, when you posted to Bishonen. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Sorry! It seems my mind is still lying on the beach, drinking fruity concoctions. --NeilN talk to me 19:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Nominating an Article for Deletion is not Disruptive Editing.

Nominating an Article for Deletion is not Disruptive Editing, these pages are vanity pages and are unnotable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemoguls (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Moviemoguls: It is disruptive when you don't follow the WP:AFD process three times. These are articles, not miscellaneous pages. And are you ever going to sign your posts? --NeilN talk to me 20:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moviemoguls. (@Cullen328: ping.) - Location (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Location. I looked at both editors' contribution histories when Cybornetics popped up - not sure if it's socking but there's definitely some meatpuppetting and COI editing going on. --NeilN talk to me 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cybornetics. --NeilN talk to me 21:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

RE: Talk: Death of Leelah Alcorn

NeilN, I believe you issued a warning in error toward me. Please retract it, because my section contribution was truthful and beneficial. If you continue to send me such messages with warning contents, then I will have to report you as a spam bot, because frankly your behaviour exhibits such characteristics. As a final comment, restore my section contribution on the page mentioned in the subject, or you will be reported as stated previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.253.75 (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, put it this way. Add that comment again and I will ask that you be blocked. Consider this your final warning. --NeilN talk to me 17:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"Rv sock"

Hey NeilN. I was wondering who the sock puppeteer of the sock you reverted in this edit was. Thanks! LorChat 04:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lor: It's a dynamic IP who's been harassing Bish recently. See User_talk:Bishonen#ANI. --NeilN talk to me 04:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Have you filed a SPI ? Even if it's a Duck, it's still a good idea so things can be worked out what to do with it. LorChat 04:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
@Lor: Actually it's a proxy [6] so a SPI is of little use. WP:RBI seems adequate right now. --NeilN talk to me 05:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This is something that I would also be keen to know. I was also concerned at the reference to Technophant which, at the least, would have taken a little research if not background knowledge. In a previous reference to an IP involvement I saw reference to Drmies but have failed to track it down. GregKaye 09:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Dont Treat Me Like A Child

My Father, Mike Hawker wrote the lyrics for the song, Dont Treat Me Like a Child, as he did for all other songs for Helen Shapiro written by him and John Schroeder!! Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyH2jj (talk • contribs) 06:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi AndyH2jj. As I said on the Help Desk, we need a published source to state this information. Wikipedia articles are based on verified information that has been published in reliable sources. An editor's personal knowledge and experiences cannot substitute for this. --NeilN talk to me 06:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Really??? So what published source did you use to post the incorrect information that you are displaying about this song?

Here is an obit for my father from The Independent newspaper which confirms he wrote Don't Treat Me Like A Child.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/mike-hawker-songwriter-who-won-an-ivor-novello-for-walkin-back-to-happiness-and-also-wrote-for-dusty-springfield-9598917.html

or perhaps this from BASCA.... http://basca.org.uk/news/tributes/

If you need further confirmation, then The Times also did an obit, or you can write to PRS, The Performing Rights Society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyH2jj (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AndyH2jj. The Independent source makes it clear that your father co-wrote the song. I'll make the change. Do you have any other sources that cover your father? They could be used to write a Wikipedia article about him. --NeilN talk to me 17:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If u want more info, search for the obit from The Times...also you can write to my mother jeanryderspain@yahoo.com she could give u lots of information.

You can also fin more information about my father here.... http://www.dustyday.co.uk/dusty-news/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyH2jj (talk • contribs) 17:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@AndyH2jj: Actually, I've found more sources. Give me about a week and I should have an article up. --NeilN talk to me 18:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, great, if u need anything clarifying, just let me know.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/obituaries/article4156997.ece

please note, the original Times obituary had the cause of death wrong, they said he died of pancreatic cancer, which is not true, he had Pancreatic Cancer, and had a major operation about 4 years ago when they cut out half of his insides, and he became one of only a very few people in the world to ever survive PC, of which he was very proud, his doctor called him his hero, and only told him after the operation that at my Dad's age, he didn't think he could survive such major surgery. But he did, he even managed a holiday in Romania where i live with my wife, Otilia and his only granddaughter, Jessica Jean, who he adored, she is 5.5 years old now. He has 2 grandsons through my sister, Sarah..Jack and Sam.

He was totally clear of all cancer, and was looking forward to travelling and working more, he had also started writing film scripts and was keen to try and get his first movie deal.

Then he developed heart problems at the beginning of 2014 and went for tests and he had to have a double by-pass operation and a new aortic valve inserted, he had the operation in April 2014, and again he came through strongly, but unfortunately a week after being sent home he started having terrible pains, so he was taken back in and he had a huge internal infection, they did what they could, but the hospital was short staffed for bank holidays, and he died on May 4th 2014.

Michael Edwin Hawker 29.11.1936 - 04.05.2014

Born in Bath, Somerset, died in London.

parents: Ronald Edwin Victor (REV) Hawker, RAF Squadron Leader Rhoda Elizabeth (Peggy) Hawker (nee Newman)

If u want some pictures of him, send me and email address so that i can send to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyH2jj (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note

Please undo this edit per WP:BLPREMOVE, I gave 48 hours for rebuttals and no one felt the need to reply to it until I removed the final extreme BLP issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: No, as you are making up your own BLP policy (and resorting to incorrect allegations and facts) to remove information you personally don't agree with (as shown by your repeated attempts to treat a Supreme Court clerk as someone whose views you can remove because you think they are wrong). That's not how Wikipedia works. If you think an expert's views are wrong, find another reliable source that says so. --NeilN talk to me 06:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor)#Requested move 20 December 2014

I invite you to a move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 20:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me

Please stop pinging me. Despite my personal inclinations to condemn McCulloch - I have more restraint and respect for McCulloch and have been trying to maintain professionalism and accuracy and you have snark and disdain for high quality material. I will not waste my time when better material and more accurate sources are not wanted over poor grade pieces which asserts false material. To be false does not take Arming America-type research, but errors of omission or misleading implications are equally valid concerns which make a source false or unreliable. I have better things to do than argue with editors who has a lack of respect for our article subjects. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the above section, you'll see that George Ho invited me to a separate move discussion. I had a question about a post you made 17 days ago so I thought it would be polite to ping you. Given your last sentence (assumptions of bad faith) I see I was wrong. I will permanently stop pinging you. --NeilN talk to me 21:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
That last sentence wasn't directed at you, but we are not on the same wavelength it seems. I know with the additional eyes (like yourself) the article will be improved. I'm dipping out of the articles since the biggest issues were resolved. While we disagree on standards - its much better than what it once was. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Internet forums

I just reorganized the List of Internet forums talk page (spent 45 minutes) so that the discussions were in chronological order by topic so that readers could follow the development of the criteria. I also reformatted the table last week. No content changes. Problem? Should this not have been done (I'll come back here for the answer.) 192.136.235.164 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi 192. Changing what other people wrote (even if it's something minor, like adding .com) is frowned upon. And editors expect sections to appear in chronological order. You moved a section you started today in between two sections that were started more than five years ago. This is confusing as editors expect and look for new content at the bottom of a talk page. --NeilN talk to me 21:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the conventions.
192.136.235.164 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
See bottom of page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Internet_forums#Vandalism_www.thebiggestforums.com.2F
192.136.235.164 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 16:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Revdel

Done. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 12:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Also your OS request. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dougweller: Editor, admin, arbitrator, oversighter... Anything else? --NeilN talk to me 19:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrators have CU and OS as part of their toolkit. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Infrormation of Kammas after fall of Kakatiya Dynasty.

Hello NeilN,

I understand you are deleting contributions on Kakatiya Dynasty and inserting false information into there. There wasn't any valid evidence of Kamma Rulers in Kakatiya Dynasty. After fall of Kakatiya Dynasty, their cheifs declared themselves as kings and one of them were Reddy Dynasty of Addanki. There is an evident information on the same at wikepedia too and here it goes for your quick information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddy#Kakatiya_period.

Please do not misguide people across the globe that Kammas were rulers after fall of Kakatiya, which never been so.

Shashi Arjula, PhD(Ancient Indian History - Osmania University) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashi.Arjula (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shashi.Arjula: I assume this and this is you? Please:
  1. Log in when you edit.
  2. Use edit summaries to explain your changes and deletions.
  3. Add sources to back up your changes
Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 16:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
One of the recent change[7] by another IP was also incorrect. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

do not further contaminate my talk page.

Do you understand? Frysay (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frysay: I will have to notify you if I'm the one bringing you to WP:ANI. --NeilN talk to me 07:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Title Paragraph Should Describe Main Ideas

Title paragraph should give main ideas concerned with the topic, not ancillary statistical information that does not support the topic.Vernekar8 (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vernekar8. no need to copy your post from the article talk page. Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 08:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello NeilN,

I'd like to ask you to reconsider the deletion of the link I included recently, for the following reasons:

Recently added link "Naukri FastForward" is a sub domain of Naukri.com so how adding a sub domain of any official website could be a Spam?

Thanks, I'd like to know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankush4577 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ankush4577 The External links section is not a place for companies to advertise their services. They get one link, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. --NeilN talk to me 14:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Page notice

I have reminded the editor about the sanctions of Ayurveda,[8] you think it would be good to make a page notice like there is for Homeopathy.[9]-[10] Bladesmulti (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bladesmulti. That unilateral imposition of 0RR was a poor decision on John's part. I vaguely remember reading something about it on ANI. Wasn't it subsequently revoked? There's no talk page or edit notice referring to it. If it's still in force then I suppose I'm guilty of breaking it with my single revert. As for your suggestion, I see there is consensus against (disputed?) referring to Ayurveda as pseudoscience (unlike Homeothapy) so what discretionary sanctions would apply? --NeilN talk to me 15:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
There was no such arbcom template on the talk(page) when John had imposed restrictions, it was later added by one of the user and others deemed it as a violation of arbcom template, but they couldn't view like this anymore when it was clarified that John had imposed sanctions before the so called change that included the template to talk. That ANI section was moved to AN and the sanction was further extended, it turned into a Arbcom restriction.[11] It is said that this recent case[12] may put many of the contradictory arguments about alternative medicines out. There are 4 points on this template[13] some viewed that it may fall under the point 4. I didn't argued about it but you are right that there is a possibility to dispute, seeing that the association of pseudoscience sanctions of Acupuncture has been disputed. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bladesmulti: Okay, I'm taking this to mean 0RR is not in force on that article. Whatever sanctions are in force should be put in an edit notice as you suggested, to inform unsuspecting editors. --NeilN talk to me 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Better thing would be, if I ask John to do that. See you soon. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)It isn't clear, but John has refused to give up his pov enabling grip on that page, and I doubt his mate Blades will be able or even willing to help, because he is an admitted advocate of Ayurvedic nonsense. It is also worth noting that despite the badly closed RfC, Ayurveda is Pseudoscience all the way through, just like a stick of rock has writin' all the way through. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting me and him once again. RFC was closed properly and no one seems to have opposed it even on AN, just discount the pseudohistorical revisionism and stick to something that actually exists. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: Looks like a mess. "All editors of Ayurveda are restricted from edit-warring, broadly construed; from name-calling, however mild; and from making major changes without agreement in talk." is incompatible with 0RR. If an editor makes a major change without consensus, everyone is still barred from reverting? Editing restrictions should be written with the emphasis on making sure the article complies with WP:FRINGE. --NeilN talk to me 16:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Only for 4 hours, and that was proposed by Future at perfect sunrise.[14] They wouldn't be considered, if they are not explained well or accepted. Some of the things like, datings, names, trivial facts, statistics, etc. are quickly accepted. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Four hours before you can revert a change that doesn't have consensus? That's still poorly thought out. "Ayurveda cures cancer." "Ayurveda causes cancer." both should be reverted immediately. --NeilN talk to me 16:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
For that reason, page is semi protected. Until now no one has made such changes. Probably because a auto confirmed user is a bit aware. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protection is pretty irrelevant. Create a new account, make ten inconsequential edits, wait four days, and poof!, you can stick your declaration in the article for four hours. The edit that triggered this discussion was made by an autoconfirmed editor. --NeilN talk to me 17:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
e/c I got 24 hours for the phrase "fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority." interpreted by John as an NPA on the Talk page. Many admins could not find a personal attack in what I wrote, and I had been very careful not to make a personal attack, but nevertheless. I put a connected contributor tag on the talk page recently, but otherwise I've left it alone as poisonous. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't take it too seriously because no one actually unblocked you for that. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Blades, are you not paying attention or something. There is still debate going on today about that improper close. I suggest if you cannot be accurate about something, it is probably better to not make things up. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
AN section has been archived already by a bot and the so called admin help(on talk) was marked as 'yes', have you missed all of it? No one is going to introduce factual errors on a main page, just because you want. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

speedy deletion of photo

Hi there- I added a note to the page where the deleted photo is, hoping that will resolve the copyright issue. I am clearly new to wikipedia, so pls let me know if I need to describe the copyright situation differently. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elephants3 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Elephants3. The image was deleted yesterday (we're pretty quick to remove copyright violations) so your note currently won't help. As it is, you released it under a problematic fair use license. Wikipedia can use fair use images only if certain strict conditions are met. One of these is listed in the template you used: "where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it;" For example, if the image is of a famous performance or a historic meeting between two people. Your image was a fairly generic one, showing members of the ensemble. This could be easily replaced by a free image. If you cannot release the image under a free-use license my suggestion is to take another photo yourself and upload that using an appropriate license. Sorry if this is bit of a pain but Wikipedia strives to be as "free" as possible. --NeilN talk to me 20:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hey, nice trimming of the Pubic hair ...article.

I know, it's juvenile, but I couldn't help it. If you're offended, you can remove this ...and if you remove it, I won't be offended. ;)

Musdan77 (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Musdan77: Ha! Thanks. It's not great but the lead needed a... shave. --NeilN talk to me 05:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
O man where is the report button. *SILLINESS SPOTTED* Halv timme is over it seems. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 06:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 10:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NORTH AMERICA1000 10:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please Reply

Hi NeilN,

I want to apologize for not getting back to you. I understand my actions and I will not add any more excess detail to top-level city pages, such as fire department subsections. Thanks--FDNY18

@FDNY18: Thanks, appreciate that. --NeilN talk to me 03:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Um, the fire departments may be worth mentioning if they are historically significant. Neil ain't an admin BTW, just plays one in Talk: space. :) Obotlig ☣ interrogate 03:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Obotlig: 1) Did you check the material being added before you commented? 2) Despite the smiley face, I'm at a loss why you made the admin comment when neither FDNY18 or I brought it up. Discussing appropriate content is not "playing admin". --NeilN talk to me 03:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
It just seemed like a strange tone for FDNY18 to be using. He doesn't have to answer to a peer in that manner. Also I would indeed like to check out what material is being excluded if it relates to this topic. Is it worth the while? Obotlig ☣ interrogate 05:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Obotlig: It's easy enough to check his talk page and contribs, some of which I've been trimming for a year plus. [15], [16] --NeilN talk to me 05:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
"Trimming" Obotlig ☣ interrogate 06:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
??? --NeilN talk to me 06:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Read this

This organisation is a non-profit one .it is Not a copyright violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolution provider 1999 (talk • contribs)

@Absolution provider 1999: The non-profit status has nothing to do with copyrights. Anyone or any organization can copyright works. --NeilN talk to me 06:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Is copying and pasting sections from an online article a breach of wikipedia policies. Legacypac deleted addition to the religious and minority group persecution saying it is copyrighted which is not, this person is a disruptive editor and directed personal attacks towards me claiming that I am a banned user.This person seems to be doing this to several editors.Absolution provider 1999 (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Absolution provider 1999: The only issue here is you being unable or unwilling to understand copyright and repeatedly inserting copyrighted material into articles instead of stopping and listening. --NeilN talk to me 14:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood

Thank you for helping me out. I was simply trying to upload a more recent, better looking picture of Eastwood, but I did not know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyBalboa55 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi RockyBalboa55. Do you have a link to the photo? --NeilN talk to me 20:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It's a picture of him at the 2012 AFI Awards. http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Clint+Eastwood+12th+Annual+AFI+Awards+Reception+WZp82mEyIBXl.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyBalboa55 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@RockyBalboa55: Did you take that picture or was it someone else? If it was someone else then it's very likely copyrighted and we can't use it. For living people, Wikipedia can only use pictures which are in the public domain or under a "free-to-use" for any purpose license. --NeilN talk to me 20:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What if the picture was a desktop screenshot I took? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyBalboa55 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@RockyBalboa55: Nice try, but no :-) That's a reproduction of a copyrighted image and does not create a new work that you can license. --NeilN talk to me 00:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Template

The user removed a WP:RS and shrinked the article's reliably sourced content. How come is my use of the template "idiotic". MaRAno FAN 05:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: You are welcoming an admin and telling them, "Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines". Use some common sense and explain in your own words what issue you have. Removing sourced info can be constructive. --NeilN talk to me 05:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: Excuse me, did you just say removing reliably sourced content can be constructive? MaRAno FAN 05:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: You bet. If it's WP:UNDUE, a WP:COATRACK, misleading, unencyclopedic, etc., etc., etc. --NeilN talk to me 05:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dgdcw, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you very much for welcoming me to Wikipedia.

The note on the definitions of Buddhism (religion, philosophy) I submitted without knowing where it should go. However, that note was something I did in desperation. The problem I started with was translation of Pali Saddhā as faith. At the time I started the problem I was novice in the field of Buddhist studies. I had no knowledge of Pali. However, my education was in science, mathematics and engineering. For 11 long years I kept on because I was retired and had nothing else to do. In this process I had to learn everything from the beginning. I registered for a PhD is 2006. However, I could not finish it within the period of registration. The problem of the definition cropped up when I tried to write up the results of my investigations. I couldn't find a unique definition.

If I reject the definitions of Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy, in effect I am rejecting the those two articles. And many more articles on Buddhism.

I am Sinhala speaking Sri Lankan. Our lives are shaped by Buddha Dhamma and not by Buddhism. Dhamma is here simply the 5 precepts--right and wrong. Things like don't kill are taught at home by parents. We don't kill mosquitoes because we go to hell; we are (were) afraid of the mother. Things are like that.Today there are '350' million Buddhists in the world. They have no problem in following their Dhamma.

I shall be most grateful for any advice as to how I should proceed. Dgdcw (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dgdcw. Article content on Wikipedia is not based on editors' experiences but rather what is published in reliable sources. Your talk page post did spark a change in the lead sentence with the addition of 'or dharma, "right way of living"'. Were you looking for something else? --NeilN talk to me 14:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply.

I have been misunderstood by some poeple. Let me please explain again. I wanted a defintion of Buddhism. I found the three variants I mentioned. How to make a selection? I tried the Boolean analysis in the hope that it would solve the problem. I put the result in the talk page hoping someone would comment on it. I hope the people who critisized me hardly would understand.

Adding Dharma will not help. Dharma and Dhamma are two different things. Both are some sort of Laws. Religion is about rites and rituals. Actually the problem is with the definition of religion.

Actually Lord Buddha defined a path to achieve a mental state (Nibbana); a state in which one is perfectly happy. It is definitely not a religion any sense of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgdcw (talk • contribs) 18:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dgdcw: The current definition of Buddhism comes from reliable sources such as Pew or Britannica. What Buddhists call it does not take precedence over this (we wouldn't call Christianity the "one true religion"). If you're looking for a philosophical discussion about the nature of Buddhism or religion then Wikipedia isn't the place for that. We're focused on summarizing information published elsewhere. --NeilN talk to me 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Help

Would you please assist in the discussion at BLPN in re Polaroid Kiss / Steve Hewitt. I know it has become a huge wall-of-text but your opinion would be greatly appreciated. JBH (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: You've certainly tried to steer the discussion the right way. Let's see if this will help. --NeilN talk to me 21:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. JBH (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I see you are well into the discussion. Thank you for taking the time. JBH (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

On a different subject. Is there any way to easily figure out who inserted a particular piece of text? Or compare editors histories? A couple of years there was a gadget that would highlight an articles text as you scrolled through it and say who wrote it. I thought it was WikiBlame but that seems to be something different, that I can not seem to get to work either. This experience has, if nothing else, shown me that digging through contributions and edit histories manually is a huge pain in the ass. JBH (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Wikiblame (warts and slowness and all) is it. For example, it tells me the "Hewitt" was in the first version of Polaroid Kiss. [17] For editor interactions you want this. --NeilN talk to me 23:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. JBH (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The current definition of Buddhism comes from reliable sources such as Pew or Britannica

I am not aware of Pew. Britannica definition differs from the Wikipedia definition.

Britannica says that Buddhism is Religion and Philosophy. Wikipedia has two definitions: one for Buddhism and another for Buddhist philosophy. Thus Wikipedia has changed Britannica's definition. It appears that one has to live with the fact that different people have different definitions of Buddhism.

Thanks for the helpDgdcw (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

wrong

I'm not editwarring.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Slooppouts34: You've added similar material three times in the last 24 hours. I strongly suggest you do not do so for a fourth time if someone reverts you and use the talk page to gain consensus. --NeilN talk to me 04:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I've got another funny comment on my talkpage, Westernman--Slooppouts34 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Litvinenko

NeilN, thanks for your feedback. The text I deleted reported on BBC content. The citation was to a dnaindia.com article that talks about the BBC content, but includes no citation to the original source. How do we know that this dnaindia.com article accurately reflects the source BBC content? Dnaindia.com provides no source citation. I see that you say that the "source is fine." That would seem to be an extremely low standard of evidence. Tikva2009 (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)tikva

@Tikva2009: DNA India seems to be a reliable source. We would accept something in the New York Times like, "The BBC reported that..." Newspapers don't provide citations. --NeilN talk to me 20:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, A sentence in the article says, "British media reported that the poisoning and consequent death of Litvinenko was not widely covered in the Russian news media." I tried to correct the false impression that gives, but you deleted my comment, remarking: "A self published book? I don 't think so." and "You complain about a newspaper but want to use a self-published book? Come on." It sounds like you are being impertinent as you don't seem to have an information-based objection. The information in my edit originated in a report that was Commissioned by the International Federation of Journalists. The report was reviewed by a panel of experts before an audience of professional journalists at the World Congress of the IFJ in 2007. No one challenged the analysis in question; it withstood professional scrutiny. That report subsequently served as the basis for the book The Phony Litvinenko Murder and is so noted in the book. NeilN, the Litvinenko article is full of questionable information. Much of the text fails to conform to the three basic article policies: (1) no original research, (2) neutral point of view, and (3) verifiability. I decided to start chipping away at this problem, but you are thwarting that effort at every turn. I'll give you a presumption of good faith that you are not working to preserve the misleading information, and hope that we are in accord that the article should be consistent with the basic article policies. But unless you stop playing an obstructive role, improving the article will be very difficult.Tikva2009 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

Tikva2009, improving the article can be done using reliable sources. A self-published book by a "publishing consultant" does not qualify. --NeilN talk to me 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, is it a Wikipedia policy that any "self-published" book shall not be considered as a reliable source? If so, I'd appreciate it if you could point me to a reference to the policy. Also, would you please offer a specific and representative example of a periodical that you consider to be a "reliable source." Thanks. Tikva2009 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: WP:SPS is pretty clear. What constitutes a reliable source depends on what is being sourced. For example, the New York Times is considered a reliable source for most things but is not a WP:MEDRS. --NeilN talk to me 23:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: So what is the remedy if a so-called reliable source such as the New York Times can be shown to be the source of unreliable information specifically about Litvinenko, or even Russia in general? Tikva2009 (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: For a specific article, you'd open a talk page discussion and provide other reliable sources showing that the first source is factually incorrect. If you're asserting something like, "the NY Times is not a reliable source for Russia-related topics" then that would go on WP:RSN. --NeilN talk to me 02:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: And what if two so-called reliable sources state facts that are diametrically opposed. Does that mean that they both can be presented in an article? Or must someone referee? For instance if the New York Times says one thing and al Jazeera has a different version. Tikva2009 (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: In many cases, yes, both views would be presented if the reliability was not in question and if there was not a significant majority of reliable sources favoring one view. --NeilN talk to me 03:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: But what if a majority of sources are truly wrong, such as on the matter of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as reported at the inception of that war? Some news outlets told the truth, but the majority didn't. Isn't it true that a majority does not necessarily equal the truth? Who decides? A contemporary example is the recent political transition in Ukraine. Many so-called reliable news media have reported that president Yanukovych was impeached. (Such as the Washington Post: "...Yanukovych, who was impeached by parliamentary majority after fleeing the capital..."). Yet a careful examination of the then extant constitution shows that he was not legally impeached. Even the new government in Kyiv admits that he was not impeached. But still a great many media outlets continue to report that he was impeached. Isn't this "majority rule" concept very flawed? Don't just give me another reference; tell me what you think. I've seen a Wikipedia list of reputed self publishing sites that are named as falling short of being a reliable source. And I understand your point that the New York Times might be a reliable source on one subject, but not on another. You stated that the New York Times is considered a reliable source for most things but is not for WP:MEDRS as an example of such. However, that reference is silent about the New York Times. Is there a list that delineates what publications are either reliable or unreliable on particular topics? Or is this a purely subjective thing that can be invoked without warning? If there isn't an objective reference, doesn't that leave everything open to bias abuse by those who are influential in Wikipedia circles? Thanks. Tikva2009 (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: Wikipedia editors don't get to decide that the "majority of sources are truly wrong." We're not here to do investigative journalism. We only summarize what the majority of reliable sources say. If the story changes after a while, our articles will reflect that. The reliability of sources depends on the context and is decided by editors with very few exceptions. There's no "list" but stuff like the National Enquirer and blogs by some random person will automatically be thrown out. And yes, experienced Wikipedia editors will have more influence because they know policies/guidelines and have a sense of what the community has decided in the past. This is not a bad thing as it allows us to discount fringe sources (e.g., anti-vaccine proponents, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Obama is really born in Kenya) quicker. --NeilN talk to me 05:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: And by the way, the edit you deleted that refuted the misleading statement, "British media reported that the poisoning and consequent death of Litvinenko was not widely covered in the Russian news media," was originally published in Russia Profile magazine, 05/25/2007 titled "The Essence of the Alexander Litvinenko Story." Do you have any objection to that source? If so, what is it? Tikva2009 (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: Not sure what you mean. I deleted nothing sourced to Russia Profile. [18], [19] --NeilN talk to me 04:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: Earlier I posted a comment that said, "However, this allegation was analyzed and disproved in The Phony Litvinenko Murder.[1]" It was posted to correct the misleading assertion in the article that said, "British media reported that the poisoning and consequent death of Litvinenko was not widely covered in the Russian news media." You objected to my use of a reference that you allege to be from a "self-published" book. However, that same corrective information can be sourced to an article in Russia Profile magazine, 05/25/2007 titled "The Essence of the Alexander Litvinenko Story." Here is the link: http://russiaprofile.org/international/a1180613251.html. My question to you was whether you would have any objection to my re-posting the text, "However, this allegation was analyzed and disproved in..." while citing the Russia Profile source. I think it is a disservice to Wikipedia readers for users to go back and forth posting and undoing text. Thus I am seeking your concurrence in advance. I would also appreciate your response to the other issues that I raised in my earlier post to you. Thanks. Tikva2009 (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: "Briefing by William Dunkerley" Yes, I would strongly object. It's Dunkerly shilling his self-published book. Response to other post forthcoming. --NeilN talk to me 05:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dunkerley, William (2011). The Phony Litvinenko Murder. New Britain, CT, USA: Omnicom Press. ISBN 978-0615559018, pp. 14-17

NeilN: But my suggested re-posting would make no mention of the book in question. The reference would simply be to the Russian Profile article. I'm having trouble understanding how your comment is reasonable. Are you just trying to assure that the subject misleading text about the British media remain in the article? Tikva2009 (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: It is your assertion the text is misleading. Find better sources that say so (not a self-published "publishing consultant" expounding on his pet theories). Or, if you think the source is good enough, bring it up at WP:RSN. --NeilN talk to me 05:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: It's in the Russia Profile article. Didn't you even bother to look at it? It says:

"Tony Halpin, Moscow correspondent for the (London) Times wrote: "The fate of Alexander Litvinenko may be hot news in Britain, but Russia's press is almost completely ignoring him." He cites a page-one story in the English-language Moscow Times as an exception. Otherwise, "none of the major dailies covers the story today (November, 21)," he asserts.

I looked further into Halpin’s premise that the Litvinenko story was being ignored in Russia. Before Halpin’s story appeared, his paper, the Times, had covered the Litvinenko case on two previous days, the 19th and 20th. In the U.S., the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times didn’t begin coverage until the 20th. But, in Russia, several online news outlets kicked off coverage on November 11, as did a Chechen website apparently located outside of Russia. That same day, the Russian Service of BBC broadcast an interview with Litvinenko himself. By the 13th, three Moscow papers had picked up the story (Kommersant, Moscow Times & The Moscow News). But, the earliest story I found in the London Times wasn’t until the one on November 19.

The London Times may have been late, but it made up for it with the number of stories. I counted six Litvinenko stories on the 20th and 6 six on the 21st. With the one story on the 19th, that’s a total of 13 stories in three days. During that time, the New York Times ran just one story. The Washington Post ran three, but one was an editorial.

So, the level of Russian coverage around the time of Halpin’s story was actually consistent with that in the American press. Moreover, coverage in Russia began a full eight days earlier than it did in the Times."

A search engine investigation also refuted Halpin’s claim that the story found no interest in Russia.

This clearly refutes the incorrect allegation that is currently in the article. Why are you defending information that will mislead the Wikipedia reader? Tikva2009 (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: And again, I'm not accepting Dunkerly as a reliable source so that goes for anything he writes. I think we're an impasse here so the next step should be getting outside opinions. Do you want to post at WP:RSN? --NeilN talk to me 05:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: Before we resort to that, I have one last question for you: You posted: "@Tikva2009: And again, I'm not accepting Dunkerly as a reliable source so that goes for anything he writes. I think we're an impasse here so the next step should be getting outside opinions. Do you want to post at WP:RSN? --NeilN talk to me 05:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)" Earlier when I questioned the advisability of using a citation to dnaindia.com about alleged BBC content, you said in effect that it mattered not whether the BBC content is verified, and that it suffices that the allegations attributed to BBC appear in a reliable source such as dnaindia.com. It seems to me that there is a parallel here. If Russia Profile has not been discredited as a reliable source, the appearance of the Dunkerley content in that magazine should suffice. Do you have evidence that Russia Profile is not a reliable source? If so, what is it? Furthermore, it certainly sounds like you are waging a personal vendetta against Dunkerley. Is there a reason for that? Tikva2009 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: The dnaindia source is a news report. The Russia Profile source is an opinion piece. I have nothing against Dunkerly personally. I just don't think he's a reliable source. --NeilN talk to me 06:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: Please cite the basis on which you allege that the Russia Profile item is an "opinion piece." It looks to me like a research report. Tikva2009 (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: Opinion piece, research report, whatever. He's still not a reliable source. --NeilN talk to me 06:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Cynthia Page Image

Hello @NeilN , Sounds Like a weird . During upload this picture as i tick this is my own picture . Let me know how i'll changed it again . — Preceding unsigned comment added by CynthiaB2014 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi CynthiaB2014. The image is of you but the copyright is owned by the photographer. You need to ask him to release it under a free-use license. Let me know if you have further questions. --NeilN talk to me 20:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay NeilN Then i'll delete mine and upload it again and set Option " This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use " . Thanks

@CynthiaB2014: No, hold on, sorry. Wikipedia does not accept fair use images of living people. Plus, we already have a free-use image. --NeilN talk to me 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Let me know if you already have this image as i added once . Tell me how i'll find it inside wiki images and how i'll use it on my profile cover . Thank you for Help

@CynthiaB2014: I'm not sure what you mean. Did you read my fair use comment above? The easiest thing for you to do is have a friend take a picture of you, release the copyright to you, and you can upload that. --NeilN talk to me 21:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: What do you mean with " We already have a free use image ?? Like you told me my picture is owned by photographer copyright . Tell me how you know ?? Sounds like some one has use my picture on some other profile ? Would you able to give me link of that Page first . Secondly I donot think some one else have taken a copyright of my picture ... Why you always showing your presences on Correct edits !
@CynthiaB2014: The image currently in the article was uploaded by a user who said he was the photographer and who released it under a free-use license. [20] If he was not the photographer, we will have to delete that photo. --NeilN talk to me 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


Ohh Neil :@NeilN: Now i understand why you are confused :) I am not talking about this current profile picture [21] Am talking about that picture that was Uploaded with myself and i am taken that shot with my own Camera but you delete it mine and told me its copyright . Lol .Sounds funny :) I Hope now things are cleared to you . Can i Add now my own picture or else telling you another Brief note about it !

@CynthiaB2014: You have uploaded one picture which was a copy of this. David Edwards claims the copyright on this photo. --NeilN talk to me 21:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP Alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Thanks, Chris. You'll note the text reads, "...our standards of behavior, or relevant policies" not, "what ChrisGualtieri wants policies to be." --NeilN talk to me 18:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is getting close to being WP:HAR. See this one too Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cwobeel. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

you are not right

i didn't engage in a war, but these other guys did.

i helped them learn and show them and explain them

their problems.

bcoz they are many on this article, therefore they

are not in trouble, but bcoz i'm the only one to correct

it, therefore you are writting to me for no reason.

turkey was established in 1923. prior to that there were no turks but ottoman empire in which there were jews,greeks,bulgarians,armenians,kurds and syrians.

therefore each time i correct the page, others are coming to mess with it.

GOGTURK IS A WRONG TERM FROM KOTRAG.

KOTRAG-KOKTRAG-KOKTURK-GOGTURK

THIS IS THE ARTICLE CORRECT THE TERMINOLOGY IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HELP. OTHERWISE DO NOT BOTHER OTHERS. YOU ARE SIMPLY WASTING TIME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"It's not me, it's everyone else!" Stop your disruptive search and replacing of text, please. --NeilN talk to me 22:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I EXPLAINED MYSELF AND THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY AND YOU DIDN'T EXPLAIN YOURSELF.

ALL YOU DID IS GIVING THREATS OF BLOCKING, NOTHING ELSE.

HOW ETHICAL IS THAT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

THE FACT THAT YOU COMPREHEND IT AS "ITS NOT ME BUT ITS EVERYONE ELSE"

THAT DOESN'T MEAN I SAID IT THAT WAY.

ITS ONLY SHOWS THE WAY YOU THINK THAT ITS NEVER YOUR PROBLEM BUT ITS OTHERS.


DUDE,

IF YOU HAVE ANY DECENCY, READ WHAT I WROTE. I GAVE YOU THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY.

STOP WASTING YOUR LIFE BY GOOFING AROUND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


TURKEY WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1923.

PRIOR TO THAT THERE WERE NO TURKS BUT OTTOMAN.

DO YOU LIVE IN USA OR UK OR WHERE?

ITS SAYING THAT PEOPLE IN USA BEFORE 1776

WERE USA CITIZENS. ITS WRONG TERMINOLOGY.

YOU CAN SAY PEOPLE IN USA BEFORE 1776 WERE BRITHISH, FRENCH, SPANISH AND DUTCH CITIZENS PLUS NATIVES

BUT YOU CAN'T SAY THE USA CITIZENS BEFORE 1776.

IF YOU HAVE CRITICAL THINKING, GOOD BUT UF YOU DON'T

TRY WORKING ON IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

First, please stop SHOUTING. Second, your assertions do not excuse your sloppy search and replacing. The article is about Turks in Bulgaria, past and present. --NeilN talk to me 22:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

its common decency to reveal your location.

if not state and city at least narrow it down to a continent, so people would know how to approach you.

second, dude i have respect for you for being 9+years in wikipedia,

but dude, not all people know things.

i'm helping the world to be a better place by providing a proper information and you are giving me hard time that i suck at editting.

where is your critical thinking?

then edit it yourself properly after you got the correct info.

i told you there are no turks.

turk is a wrong terminology from KOTRAG.

get your historical facts right first if you want to put a meaning ito your work. why edit something that its shit?

edit the proper way.

turkey is established in 1923, prior that that there were ottoman empire in the ottoman empire citizens were greek,bulgarians, armenians, kurds, jewish and syrians.

go study a little its not complicated.

Read what I wrote above: " The article is about Turks in Bulgaria, past and present." If you want an article that specifically focuses on Kurds in Bulgaria only, you are welcome to write that. --NeilN talk to me 22:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference source and Nontrolling

All of my contribution sources are from Webster's dictionary, and none are from trolling sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Research888 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong [22], [23] --NeilN talk to me 22:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Turks

i don't think you get it man.

there are no turks.

not in the past and not in the present.


dude, if your name is nick, but not neil then how the heck

people would call you neil then? do you get my point???


there are no turks. do you know what a patent means?

how could be turks prior to 1923 when there were no turkey

prior to that???????????????????????

the corret terminology is kurds.

how could you call me a turk when i'm a kurd?????????????

how could i call you prick/nick when your name is neil??????????????

get it? smart enough to get it? so you either stay out of it or you either help with the correct edition, otherwise you are wasting your life dude. you have no meaning in your life to be patroling something that got the wrong PATENT.

HAVE YOU LEARN ABOUT A PATENT LAW? ARE YOU EDUCATED? DO YOU POSSESS CRITICAL THIKING, ATTENTION TO DETAIL? ITS A RETHORICAL QUESTION OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T. RESPECTFULLY, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"there are no turks. not in the past and not in the present." Take your ethnic/nationalistic nonsense elsewhere, please. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for you. --NeilN talk to me 23:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop what you are doing on the ISIL talkpage!!

This is a talk page and I am allowed to place my opinions.Pink love 1998 (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pink love 1998: Not when you're a self-admitted sock. --NeilN talk to me 08:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Praise

I sincerely thank NeilN talk to me for being a valuable mentor to a rank beginner on Wikipedia.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 22:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Schools of Hindu philosophy

Ok, What is the problem? You undid my edit.Can you explain it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejaz92 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ejaz92. Did you read what I wrote on your website? A random website written by an anonymous person who uses Wikipedia as one of their sources is not even close to a reliable source. --NeilN talk to me 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad

Dear Brother of the book ,

i understand whatever your view is to present this with all respect, but this is against teachings of the prophet if we know or let anybody know about him to show his paintings..........alphabetical quotation is enough to understand his biography . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.233.104 (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia and so does not follow any religious proscriptions or directions when determining article content. --NeilN talk to me 14:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

K. Kavitha

When a youtube video with the proof is provided, wiki ignores it. When true news is written with without copy-pasting from a website it is called as no reference. when something is copy-pasted, it is called as copyright issue. Then there is nothing reliable about this world. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MohiniSinghDr (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@MohiniSinghDr: Well, the first part of your paragraph is correct. Find a reliable published source, don't copy-paste the content - rewrite it, making sure whatever you write is based on the source and does not present facts or conclusions not in the source. --NeilN talk to me 14:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil, what about a video Telangana People are not Indians Says TRS - Must watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSUlGkTbKuM Watch it at 1min, the guy says it. Unfortunately some news does not make it to English media newspapers because of language gap. In that case what should be done. Can the youtube video be referenced. If it is referenced and in case wiki allows it, will people be able to make sense of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MohiniSinghDr (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@MohiniSinghDr: Youtube is a reliable source only when the organization uploading the video is a reliable source. For example, the BBC Channel on Youtube is run by the BBC so videos on there are reliable sources. In this case, someone anonymous has uploaded a copy of a news broadcast. This is not a reliable source and a copyright violation to boot (Wikipedia does not link to copyright violations). --NeilN talk to me 15:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

hmm, if the TV5 News channel does not upload it, then that means truth cannot reach the world. Another question, the guy Vijayrao21 who originally reverted my changes also edited Jayaprakash_Narayan_(Lok_Satta) article and wrote rubbish in that article. Do you think such persons are talking the truth. This is what is happening in this world, unfortunately the truth does not get out because of people who do not understand the world in entirety and that there are so many cultures and languages and mentalities that cannot be understood just by thinking that there is only one language and one kind of media which reports only one side of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MohiniSinghDr (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@MohiniSinghDr: Vijayrao21's edit was reverted soon after he made it. [24] Wikipedia's job is not to spread "the truth". We simply summarize what has been previously published by reliable sources. If few or no sources are covering a topic, then Wikipedia won't take up the mantle of exposing the truth. --NeilN talk to me 15:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Ryulong

Please fully protect it for 1 year.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ryulong: Not an admin :-) --NeilN talk to me 03:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Well ask someone who is cause I am done with this shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems a bit silly for me to ask someone to protect your user page when you can do it yourself? --NeilN talk to me 03:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

List of phobias-Chronomentrophobia

If you look on Google and also my cited source, you will find that Chronomentrophobia is a legitimate phobia; in this case, an irrational fear of clocks. Please look for a definition; this one comes from a medical journal, before you revert my additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyork1501 (talk • contribs)

@Newyork1501: Srleffler said it best so I'm just going to copy their note to you here: "Please don't add made-up phobia names to List of phobias. If you can't provide a reliable medical reference that discusses the phobia, it should not be included in the list. There are lots of word lists and quack medical sites on the net that list dozens and dozens of made-up phobia names. Such content is not appropriate for Wikipedia." --NeilN talk to me 04:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Continued vandalism and lack of neutral tone by NeilN

Showing contempt for Wikipedia rules, NeilN vandalized the Santacon article, violated the 3R rule, engaged in edit warring, dismissed neutrality and sided with admins at the expense of Wikipedians. The entire SantaCon article is biased, slanted and not neutral. It violated numerous Wikipedia rules. It demonstrates why admins and moderators on Wikipedia censor and edit articles to reflect their biased points of view. Wikpedia articles are the product of a very few people that edit war, revert with impunity, censor content and quash dissent. 1% of the people control 99% of the content on Wikipedia. Detractors and critics are immediately banned and blocked from expressing their independent points of view. Wikipedia moderators and administrators have adopted the censorship, idea control and repression techniques of anti free speech nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.140.52 (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

IP, read WP:Vandalism and WP:Neutral. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for helping increase the attention the SantaCon article will get, IP! --NeilN talk to me 19:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Heh. That article has existed since December 2003. I have one revert. Must have been quite a revert. --NeilN talk to me 19:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You are welcomed!

You are welcomed NeilN. Could you please tell me what manuscript you are talking about? I will see if I can translate it or not. Have a nice day.--Spring What's up? 06:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes NeilN, the page you referred to discusses the comparison between the lunar year & the solar year, and it mentions the prohibition of al-Nasi' by Prophet Muhammad during the The Farewell Sermon. First, it says [in the page before the page you referred to (i.e. p 17)] that the Arabs used to practice al-Nasi' in the Jahiliyyah. It says that the difference between the Arabic lunar year and the solar year was 10 days, 21 hours & 1/5 of an hour, so they used to add one month, and this addition was monitored by the tribe of Kinanah. The man of Kinanah who was responsible of this was called Qilmus. Then, in page 18 (the page you referred to), it says that the Arabs learned al-Nasi' from the Jews & introduced it into their lunar calendar 200 years before the rise of Islam. It says that they used to add every 24 lunar year 9 months so that their months remain fixed with their seasons. Then it mentions the prohibition of al-Nasi' (the Intercalation) by Prophet Muhammad. Then, it speaks about the lunar calendar and the practice of al-Nasi' in India.--Spring What's up? 08:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You can cite my translation wherever you want. Have a nice day!--Spring What's up? 20:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN/Archive_21&oldid=1082570535"