User talk:NeilN/Archive 14

Bandar reversions
Hey, Neil!

I can see you're an accomplished and experienced editor, so I have no doubt your reversions were made in good faith. And I certainly understand the NPOV criterion. But since I was striving to make the article MORE objective, not less, let me ask:

- why revert the new graf in "APPEARANCES," which is a footnoted reference to a reasonably objective journalistic story, discussing Bandar's first appearance after his well-known disappearance? And why move the reference to his re-appearance BACK into "disappearance"? In fact, if you take this graf out, the article is VERY specific about Bandar's disappearance but never mentions the first time he was publicly seen after that - which is a strange and damaging omission.

- why revert my change of "charges" to "reports"? A rumor is not a charge. and calling rumors "reports" is much more neutral.

- as for my descriptions of some of the sources as "hostile," I was striving to give the article a MORE objective tone, not less. This article, for reasons we can probably guess, is often sourced to news outlets which are overtly hostile to the Saudi regime (like Iran, which is in a diplomatic standoff with Saudi Arabia). These often drop all pretense of integrity when reporting on Saudi politics, as in their recent "reports" that Bandar bin Sultan supplied Syrian rebels with chemical weapons, an accusation no objective sources take at face value. It is not a defense of Saudi Arabian policy or practice to identify these sources for what they are: committed critics.

In sum: the article felt flawed to me, since it heavily cites non-neutral sources about controversial characters and subjects, and is structured in a way that leaves serious gaps in storytelling. My changes were made to help rectify those problems Anyway, thanks for letting me ask these questions!

best,

Shlimozzle (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You inserted your opinion with these phrases:


 * Sources hostile to the Saudi regime floated dramatic rumors
 * In July 2012, unfriendly sources once again reported excitable rumors
 * After an absence of some two years, Bandar reappeared suddenly. The Saudi press reported in October 2010 that he had arrived back in the country from "abroad." (why the scare quotes?)
 * Add the content without adding your personal views about the sources (or find other sources that repeat the phrases you're using) and all will be well. -- Neil N  talk to me  16:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Hmmm. Well, I'll try to comply. For what it's worth, I copied the quotes from the source article, since it was never specified where Bandar had been, which is sort of the point of the section. They were not introduced as 'scare quotes' - a name, and an intention, that I'm not familiar with.

Thanks again!

Shlimozzle (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Shlimozzle - See WP:SCAREQUOTES - the quotes you used for "abroad". -- Neil N  talk to me  17:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Search engine optimization
Hi dear NeilN i hope you will be fine there i want to adit this wiki please guide me how can i edit my link in wiki i am waiting for you to reply reply must please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alimughal1218 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't. Wikipedia is not the place to add spam links to a SEO service. -- Neil N  talk to me  05:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
///Euro Car GT  15:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
///Euro Car GT  16:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
My apologies for not seeing The Game. I didn't see it and I wanted to be constructive and add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilreid123 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Neilreid123 No worries. Looking at other people's edit summaries often lets you know why your edit is being reverted. Here. -- Neil N  talk to me  06:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Akinwale Arobieke (Gary Kelly)
Hi NeilN,

Just dropping you a line about your recent edit regarding Gary Kelly on the Akinwale Arobieke page. You have edited the page, stating that Gary Kelly was from "Liverpool" and not Birkenhead. I was a friend of Gary, and can assure you that he was definitely from Birkenhead. He lived at No.2 Water Street Birkenhead, and attended Birkenhead Institute High School in Tollemache Road, Birkenhead from September 1982 until June 1986 (he died just nine days after leaving school). I knew Gary and his younger brother Raymond through our time at Birkenhead Institute, and they were both great lads, and his death was such a tragedy; as was the appeal regarding Arobieke's conviction for constructive manslaughter.

If you are interested in the events surrounding Gary's death; and Arobieke's involvement, a good source would be the 18 June 1986 edition of the Wirral Globe newspaper which carried all the details of the events at New Brighton Rail Station; if my memory serves me well, I even think it had a photograph of Gary in the article.

If you contact Birkenhead Central Library (tel: 0151 606 2665) they should be able to get you a copy from their archives of the Wirral Globe.

Hope this helps.

Malhaz88Malhaz88 (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Malhaz88. I was more concerned about the addition of the street name and the birth date as we typically don't add such level of detail. Do you have the page number where the Globe article appeared? I'd like to add it as reference. -- Neil N   talk to me  15:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi NeilN,

Understand your point regarding name details, etc... As for the Globe article, if memory serves, it was on the front page; it was quite a story at the time in Birkenhead. It would be nice if you could get hold of a copy of the article, and include it on the Akinwale Arobieke page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malhaz88 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

People
Just noticed that the People RfC at the RSN was closed this week with the validation that People can be used for BLP. I hope this stops those automatic source deletions that were happening last month. Liz Read! Talk! 15:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Liz Yes, I saw that yesterday. Any blindly-done deletions should be treated as disruptive if the editor is aware of the RfC. -- Neil N   talk to me  15:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I could go to certain Editors' contribution pages and revert their deletions of material sourced to People but I'm sure that would be seen as provocative. Liz  Read! Talk! 17:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Liz Yes, I'm sure your analysis is correct. Let sleeping dogs lie and all that. But new deletions can't just be justified by "it's a tabloid!" any more.  -- Neil N   <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  17:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wracky
Could you explain me the meaning of that "WRACKY" that Cyclopia referred to me in her Talk page,please?I want to have clear this point.I can't forget it.I know that Wikipedia lines asks to be polite.I can accept "nowhere" but I feel "wracky" like an OFFENSIVE word even if i could mistake.Which is your opinion?Shouldn't she blocked at least in the case she offended?I saw somebody was even banned for offending.I quiet wait for you.Glc72 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Glc72 Wacky, not wracky. And cyclopia  did not call you wacky, only your battle. I'm assuming they're referring to your quests to add content to articles without proper sourcing, your long, useless justifications, and your shouting. Wikipedia asks editors to be polite but it also asks for reliable sources and no original research or synthesis, rules which you seem happy to ignore. As it stands, there is no chance they'll be blocked. I can't say the same about you, given your CIA theories and propensity to ignore sourcing guidelines above. -- Neil N   <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  22:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Watch my talk page please.Glc72 (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I explained myself to Glc72 on his talk page (in Italian so I'm sure there are less misunderstandings) and I apologized. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 08:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI in Cyclopia Talk.Writing to me by Cyclopia after this, disturbed me even more.I checked timing and why Cyclopia wrote on my Talk.Glc72 (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If apologies disturb you, what is a man to do? I've done what I could, and apologies were sincere. You can't impose that people agree with you or that they like you. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 08:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You offended ,in my wall i'm clear.That's all.Glc72 (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Italy presentation with the G7
Italy is official member of the G7. United Kingdom like other states has this citation in its presentation. Why do you use 2 different criteria in presenting a state about the same thing? In UK presentation G7 is cited as right because this group has more prestige than the G8.It's correct to use the same criteria.Or you delete the G7 from UK presentation or you add g7 to the Italy presentation.About main that was deleted i know fronm where that acting arrived. Cyclona described my acting a wracky.Is it correct?Does it respect Wikipedia lines?19:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Glc72 (talk)
 * Replied here. Please keep content discussion on the article's talk page so it doesn't get fragmented. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  20:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.You've been correct towards me and above all towards Italy and Wikipedia.Glc72 (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons
Is motre trustble an official Act of the Italian Parliament or 1000 citations or better opinions by which they  try to deny it?

They have NOTHING in their hands to oppose to my italian parliament Acts and my citations.NOTHING.20:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)20:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glc72 (talk • contribs)

The same poeple
The same people that is against me in Nuclear weapons  are the same that are in Italy.I'll write to make them HAPPY with false citations that Italy is 3rd world.Here there 's something wrong.I think (I'm sure) CIA hands and not only write in these articles (military,policy and economy).Not only CIA ,but many others.Glc72 (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which, with that attitude, is why you won't last long on Wikipedia. You need to listen to what other editors are telling you about original research and synthesis. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  21:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This is your opinion.I'll live all the same))))Glc72 (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!
You are so right! Thanks! :-) -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  23:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Byrraju Ramalinga Raju
Please explain the reasons for reverting the changes before making changes to my corrections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil2000 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

STOP disruptive edits. Tell me what's wrong with the edits Neil2000 (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty obvious copyright violation: "In perhaps one of Corporate India’s worst unfolding chapters," -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  17:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggest it, don't remove it. Neil2000 (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations will be immediately removed. You need to use the talk page to suggest rewordings. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  17:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and will incorporate any suggestions but Please be patient while I finish the entire page and refrain from editing while I'm working on the page. Neil2000 (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you have shown an interest in the biographical page of Mr. Raju. I would appreciate if you could go through the page that I just edited and let me know any enhancements before you making them. Neil2000 (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're asking me to check with you before making my edits, I'm afraid that will not be happening. Please use Talk:Byrraju Ramalinga Raju and be mindful of WP:BRD. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  03:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

ha ha ha..chill Neil2000 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

NeilN, I see that you are still dealing with Neil2000's disruptive/violation editing, as additionally seen in the below. If you need my help with this matter, just ping me. Seeing you debate with the other Neil is like watching twins or clones who are at opposite ends with regard to each other on a viewpoint. I was going to compare you two to lightness and darkness, but I decided that would be inappropriate (considering that Neil2000 quite strongly believes that he is on the right side, as opposed to the dark side). Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Flyer22. I can respect Neil2000's viewpoint re: company history as he can make arguments supporting his edits (though I disagree with them). What is disruptive however, is his continual copyright violations. I have given him a final warning for those. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  21:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect title of the Millennial Generation page
Please see this discussion involving you on the Millennial Generation talk page:

The name of the page should be Millennial Generation -- not "Millennials". For example, the name of Generation X's page isn't "Xers" and the name of the Baby Boomers page isn't "Boomers". How do we get it changed to Millennial Generation? 172.250.31.151 (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The title was arrived at by consensus in the section right above this one. Sources refer to the "Millennials", not "Millennial Generation". --NeilN talk to me 15:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The actual title was not arrived at with a consensus. Could you point out the discussion about that? Again, the name of Generation X's page isn't "Xers" and the name of the Baby Boomers page isn't "Boomers".


 * P.S. The consensus you quote above misspells the name with one letter "n". So then by your logic then we should change it to Millenials (with one "n" instead of two).


 * P.S.S. Also read the first line of the above "Requested Move" discussion, it says : "Although Generation Y was the initial name given by commentators, it appears that Millennial Generation has currently more notability" 172.250.31.151 (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm watching the article's talk page (and have replied there). No need to copy content here. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  16:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Nosepea68 & Sarkeesian
Just so that you are aware this is being turfed from Rationalwiki where it came with the extra sentences: "Quality videos for quality price, funding is easy using feminist popular words misogyny, online harassment, misogynist and bringing these fashionable words in use when contacting media to get media coverage! Promise them some questionably made stickers! Well, done Anita." This is determined POV pushing. Koncorde (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Tips and pointers for a newbie perchance?
Could you first see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Tropes_vs._Women_in_Video_Games and then tell me if I violate some guideline and tell what guideline and maybe give me some tips on articles, for human skills it'd be a waste of time, believe me I have tried. Nosepea68 (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Continued disruption
The IP is continuing the disruption, editing the initial move request. ,, -- Neil N   <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  18:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Neil, but they're my own comments and nobody elses. Wikipedia policy allows me to occasionally edit my comments on a talk page.  And the edits are constructive edits because I've added new information which apparently you don't happen to agree with.  Also, please stop editing MY comments on the talk page -- and then accusing me of the same (editing my comments).  So shouldn't this be a disruption complaint about you? 172.250.31.151 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied here. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  18:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you stop following me around Wikipedia and reflexively reverting my edits? That would be cool, thanks. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you pay attention to edit summaries (mine and other editors)? Oh and . Should I accuse you of "following me around Wikipedia"? -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  20:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not an accusation at all. It's a question. I just noticed that you showed up on another page, Gen X, and reverted my good faith edit for no good reason today.  Are you following me on Wikipedia?172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you not reading edit summaries?, And your question had two false suppositions. -- Neil N   <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  20:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just answer the question. Yes or no. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine - I am not following you around and none of your edits were reflexively reverted. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  20:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, good thanks!172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Millennials (old)
Your recent editing history at Millennials talk page shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

172.250.31.151 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You should get a warning for throwing around warnings
I am quoting Anita Sarkeesian. Just because you don't like the fact that her words said at different times make her a liar, you don't get to give me warnings. Nor does it give you the right to delete my well referenced posts on her talk page.


 * Agree about this editor's "warnings" & "admin hearing" requests. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's my day to tangle with IP's who are clueless about or don't care about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hopefully both of you smarten up soon. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  02:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am pointing out that Anita Sarkeesian claimed to be a life long gamer when asking for money for her YouTube videos about video games, but said "I'm not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games" two years earlier. This makes her a liar and allows me to express the reasonable opinion that she is an irrelevant attention seeker (could have used the term money whore, but didn't). Given that it was you who deleted these comments many times, why am I the one who needs to "smarten up"? 108.181.113.148 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your opinion has no place in an article. Unless you have Reliable Sources, then it doesn't matter, especially when this is a Biography of a living Person.-- SKATER  T a l k 02:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I did not include them in the article. I used the talk page to suggest an edit and I expressed an opinion, which was backed up by well referenced fact, at the same time. 108.181.113.148 (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As was pointed out to you, BLP applies on talk pages too. You provided no sources calling the subject a liar or an irrelevant attention seeker who pushes extremist agenda. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  02:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You may also want to read WP:Original Research as well mate, You didn't provide anything that was a third party and her youtube videos don't count.- SKATER  T a l k 02:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You just reverted 4 times NeilN. Funny that you throw around warnings for something you seem to feel entitled to do.172.250.31.151 (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:3RRNO #2 - Try to refrain from lecturing on rules you know nothing about. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  02:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned many times, there is video of her saying "I'm not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games", as well as plenty of footage of her later claiming to love video games and that she's been a life long gamer. I didn't link to it because it had already been linked to earlier on that page. Are you happy now, or should I link to these again?108.181.113.148 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are still missing the point here, your opinion in terms of this article does not matter. You have no third-party sources, and are conducting original research, please read all I've linked to you before continuing. We can't allow libelous material like that on a BLP.-- SKATER  T a l k 03:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not interested in discussing this with you. If NeilN still doesn't get the point (The fact that she has made contradictory statements on an important issue is relevant and should be included in the article in some fashion) than I'm not interested in talking to him anymore either.108.181.113.148 (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * An admin is handling the situation so I'm done here. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  03:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree and second that. Maybe we should start a campaign on wiki to just do that. User:NeilN throws around warning on flimsy issues and engages in personal attacks and frustrates editors. His account should be blocked. Neil2000 (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering you're the one throwing around personal attacks I'd watch out for that boomerang.-- SKATER  T a l k 21:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's see. We have one editor who engages in WP:BLP violations, one editor who is currently blocked for disruptive editing, and one editor who does not understand copyright and regularly copies text from other sources into articles. Guys, I've been editing Wikipedia for over eight years now, with 45,000+ edits, and have never had a warning from an admin. You might want to consider I have nothing against you personally, but am only trying to get you to follow our policies and guidelines. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  21:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Phat Dick
hey bruh sorry about writing phat dick on the PHD article i did it as a joke and i was gonna undo it but forgot sorry aight while peace man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.8.47 (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Satyam Computers section
Your disruptive edits needs to stop. This is your final warning. Based on the history of the company, Satyam computers was nothing but used as a personal account of Mr. Byrraju Ramalinga Raju. Hence the fate of the company after his departure is very much part of his biography. If you have objections, raise it to admins for opinions but do not remove relevant material. Check John Riga's bio page on wiki, since you are so hung up on precedence.Neil2000 (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What is your issue here? Do you have an agenda to block content in Mr. Raju's page?Neil2000 (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Neil2000 You need to look up the definition of disruptive editing. Hint: it is not removing a copyright violation and rewriting it . -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  14:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are you removing Satyam computer's current state from the Bio page of Mr. Raju? Neil2000 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Neil2000 Talk:Byrraju_Ramalinga_Raju -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  14:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * John Rigas is actually an excellent example. The article mentions the initial sale of the Sabres. It does not mention what the new owner did with the team (sell it again). -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  14:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read and educate self before making such comments. Sabre's team whose franchise is covered by NHL league rules. League took over and NHL sold it to Tom Golisano. There are no public general shareholders involved - there are no class actions involved. Due to source of funds irregularities they just stripped Rigas of their ownership. But look at the publicly traded company Adelphia. User talk:NeilN, no offense but offer constructive suggestions but what you are doing doesn't contribute to that. I get it, you have a different agenda. Whatever it is, we hit a wall - I referred this matter to committee. Will wait for a neutral point of view. Neil2000 (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what committee you contacted but good luck. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  20:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If it should prove necessary to bring the recent issues to WP:ANI -- I'm still hoping it will not -- and assuming you would be willing to present the case (I think you have more credibility and experience with this activity than I do), please include these discussions in the information as well as the article's and the editor's Talk pages. I think they are relevant to establish the editor's willingness to take the time to understand and follow Wiki policies and guidelines, as well as to accept suggestions from other editors. Thanks! Dwpaul (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dwpaul If it goes to ANI, it will probably be because the editor continues to commit copyright violations. Thank you for your help with providing examples for him. That is a blockable offense and I've found it best to focus on the current infractions being committed. Of course, if the editor starts having BLP issues again, those diffs will be very useful. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  01:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Noted after I posted the previous that most of the same discussion was taking place in parallel on the editor's page (I cross posted there myself) so understand it might just be perceived as TMI. Thanks. Dwpaul (talk)

Photo Update
Neil, this is not me OR my friends, I am working with a professor to raise department visibility and we both thought this would be a good picture to get up especially because there are others of clubs up posted already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merybar (talk • contribs)
 * @Merybar Fair enough, but Wikipedia is not a yearbook and should not be used to "raise department visibility". None of the other clubs have group photos. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  19:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Harper: Bogus "Evangelical" claim
It's not appropriate to remove a template just because you don't like it. The request was for a supporting source, but you simply referred readers to the circular logic in Harper's "Personal life" section. What you're doing is manipulating Wikipedia content to your own personal view which can be seen as unethical and dishonest. I'd like to suggest that you leave the template in place in order to see if any supporting evidence surfaces. If something appears (other than your own personal dislike of Harper), then so much the better. The article will have been improved. Your personal dislike of SH should not colour how you edit encyclopedic content, and in this case it's easy to let your personal bias distort the content. Wikpedia doesn't improve if articles become aggressively partisan. Santamoly (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Talk about assuming bad faith. In order:


 * 1) I removed the template because of WP:LEADCITE. I thought the material was adequately sourced in the body.
 * 2) An Evangelical Christian is a type of Christian. There is nothing "bad" about it.
 * 3) I have no particularly strong feelings about Harper. This is the sum total of my edits:
 * Please remember WP:AGF is one of our core guidelines before you make accusations with no basis in fact. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  20:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We're discussing a Living Person here, and labeling him in such a way as to affect the image of that person. "Evangelical" actually refers to a behaviour as in "marked by militant or crusading zeal" (Merriam-Webster).  Since the article affects a living person's reputation in the world, we should be careful what we're saying.  It's quite reckless for other editors to make statements like that, and similarly questionable to discourage others from asking for Reliable Sources.  In other words, "Prove It". I've personally never seen Harper discuss Christianity in public, let alone with a "militant or crusading zeal".  What's to lose by asking (in good faith) for some documentation? Santamoly (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Santamoly Please read Evangelical Christian. Words can have different meanings. In this context, evangelical denotes a particular Christian denomination, like Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Baptist all do. Would it help if evangelical was capitalized? I also added sources to the talk page a while ago for you to peruse. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  21:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Christian and Missionary Alliance in Canada has been a growing evangelical denomination since the 1880s ..." - The Christian and Missionary Alliance in Canada - Who We Are. There is nothing pejorative about the term "evangelical" to evangelicals. (I don't happen to be one.) Dwpaul (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, "marked by militant or crusading zeal" is the fifth and least common meaning cited by M-W. What you've done by citing that and only that definition from among the five is attempt to use Merriam-Webster content to advance your own personal view, which can be seen as unethical and dishonest. Dwpaul (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, Dwpaul. This is the highlighted definition, "of or relating to a Christian sect or group that stresses the authority of the Bible, the importance of believing that Jesus Christ saved you personally from sin or hell, and the preaching of these beliefs to other people". Maybe Santamoly was unaware there was a Christian denomination calling themselves evangelicals? -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  23:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. For that matter, "marked by militant or crusading zeal" isn't necessarily a pejorative description; many evangelicals and members of other religious (and other) movements would be quite content, even pleased, to be described that way, since that is often what the movement encourages them and expects them to be. I think possibly Santamoly is unwittingly reflecting some personal bias themselves in their approach to this matter. It happens to all of us now and again. Dwpaul (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Fifth" definition is actually a most common interpretation in religious circles but, be that as it may, the use of this term is still reckless when dealing with a living person. That's the issue here.  You can't mitigate the offence by attacking me for raising the question.  And the question still is: how can you label a man as "evangelical" without any evidence (unless you have an agenda to attach such a label to a living person with no reason). It doesn't matter if it's "perjorative", as Dwpaul suggested in feeble defence.  The Alliance Church, which Harper may attend, may exhibit "evangelical" behaviour in its activities, but that is not evidence that Harper is an "evangelical Christian".  Harper may even be an atheist for all you know since atheists do occasionally attend churches - looking for loopholes, I presume.  Regardless, the bottom line is that someone is taking liberties with a living person's reputation by stating as fact something for which there is absolutely no evidence that Harper is involved in "the preaching of these beliefs to other people".  And that's a serious matter according to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.


 * Let me ask the objecters (Dwpaul & NeilN) above: Why are you afraid of asking for evidence? You're raising some pretty strong and vigorous objections. Are you trying to manipulate the article to your liking? Absent any good explanation, that's a highly unethical use of Wikipedia and definitely suspect according to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In case you're dodging the law of WP, here it is again: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons . . . that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" Santamoly (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Santamoly, You need to drop the attacks on our motives, especially as you don't understand the term "evangelical". You asked for evidence - I provided two more references on the talk page a couple days ago which you have conspicuously not commented on despite being directed there in a post above. I have now added a couple more references to the article. You can discuss this on the article's talk page, without the insinuated personal attacks, please. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  12:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A member of an evangelical Christian church, as Harper is well-documented to be, is an evangelical Christian. It is not an insult. It is simply the way of describing someone who is a member of an evangelical Christian denomination and/or subscribes to the principles of that faith.  It is not at all unreasonable to assume that as a member of that church, he subscribes to its principles, which are evangelical (by the first, most-common definition at M-W).  BTW, I challenge your assertion that "in religious circles" the term evangelical has some different, negative meaning or connotation than elsewhere. Please provide a source to support that contention, or at the very least define "religious circles" if you have some specific group in mind. Evangelical has a common meaning (the first def at M-W) among any who have had any formal religious training or experience.  Clearly evangelical Christian churches do not find the term to have a negative connotation, since it is a word they use quite liberally to define themselves. Dwpaul (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer your direct questions: I have no ulterior motive. I am not Canadian, and have no knowledge of Mr. Harper other than what appears in this article and its references. I have no motivation to manipulate the article on Stephen Harper in any way; in fact, I couldn't care less about him.  However, I am motivated to not see Wikipedia's mostly common-sense policies misused and abused to suppress information from or alter articles due to one editor's (or a hundred editors') lack of knowledge or understanding of them, and/or of the concepts to which they personally take exception.  This, and disliking seeing NeilN (who I have found to be reasonable and fair in other discussions) unfairly and persistently attacked, are my only motivations in participating in this discussion. Dwpaul (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And the term I used is pejorative (not "perjorative," a word that doesn't exist) and its applicability here certainly does go to the heart of any assertion of BLP violation. Dwpaul (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finally trying to include some reliable sources, even though the ones presented are a bit lame. It's generally easier to just leave the "Request Sources" template in place than to pugnaciously delete it and get into a whole lot of defensive posturing afterward. It also wouldn't hurt either of you to review Talk Page Guidelines. Cheers! Santamoly (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Santamoly Physician, heal thyself. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  05:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is only Talk Page Guidelines that prevent me from giving you my true response. Dwpaul (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done, both of you. That's why the Guidelines are necessary. You're learning, albeit with some struggle and visible pain, that a request template is not a challenge or an insult to your dignity, but an effort to improve WP content. Carry on :-) Santamoly (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You started with post filled with bad faith assumptions and end with this condescending tripe. Stop wasting our time and figure out how you should have approached this situation properly. Heck, I'll even show you: "I don't think the sources in the body support what's in the lede. Can you find sources that state Harper is a evangelical Christian?" -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  17:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, my opening remark above was "It's not appropriate to remove a template just because you don't like it." In Wikipedia, it's usually better to learn how to do it the WP way than to have to have to deal with all the resulting noise if you try to make up your own rules. Santamoly (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"It's not appropriate to remove a template just because you don't like it. [bad faith] The request was for a supporting source, but you simply referred readers to the circular logic in Harper's "Personal life" section. What you're doing is manipulating Wikipedia content to your own personal view [bad faith] which can be seen as unethical and dishonest [bad faith].  I'd like to suggest that you leave the template in place in order to see if any supporting evidence surfaces. If something appears (other than your own personal dislike of Harper [bad faith]), then so much the better.  The article will have been improved. Your personal dislike of SH [bad faith] should not colour how you edit encyclopedic content, and in this case it's easy to let your personal bias distort the content [bad faith].  Wikpedia doesn't improve if articles become aggressively partisan."

Also, please deal with your own biases, and disruptive edits   before writing such accusations on other users' talk pages. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  21:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Santamoly, based on a quick gander at your editcount and edit history versus NeilN's, I think it's likely that NeilN (with more than 46,000 edits versus your 961, and about 4 years on you) is a better authority on "how to do it the WP way" than you are. I realize that folks can edit using multiple accounts (over a span of time or at the same time) for legitimate reasons, but based on the evidence at hand I'd say your preening arrogance is only that, and not supported by wisdom or experience. And in any case, I dislike preening arrogance, even on the part of those who have earned the right to it. <span style="font-size:120%; font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"> Dwpaul  Talk   21:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)