User talk:NeilN/Archive 7

Justin Bieber
This article is written like an advertisement about a current event, in complete contravention of Wikipedia's standard musician template. The second paragraph begins "The first part of his two-part[6] debut album My World was released on November 17, 2009" -- it is traditional to list albums and singles in the Discography section of the standard music template, not the fourth sentence. (See, for example, Souljaboy, Aaron Carter). The first paragraphs of Wikipedia articles about public figures should never have a current-event bias. I am happy to rewrite the article to be more consistent with other musicians, but the label I applied in the interim is absolutely appropriate. Neutralpov (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dian Fossey
It's CRYSTAL CLEAR: It says Sigourney Weaver starring as Dian Fossey in the movie Gorillas in th Mist I.E. in the movie Gorillas in th Mist Dian Fossey (played by Sigouney Weaver says: "No, I won't let them turn this mountain into a goddam zoo". This quote must be included here Dear Neil as it epitomizes the main conviction for which Dian Fossey stands for. --EmmaHutton (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)EmmaHutton

You can't be serious! You're asking whether Dian said those words??? She said it a thousand of times, this is what Dian was all about in her later years. Please inform Yourself a little bit better before making changes and read the biography of F. Mowat which includes Dian Fossey's diaries and article all archived in the vaults of Cornell university.--EmmaHutton (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

ok

One question: Isn't it more logic to put the paragraph Education and Occupational therapy together with her PhD in the end? Emma

Neil, good writer? Could You please explain, why my suggested flow doesn't make sense? All biographies of researchers start out with their work and NOT with their abortions and the hemorrhages as listed afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaHutton (talk • contribs) 20:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied here -- Neil N   talk to me  20:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Neil, the article's too long and people will miss the central point of Dian if even the Doctors of her appendicectomy are cited. Please, was the Doctor of Albert Einstein's appendicectomy cited? Are Albert Einstein's summer jobs in Zürich cited? Please take on a more serious and scientific style and one that is less gossip like.

The truth is that Dian Fossey wasn't an alcoholic. There's no proof for it. It's a lie spread by Amy Vedder and Bill Weber. See Farley Mowat's book. "Woman in the Mist". PLEASE —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaHutton (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that deleting "outward lies" as I'm citing Rosamond Carr in her book "Land of a Thousand Hills" concerning totally wrong allegations of Dian Fossey being a racist and alcoholic is a big contribution to this article. Don't You think? Do You know the subject at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaHutton (talk • contribs) 20:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

But there's no mention of Einstein's summer jobs or medial records on Wikipedia. Plus the lies about her being a racist, depressed and alcoholic have to be deleted.

A. On her lecture tour to South Africa Dr Fossey was so critical of Apartheid that she was banned from SA (See F.Mowats book) plus stories of her being an alcoholic are also wrong (See Rosamond's Carr book ("Land of a Thousand Hills").

It's also a lie that her center was run down. Her center was run down in her absence by her detractor A. Harcourt (See Mowat's book). Dian repaired eveything during months after her return.

It's also a lie that she was depressed. After obtaining her 2 year visa and selling her book for 2 million dollars she was "as exubarant as a dog let off her lash" - see last chapter of F. Mowat's book.

So can we please undo Your recent changes of my changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaHutton (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of Dian Fossey Mowat's book has way more authority. The Wall Street Journal is about finances. Plus I've looked it up: This "cited" article DOESN'T exist. Where is it?--EmmaHutton (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Show us this Wall Street Article. I'll write to the Wall Street Journal and ask them for this article which doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaHutton (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume the article is:
 * Which is a review of a documentary program that aired on A&E around that time. The reviewer contrasts the fairly light (in content) and positive (in perspective) material about Fossey with the harsh/negative treatment she was given by Bill Weber and Amy Vedder in their In the Kingdom of Gorillas book. All we have is these texts (and others you might find). Per WP:NPOV policy, we are not allowed to pick which is right. If there are sources that support a claim that another source is biased (or the authors have a grudge, or whatever), we can also include that commentary. But that's how things work here...we say who said what, and let readers read. DMacks (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is a review of a documentary program that aired on A&E around that time. The reviewer contrasts the fairly light (in content) and positive (in perspective) material about Fossey with the harsh/negative treatment she was given by Bill Weber and Amy Vedder in their In the Kingdom of Gorillas book. All we have is these texts (and others you might find). Per WP:NPOV policy, we are not allowed to pick which is right. If there are sources that support a claim that another source is biased (or the authors have a grudge, or whatever), we can also include that commentary. But that's how things work here...we say who said what, and let readers read. DMacks (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for providing this framed up sensationalistic "Wall Street Journal article" whose primary source is Amy Vedder and Bill Weber: Two frustrated former Fossey students that dragged Dian's name deliberately through the mud. May I remind You that in F. Mowat's book it is written that:"Amy Vedder defecated among the gorillas, let them eat their feces and then laughed about their reaction to it". Bill Weber was severely beaten by a silverback in 1984 and hospitalised because he led hordes of tourists to the gorillas. This lets You guess about these two students' mind frame.

Also: The fact is Dian Fossey spoke out against apartheid in South Africa and was banned from reentry. She was well loved in the Kinigi village where she's still remembered for her generosity and her love for the local kids. As opposed to the Mukingo poacher village.... There's no proof of racism and alcoholism.

It's just as F. Mowat writes: "Myths, espacially racist and salicious ones die hard".--EmmaHutton (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)--EmmaHutton (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Dear Neil,it would be nice if the section "Interest in Africa", "Congo" and "Personal Biography" could be made more concise and be replaced by her scientific findings she made, like females transferring between groups, infanticide, vocalisation, social relationships between groups. I don't understand why You are so obsessed by these (absolutely false allegations) of alcoholism and racism. But the picture of a "racist, alcoholic and punishing woman" seems just too good not to be made up in modern America by some sick minds, journalists who base their articles on such sickos like Amy Veder and Bill Weber, right?--EmmaHutton (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Neil,

it would be nice if the section "Interest in Africa", "Congo" and "Personal Biography" could be made more concise and be replaced by her scientific findings she made, like females transferring between groups, infanticide, vocalisation, social relationships between groups. I don't understand why You are so obsessed by these (absolutely false allegations) of alcoholism and racism. But the picture of a "racist, alcoholic and punishing woman" seems just too good not to be made up in modern America by some sick minds, journalists who base their articles on such sickos like Amy Veder and Bill Weber, right?--EmmaHutton (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Neil, please, some of the gossip is totally ridiculous. There's no proof that Fossey made love to a monk?! Plus it's unsourced. That's why I deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.141.41.207 (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How can anybody claim Dian Fossey made love to a monk? Is this an encyclopedia or the "NAtional Enquirer"? What claim is next? That she had a child with an alien?--EmmaHutton (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This claim is debased. What is written in all books and her personal diary archive is that Dian was impressed by a trappist monk called Father Raymond because of the book he published. Why on earth does one has to debase this fact into "lovers" and sex between a researcher and a monk? This is just typical sexist, sensationalistic, yellow press truth debasing. Admit it!--EmmaHutton (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Minney
NeilN, you are a pretty good writer. I'm trying to help with your Christ page. I was seeing more leave everyday, and anonymous, hard, editting (no offense). You asked not to erase the "talk bar", but I have after it was over one year old. If you need, I would mention it on the intro and maybe put it at bottom. Whatever you favor or need can go at the top as well. Tanx, God bless you, Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musketeer41 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Van Morrison
It states "the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". Presumably, if the country of birth shouldn't be mentioned - neither should the city. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about nationality - that should be mentioned, as MOSBIO states. I'm talking about actually listing the specific place of birth. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude - are you completely obsessed with Van Morrison? Are you actually Van Morrison? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.229.239 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please contribute to the discussion page before deleting from Sanjay Gupta
I have been replacing an entry I've made to the Sanjay Gupta page that is being deleted by Carlstar3 who has been involved in editing wars on the page for years. The entry is concerned with statements of facts, and I have documented them all. Please address the sources rather than just deleting. Please read the discussion page. Mike Holloway 05:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelpholloway (talk • contribs)
 * As I've explained on your talk page and at WP:3RR, Carlstar3 is doing exactly the right thing in this case according to WP:BLP. -- Neil N   talk to me  05:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the specific complaints. Two of the lines are summaries of referenced fact, and can be dispensed with I suppose.  The fact of Gupta's statements in 2005 clearly references a professional medical ethics journal where it was reported as an example of physicians misusing brain death.  There's no dispute about it.  If there's some trouble with Harvard Professor Troug's report please let me know.  I do not appear to have reverted three times in a day, so 3RR doesn't seem to apply, though it appears that my entry has been deleted more than twice in one day without discussion.  I'll delete the two offending lines and repost tomorrow.  Please take a moment to look at the other references and let me know if you can find fault with them.
 * Both as a physician and a journalist, his statements about brain death represent a major disagreement from the consensus medical opinion, and deserves to be a part of the biography. Also the clear, and referenced, mistelling of Mark Ragucci's story is an important fact in the matter.  You can check with Dr. Ragucci yourself if you like.  Email.
 * Shouldn't this be done on the Gupta discussion page?
 * Mike Holloway 06:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Refactor to prevent spam harvesting. Um, posting other people's e-mail address on the public Internet is often considered um, not polite, shall we say?  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Badminton
The external link to www.BadmintonLadders.com is NOT spam nor was it meant as advertising. The site is meant to help badminton players who want to meet each other to improve their games. The site is free for all and no profit it being made from it -- so for those badminton players who want to create ladders for their school, club or city/town why would such a link be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.27.205 (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Neil.

You stated "the link does not meet our guidelines for inclusion because it contains no in-depth detail about Badminton." By that logic, please remove the link to Badminton at the Open Directory Project as all that page contains are links to other sites that also contain no "in-depth detail" about badminton. As a matter of fact, I am sure many of the other links should be removed as well as several sites I visited had very little (if any) "in-depth" information about badminton. The real purpose of the badminton subject is not only in-depth information, but for a subject like this -- how do badminton players connect with each other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.27.205 (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Woah, woah, woah, hang on. The Open Dir project at dmoz is not Wikipedia.  You cited "logic".  The first principle of logic is differentiating one thing from another: Wikipedia and dmoz have zero to do with one another.  (Sorry to interrupt.)  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. The IP is complaining about the link to dmoz. I pointed him towards the WP:EL guidelines. -- Neil N   talk to me  16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Mythbusters edits
It is wrong of you to delete well intentioned posts by individuals who wish to make certain facts about the Mythbusters known. There is plenty of proof indicating that what I have posted is true, yet a few biased individuals delete these additions while labeling those that posted them vandals. This is wrong, and you know it. If you can prove that my changes are vandalism, then go ahead. But in all fairness, they should be left up until they are proven false. 69.122.132.127 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Google Adam Goatse. It is him, and it is real. Watch the video, if you can stomach it, and tell me that isn't Adam Savage! 69.122.132.127 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Vandal blocked. -- Neil N   talk to me  16:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Onigiri
You reverted an edit by AvengerX. However this issue was resolved by discussions.1, 2 The list is only limited to the typical fillings in Japan, while the sources are about Onigiri specialty shop and a limited period sales of a convenient store. So I reverted your edit. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no resolution on there. Where is the resolution that "the list is only limited to the typical fillings in Japan"? -- Neil N    talk to me  21:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The resolution is this ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, wow. You may want to revisit WP:CONSENSUS. I won't revert unless there's other support but please, don't mischaracterize your article edit with an edit summary as "this issue was resolved by discussions". -- Neil N   talk to me  21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus was established by the fact that there are no objections since 21 December. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Except now another editor wants to change the list. Again, I'm not going to revert until the other editor weighs in but right now there is no consensus and there is an objection and nothing has been resolved by discussions. -- Neil N   talk to me  21:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus can never be established by silence. Never. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Jewish mythology
Hi Neil, Just wanted to let you know that there is a new book soon to be released by notable author, titled Pen of Iron:American Prose and the King James Bible, which discuss in length the biblical allusions in literature, since the King James version include the Torah aka Old Testament there will be more material  to add to the section I wrote on Wikipedia, Torah Allusions in Fiction Perhaps someone will write a Wikipedia article on  New Testament allusions in fiction. Best Regards, Razilber (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

David Carradine
Hi, I completely agree with the edit you made on the Carradine article, but I was wondering what your reason for doing it was. I am new to Wikipedia and and I don't know what the abbreviation "rm COI" means. I had messaged the person that wrote the original draft of that statement and asked for a citation because it appeared to be self serving original research, but I am not sure. I just wanted to know what your reason was.--DorothyBrousseau 21:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothybrousseau (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I thought it was something like that. It was poorly written too.--DorothyBrousseau 21:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothybrousseau (talk • contribs)

Hermann Tilke
What do you consider 'personal' opinion? It is the general consensus that Tilke tracks rarely supply entertaining racing. Go into any F1 community and you will be given a resounding affermative to the question of boring races at tilke-designed tracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedington (talk • contribs) 23:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, no. They are the words used by many, many individuals. Need i get a link to a popular forum topic which describes the extent to how the tracks create boring races? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedington (talk • contribs) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/51822-is-hermann-tilke-slowly-killing-formula-one

Enough for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedington (talk • contribs) 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

How about i change it to say "Tilke's tracks are regularly criticised for producing uneventful racing. He is widely recognised as 'slowly killing' Formula One."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedington (talk • contribs) 23:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wythenshawe
Greetings. Exactly what was it that 'got your goat' ? ! All the edits by moi were 'factualy' correct, so...? ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Hm ! av bin torkin to foke abowt wiki... #?@! be de best way to put it (thare risponse). it as a name to liv dowun to... won noes wot dey meen !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ROBERT TAGGART (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter Orszag
Also, please see http://www.hillel.princeton.edu/board_of_directors.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.47.18 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism from my user talk. -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 22:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bell
You didn't respond to my comment on my talk page. I said: "Go back and re-read my numerous comments about that. No, Dodo merely used 'boilerplate' documents, pre-written, as if that was sufficient. It wasn't. I have raised MANY objections since his initial deletorreah, and no, he has not addressed 98%+ of what I said. Hint: Templates, or 'boilerplate' text, is only appropriate if the person who uses it has applied it correctly, and modified it to address case-specific issues. Templates may be the BEGINNING of a good response, but they are rarely the END. 'Dodo' (and most others 'addressing' the issue, to the extent that they 'address' it) pretends that he can point his finger at my posts, but at the same time ignore HIS OWN actions! THat's not surprising: His actions were thoroughly premature, improper, rude, and abusive. Unless you are willing to actually address my specific objections to his actions, your defense of Dodo is no better than 'meat puppetry'. Others have behaved exactly like you, so you're in bad company. James dalton bell (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jim_Bell" " —Preceding unsigned comment added by James dalton bell (talk • contribs) 01:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dastryaize
Hi there, thanks for the work you do to keep Wikipedia an excellent resource for searchers. As the webmaster for the new wild cats website Tigerace.com, I felt it would be relevant to add the link to the tiger page, among others. Your comment for removing it was 'Not high quality link'. Why is it not a high quality link? I admit it's not a particularly encyclopedic site, but information is referenced, and it is useful for people wanting more images on tigers, and where to find them (whether in zoos or in fiction) and for people who enjoy them and just want a fun website to browse. So I'm curious to know why it isn't considered a good enough link for Wikipedia. What should I add to the website to make it "high quality"? Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dastryaize (talk • contribs) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

signing on Wikipedia
This is so frustrating. I actually have been signing. But for some reason "it" says I'm not. I have been using the little icon above to sign, I preview, and my signature is there. My signature shows up on the posts I make and so does the statement that I did not sign. I frequently get messages from "sinebot". I know there is a glitch-but it is not with me. I am signing this post now. Maybe it will be correct, and maybe it wont.--DorothyBrousseau 11:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothybrousseau (talk • contribs)

Edit conflict...
Re your question, yes it was. – ukexpat (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And I just added your comment back... – ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
I noticed that you removed a deletion message and tried to improve the sarcmark page. Thanks for helping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsy John (talk • contribs) 23:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

both account belong to me itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neinsun (talk • contribs) 09:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dick Clark
Neil...I was asked by a former colleague at GENUiTY in Cambridge MA during 2000-2001 to upload a Biography for David Michael Frees. He is NOT a "Notable Person" so this is probably the next best thing.

So I am just trying to do a favor for her and I do not believe her to be a liar.

I was Senior UNIX Security Administrator at GENUiTY handling AOL Mail Servers among other things (prior to that I was a Senior Security Analyst at State Street Bank in 1999-2000, custodians for $5.5 Trillion USD...about $16.3 Trillion USD...so I am NEITHER a "meat puppet" or a "sock puppet!!!). I am however "NEW TO WIKIPEDIA PUBLISHING" so I don't mind someone telling me that I'm doing something wrong (if I am).

I cannot personally verify the following information, just am TRUSTING the lady that sent it to me who can be reached as [redacted]

Here is the information sent to me that she wanted for David Frees Biography:

David Frees Biography                                                  --Wikipedia

David Michael Frees, born (May 12, 1948) in (Westboro, PA) and also known as “Pop Frosty” is a rock music and contemporary dance lover, best known for his longest-running American Bandstand Fan Club  founded in November, 1960 and recognized by Dick Clark as American Bandstand’s Official East Coast Fan Club President. Frees is the noted authority and historian of the period and on the Philadelphia American Bandstand era with a fifty-year history of his fan club, friendships, affiliations and memorabilia. American Bandstand originated in Philadelphia in the early 1950's as a local dance program, then catapulted to national prominence in August, 1957. It was a wildly popular daily  program featuring top 40 rock hits and  local area teens who taught countless thousands of teen-agers all over the country how to stroll, bop,  twist, jitterbug and do the mashed potatoes. While Dick Clark spun the records, guest performers sang the latest hits. High schoolers rushed home each day tuning in to watch and love the music, the singers and the kids who danced across their black and white screens. These ‘teens, or “regulars” as they were known, enjoyed celebrity status themselves, receiving stacks of fan mail and sharing magazine covers with the most popular singers and actors of the day.

David “Pop Frosty” Frees, a life-long Pennsylvania resident, has been lauded with accolades and recognition himself and rightly so. His knowledge and loyalty to American Bandstand and its prominence in American culture is widely recognized

His remarks have appeared in the New York Times, the Reading Eagle, the  Lancaster New Era, and the Courier-Journal  His archives are in Dick Clark’s History of American Bandstand, American Bandstand with Fred Bronstein and the Time and Life Fifties Book. He has appeared on Live from the River Edge “Dance Party” in Reading, PA, Bandstand Days, Dance party USA, Philly news Channel 6 (Penns Landing Bandstand Show), the Steel Pier Show, Teen Thing, and the Hy Lit Show.

Frees consulted with Peter Jennings and Todd Brewster on the unique and contemporary “Century Book” and “The Century Book for Young People” used in high school social studies classes across America. Upon his recommendation, Bandstand regular Bunny Gibson’s story is also featured in both books.

His numerous contributions include the American Bandstand Anniversary Show with Dick Clark, ABC News Our World, with the producer for the movie “Twist” as well as donations to the Enterprise Center Bandstand Memorabilia and the State Museum of Pennsylvania. Frees contributed information to the "History of American Bandstand" and "Dick Clark's American Bandstand" - two books in which David "Pop Frosty" Frees is acknowledged for his pictorial American Bandstand Memorabilia Collection contribution, and to Dance Party USA Channel 17 Homecoming Bandstand Specials. He is the advisor to the “The State Museum of Pennsylvania” for the planned American Bandstand exhibit with Curt Miner. .In addition, he was presented with a plaque in 1997 by the regulars as part of a ceremony giving a historical marker to the Philadelphia studio at 46th and Markets Streets. David Frees, as President of the American Bandstand Fan Club was part of the The Enterprise Center’s Fundraiser for the preservation of American Bandstand’s “Studio B”. His Fan Club is featured on the popular Internet web site, fiftiesweb.com

Along with his role as Fan Club president, David Frees possesses an extensive American Bandstand and rock memorabilia collection including photos, magazines, music, letters, posters, autographs and personal effects.. He corresponds with regulars, former dancers and fans from the show, keeping his outlook fresh and current. Frees fan club is still enjoyed by his many loyal members who receive photos and informational updates through his regular “Bandstand Boogie” newsletters also acknowledged by Dick Clark.. Throughout the years, scores of  Bandstand regulars have been remembered and featured in his “Bandstand Boogie”  newsletter. Among those are Bunny Gibson, Carole Scaldeferri, Carmen and Yvette Jimenez, the Beltrante Sisters, Steven Colanero, Thom Cardwell, Arlene and Bob Di Pietro, Judy and Michele Leibowitz, Justine Carrelli, Bob Clayton, Janet Hamill, Tex Connors, Arlene Sullivan, and Kenny Rossi.

---

Now if I am WRONG and he IS "Notable", can you please create a page for it.

If the entry I made on the Dick Clark Page is not agreeable then I'll abide by whatever you decide but in my opinion it does not hurt to mention that Dick Clark has a FAN CLUB.

Darryl Biech astronavigator@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relayer2000 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to take a new look, Bernie Miklasz article
Would you please comment here after your reliable source objections have been met (I believe): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernie_Miklasz#RfC:_Is_.27Controversies.27_section_relevant_in_biography_of_internet_savvy_sports_media_personality.3F You could started with the Controversies, Revisited section since those contain the discussion of the new reliable sources after your earlier input. Thanks Sdiver68 (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

MBA Channel at RSN
If you have a few moments to revisit your question on the use of MBA Channel as a source here, I'd appreciate hearing from you. We seem to have come full circle and are back to your original question. I know you may not have anything new to say, but reiterating the previous points within the context of self-published sources not being editorials might be helpful. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
It's a long term vandal that you reverted on another article. There doesn't have to be any more of an explanation than that, but if you must: Abuse response/76.205.27.234.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you see edits like the ones made by this IP, report the IP to AIV and refer to User:Ryulong/Sandbox.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I assume the admins won't wave me off with a "not sufficiently warned"? -- Neil N   talk to me  00:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Telangana
Page 25 of talks about "What did the Chief Ministers who belonged to this region do while they were in power?". I summarized it so that reader of the article gets an idea about grievances. Thats the reason I used the word "contributed" in the sentence. I am having trouble summarizing grievances. So many statistics so many complaints. I just want to give few important stats. I am debating myself, which stats to include? which stats will give correct picture to reader of the article? Without summarizing grievances whole section of the article is incomplete. FYI, the author of the article, Jayashankar attended all party meeting on Jan 5th called by Home minister P. Chidambaram. . So I sourced most of my info from his article. Ramcrk (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NeilN, first off, you appear to have a very poor record of administering edits to wiki pages. Coming to the changes I made to other authors' inputs - if you had observed carefully, they were all spelling mistakes that twisted the very title of the article. I had already inserted a comment in the talk page asking for any citations for other usages of the word - there weren't any. That's when I decided to step in. It may not be the ideal way to do it - which would be the authors themselves correcting their errors. When that doesn't happen (and with you being so irresponsible) what choices do contributors with good intention have? It's not like I submitted any incorrect entries. When they came to your notice, you could've approved them only upon verification, rather than discarding them with a silly excuse and retaining the wrong spellings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardaga (talk • contribs) 14:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied here -- Neil N   talk to me  16:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral Edits without discussion
NeilN you removed the external links I returned to the original place citing "WP:EL". Clearly you have not read or understood the "WP:EL" properly as most if not all of the links I returned fitted this criteria. NeilN you didn't bother to read the discussion page on Tokyo where these edits were discussed. It would appear from this page you have poor history when it comes to making changes to pages without entering into a discussion. Its pretty arrogant to unilaterally making edits and then leaving a cryptic note for me like I have never edited on Wikipedia before. I have returned the edits I made previously. If you had bothered to read the discussion then you would have realised I was returning the links to how they were previously. Whats up skip (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion was about three years old, buried in the archives, and you didn't mention it in your edit summary (at least I left you a link to a guideline). There's no need to enter a discussion prior to making every edit. You make a change, I revert, we discuss. And now you have three editors saying the links don't belong there. -- Neil N   talk to me  13:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks


TJ Spyke has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Here is a cookie for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

josepho93
dear neilN you have currently been taking away my supposed trash on the farmville wiki but i have not broken any rules and my addition was quite correct this is currently annoying me i will not make another comment because i know you will continualy do this and abuse your power because you probably love farmville so much anyway sorry for telling the world the truth about farmville your favorite game ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josepho93 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, before reading the article, I had no idea what Farmville was. And the "rule" you have broken is Wikipedia's policy of no original research. -- Neil N   talk to me  14:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Emarketing
Neil, the advantages addition is sourced from a professional. This author's magazine 'The Marketing Guru' is published worldwide and is a Top #100 best-seller. The magazine has full editorial control. Sorry didn't realise i had to explain the situation for such a minor edit. I'm an editor for Marketing Week myself, so i'm looking to extend my services for many articles. This particluar page was missing a very important point on reach. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_marketing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Steven Armstrong (talk • contribs) 23:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you like me to send you a copy of the magazine or something? You can contact the Magazine's office directly if needed. This is a global publication which is highly cited by top marketing professionals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Steven Armstrong (talk • contribs) 23:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I write for Marketing Week, we keep in regular contact with The Marketing Guru. From my understanding, the website has been re-launched for 2010 and has been split by topic area. Danny Asling is writing articles on Social Media and eMail Marketing, and Chris Murray continues to write articles about the Guru’s. It would be a real shame to not reference from the magazine. There are often times when Marketing Week uses many articles for special editions; this is very much a trusted magazine for the industry. Probably the most famous publication would be ‘The Marketing Gurus: Lessons from the Best Marketing Books of All Time’ – in which the editorial was published in the magazine. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marketing-Gurus-Lessons-Best-Books/dp/1591841054 As an author I would fully recommend that we reference from these types of articles as they can very useful for research. Sometimes wiki does miss some key points, so it’s helpful to keep the information up-to-date and relevant. In this particular case the page was missing the idea of reach/scope for the emarketing. I will certainly offer my editorial services for Marketing articles. Thanks Neil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Steven Armstrong (talk • contribs) 00:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Facism
Fascism Should be an objective desciption of fascism, not an indictment of capitalism or corporatism. Otherwise I could start quoting Alex Jones of Glenn Beck and present them in subjects as unbiased definition. I further explain the discusion portion why fascism is neither left nor right, but has less to do with economics or classes than the structure of government, as even Hitler called himself a socialist. The previous definition was so loaded as to be a marxist definition of fascism. Hardly the rational objective text I've come to expect from wikipedia. If someone wants to comment on corporatism, they should make a separate page on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstiene (talk • contribs) 06:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for info
I had many some problem with previous account —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neinsun (talk • contribs) 11:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Soulja Boy.
Believe me, I understand. Is there anything you can do about the vandal? It seems to be this user, just with a new name. If you can help, that'd be amazing. I've looked through the edit history on the page, and the "mixtapes" section has been deleted several times before, yet the editor continues to add it and ignored my talk page message. Once again, thank you either way. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 19:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, on a personal note to you, I did just do one more revert, not thinking about it. I had only reverted since the "references removed" tag was up. I'm sorry, as I said, I hadn't been thinking. If I must be temporarily blocked or anything I understand. --HELLØ    ŦHERE 19:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. And thank you for the warning to me also. Sometimes I do forget about that rule. Ha ha. --HELLØ    ŦHERE 19:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help. --HELLØ    ŦHERE 21:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be too early to tell, but it seems that user is back. As of this posting it's only three edits, but, it's a similar name, with a few adjustments of course, just like last time. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. Happy editing. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 22:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it seems it's definitely that user. --HELLØ    ŦHERE 00:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiger Woods
Do you need for me to cite all the references to Urban Dictionary before I restore the edit citing that as a Reference? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cheetah%20Woods --DaleEastman (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See my and User:Tony Sidaway's response on your talk page. -- Neil N   talk to me  03:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.
I knew my talk and awards pages had been vandalized, but was too lazy to revert 'em. =P Thanks! =D - Zhang He (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, the vandal got an enforced break from editing. -- Neil N   talk to me  05:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:AIV
I just did that a couple seconds ago before your message. Thanks. ;) Connormah (talk | contribs) 05:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Physicist stub
I thought of Einstein, but then decided not, because he wasn't an American all his life — I only wanted someone who couldn't be challenged as being a foreigner. No complaints if you want to change it. Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Canwest]
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=canwest%7Ebiggest+media+shake+up&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain (talk • contribs) 21:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is this for? -- Neil N   talk to me  03:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Vote to disclose that CanWest bonds sold below face value. IT IS ONE THING NOT TO MENTION IT, SOMETHING ELSE TO CENSOR IT. Welcome to edit and rewrite lines, and wording. Thank you for commenting in CanWest's wiki discussion. Please vote.

Quote, "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Canwest. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NeilN talk to me 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain (talk • contribs)

Have a question. Can the CanWest article mention the 275 million cash payment in 2003 to reduce the interest rate from 12.125% to 8% on the Canadian newspaper vendor financing bonds. Can this 275 million gift be disclosed on wiki? Thank you for sharing your thoughts. --Haida chieftain (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Reworded, fewer words, better transition, direct. "CanWest's major creditors - GoldenTree Asset, Beach Point Capital and Toronto's West Face Capital – have already tripled their original investment in the company, according to Goldman Sachs. CanWest's senior unsecured debentures were traded for as little as 15 cents on the dollar over the past year. Wall Street hedge fund Angelo Gordon has been buying CanWest debt 70 cents on the dollar since it filed for creditor protection in October."  This is the sale price for CanWest, is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Please check cites before reverting edits. Thank you. Another wrestling guy (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered here -- Neil N   talk to me  04:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

edit not vandalism
hi Neil, today you reverted an edit on Carradine's filmography, stating it was doubtful, but it was true-he appeared, as himself, or Caine, in an episode of Lizzie McGuire, a show that he sometimes directed and his brother Robert co-starred in. Whether or not it belongs on a "selected" filmography is another issue entirely. Take Care--Ishtar456 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't mark it as vandalism, but I will go apologize to the editor. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  23:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

NeilN's Edit/Revert war on 'jim bell'
On 2/9/2010, NeilN participated in an 'edit war'/'revert war' by repeatedly reverting newly-corrected information in article 'Jim bell': For example, it is well known that James Dalton Bell wrote his essay, "Assassination Politics" solely in 1995. Yet, the article 'jim bell' repeatedly claims that Bell wrote the AP essay in '1996'. Repeated attempts to correct that blatant error were Reverted, including by NeilN. Whether or not NeilN technically violated the 'three-revert rule', he did indeed engage in an 'edit war'/'revert war'. NeilN could not possibly have reasonably believed that '1996' was the correct information, yet he deliberately reverted to restore the false information. Unfortunately, the Revert function is apparently only rarely used for the reason it is claimed to exist: To revert 'vandalism'. In reality, "Revert" is primarily used by editors (and quite frequently, Administrators) in an effort to COMMIT 'vandalism'. Such uses almost never involve attempts by the revertors (before, during, or subsequently) to obtain any sort of 'consensus' in regard to a content dispute. Evidently, it is far easier to 'revert away!' than to actually obtain the 'consensus' that WP rules ostensibly require to be obtained. NeilN is a vandal. NeilN is, most likely, a 'meat-puppet' for 'Skomorokh', and both treat article 'jim bell' as if they own it. 71.36.125.36 (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop evading your block. Thanks. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  01:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Farmville
oh k sorry then i got some of what i wrote from statistic sites and such anyway bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josepho93 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Hi, thanks for commenting on my talk page. I was a bit confused for excluding the British English spelling of honour from the lede of the article Honor killing. Of course, Wikipedia can only use one form in the article title, and I have no problem with using the American English spelling in the article title, as with Color. But in the color article, the spelling "colour" is used in the lede. Honour killlings are hardly an exlusively American issue, so I'm unsure as to why this article is any different. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Orszag
Can you look at the edit war with 67.175.227.138 and help decide whether any of this paragraph should be included in a wiki biography? Personally, I am coming to the conclusion that the simplest solution is just to eliminate the whole thing. But I am interested in your advice on this. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.47.234 (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Who are you, the information police? Am I to be intimidated by you threat of blocking my attempts to facilitate the dissemination of information? There has been no mention of the Fannie Mae paper since this "glowing" review was written in 2006. I find it odd that a mistake of this proportion would conveniently have been overlooked. Perhaps your political ideology is getting the best you as this paper was commissioned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to help deflect growing concern from moderates about the viability of the portfolio and risk held by the GSE’s.

It is even odder that once the cat is out of the bag the ideologue community is quick to “revise” the story to try and shine a positive light. Well if we are going to tell the truth let’s tell the whole truth. I will be revising the comment made in the article to include the complete lack of capabilities shown by Mr. Orszag and how woefully incompetent the interpretations in the paper actually were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.227.138 (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied here -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Neil N: Is there any way to keep stop this ridiculous argument? Shall every published paper be 'refereed' by 67.175.227.138, whoever that is? IMHO, wikis should be short and to the point, not something that 67.175.227.138 wants to mix in with his/her polticial ideology. On the other hand, if you (NeilN) think that such expansion is useful, I will help others to do so in this wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.157.173 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Are You Serious
This article is the most non neutral think that could be written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.227.138 (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I for one am serious. Frankly, the information given in the article now is enough to give an interested reader access to the source, to read the source, and to make their own judgements thereon. There is no need for you, ie 67.175.227.138, to politicize wikipedia in the way that you are obviously trying to do. Let's keep it as a bio and a bio only. If you wish to ramble and rant, please do so on one of the many blogs available to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.157.173 (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Talk:Peter_R._Orszag yes? Remember we don't cherry pick quotes solely to disparage or praise a subject. The material should be covered in a secondary source which can provide neutral analysis. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  01:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I agree -- but it should be neutral and, equally important, informed. I suggest that such commentary is often available in the archival literature where suitable and well-established and accepted refereeing processes take place. When that is done, the current paragraph should be reduced to a simple reference to the sceondary source paper with none of the pseudo-political posturing now present. OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.157.173 (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course. That's what WP:NPOV is all about. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  03:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry
I am sorry, all that I saw was a bunch of wikimark tags and I thought that this user was pressing random buttons. I removed the warning from the talk page, thank you for alerting me of my mistake. --Clarince63 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Happy editing! -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Naveen Jain
NeilN, I am not engaged in any edit war. I didn't undo anything other than simply clarifying the information along with the detailed comments for the change. Please advise a better way of making the edit to correct the information as per the comment. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Haida chieftain, 199.60.104.100, and is it time for a formal community ban?
Given the turn in the tone of his comments, based on the edits to User talk:199.60.104.100 today, I'm starting to wonder if it isn't time for a thread at the administrators' noticeboard for a community ban of Haida chieftain. :( I do not take this decision lightly. However, it's becoming increasingly obvious that he is unwilling to follow the rules, so I think it's time for wider consensus on what to do with him (community ban, possible IP range blocks). Your thoughts? —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Given his simple refusal to get the point about what he has to do to get unblocked, and his use of sockpuppets, I don't see him changing his ways to avoid soapboxing and to constructively and collaboratively contribute if he is unblocked. Although he is indefinitely blocked, banning him would allow user talk pages to be locked if he starts socking with registered accounts and quick reversions of edits, wasting less time. So yes, I think this is a good idea. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After his latest comments about the "World Security Council" and GPS I seriously have to wonder if we aren't being trolled? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  21:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While I haven't pushed for a ban yet, I have started discussion on him at WP:ANI. —C.Fred (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bukkake opinion
Perhaps I am mistaken on my opinions regarding the Bukkake article. There is a difference of viewpoint on a couple of different things in that article. I have set my own viewpoint aside in favor of the (scanty) citations and references available. I would welcome your viewpoint on the matter. Atom (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't invent policies out of nowhere
Wikipedia/wiktionary policy is to leave existing substantial articles on words on Wikpedia

Nahhhhhhh.- Wolfkeeper  17:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Lying in subject lines is a pretty sure sign of a bad-faith edit. If you continue to do that I will attempt to get you suspended. Got it?- Wolfkeeper  17:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF. I was going by "No. Wikipedia/wiktionary policy is to leave existing substantial articles on words on Wikpedia. See, for example Thou. Cooke (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)". Discussion and civility might be in order. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  17:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil Dowd
What are you up to? This is perfectly neutral, and what's more you've deleted the reference.  BEVE  ( talk ) 18:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't meant to remove the source but "Early in the game he awarded a penalty to Villa for a foul committed against Gabriel Agbonlahor by Nemanja Vidić, but declined to send off the United defender for the offence, or even book him." is not neutral language as it implies a mistake was made. Furthermore, unless the decision receives lasting coverage it doesn't belong in his biography. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's highly unlikely we'll keep it out of the article completely, but preferably not in the language of a disgruntled Villa fan.  BEVE  ( talk ) 18:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that as long there are reliable sources saying this was an unsually controversial decision - WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS and all that. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation note
There has been a request for Cabal mediation on a recent request for comment that you were involved in. If you would like to discuss, please see the case page. Thanks. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 21:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you do anything other than revert?
A study of your 'contributions' page suggests that the only thing you are capable of is to 'revert'. Many complaints by many other editors reveals the same problem, not only concerning your behavior, but also that of other.. I propose that neither Editors nor Administrators should be able to edit over 10 pages in a day, and no more than 5 of those edits should be 'reverts'. Would such a rules change bother you? 97.120.246.1 (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Assuming you're not trolling, your "rule change" would basically destroy Wikipedia, allowing free reign to vandals, POV-pushers, and other users not interested or willing to follow our guidelines and policies. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  02:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like it is you who is unable to follow WP guidelines and policies. Reverting a large edit, providing only a 1-2 word explanation, and putting nothing on the corresponding talk page, is your style.  That is clearly a violation of even the most extreme interpretation of WP:BRD.   You've entirely left out the 'Discuss' part.  Your behavior is rude, obnoxious, and shameful.  71.36.125.149 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your opinion. I don't see myself changing my editing practices soon as I do comment when the situation warrants it or when someone asks for clarification. Do you have a specific example you'd like to discuss? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  20:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh, light went on. The above is a sockpuppet of Jim Bell Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of James dalton bell -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

An SPI case of possible interest
Hey. As one of the users who seem to have dealt with at least two of the suspected socks listed on Sockpuppet_investigations/Showtime2009, you might be aware of other accounts fitting the pattern described in the case. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Amazon.com Undos
Hi there. It's a few weeks late but I noticed that on Amazon.com page that you reverted a contribution on trademarks that "therealcollettepierre" had deleted. Then you undid the revision. This was on Feb 14th. Curious, could you provide an explanation why you removed the contribution? If there's something specific then I can review and if appropriate edit and repost. Thanks. Rabhyanker (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Major parts of the text were original research or did not belong in a general article about Amazon. Examples:


 * When Amazon.com became an online bookstore, the company's task was to create a brand that would elevate the company's web presence over their traditional bookstore competition. Amazon is an easily recognized name that creates a strong resonating impression. As a brand name, Amazon.com makes an excellent choice to build the online retailer's customer recognition. It is also a name or image that many companies use in their business as well. This type of issue can frequently create hurdles when seeking trademark and service mark protection with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The USPTO may deny a service mark if they deem the applicant company's products or services to be too similar to another registered trademark that may cause confusion, mistakes, or deception.
 * The first Amazon.com service mark application was filed on Monday, October 23, 1995 by Amazon.com, Inc. In the application, President Jeff Bezos indicates the, "Mark was first used on April 15, 1995; was first used in interstate commerce on April 15, 1995, and is now in use in such commerce." Registration for Amazon.com was granted on July 15, 1997.
 * But that is not the first trademark the company sought. There was an earlier trademark filed on November 14, 1994 for the service mark of Amazon.com Warehouse Books. The application was submitted in the category of computer and software services and scientific services with a description provided to the USPTO for wholesale distributorship featuring books; retail book stores. The application was abandoned on May 15, 1996 with the notation that no statement of use was filed.
 * Of other interest are the service mark applications submitted on January 1, 2000 was for the smiling arrow Amazon.com logo in common use. There are multiple service applications submitted in various classes that represent the diverse businesses the electronic commerce company was engaged or was seeking to enter. One example is for the service mark filed in the class of insurance and financial services. The description supplied to the USPTO is credit cards services; and charge card services with a first use in commerce listed as May 16, 2000. No simple and quick process, after multiple suspensions and extensions over several years, service mark registration was finally granted to Amazon.com, Inc. on April 22, 2008.
 * Putting aside your declared conflict of interest, the detailed history of the Amazon trademark does not belong in the general article; you could consider creating a sub-article instead, taking out the original research. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  22:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lakeland Revival
The source is highly reliable-True & False Revival by Andrew Strom p 36 & 37. Have you read it? Have you watched the revival when it was on TV? You could watch live much the same manefestations at Andrew describes in his book. Even Todd would agree. The only thing negotialble is the 'writhing like a snake' that is found in a different part of the book. So I suggest you leave the post up until you can prove elsewise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlessing (talk • contribs) 13:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied here -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  13:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Godiva Chocolatier Edit
Keeping yours and other community member's concerns in mind, I've updated the edit on Godiva Chocolatier that you had previously removed (February 14). I'm looking forward to your feedback and if this new version is more consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines. My underlying objective is to contribute to Wikipedia and its credibility by contributing pertinent historical information. Thank you.Rabhyanker (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

soviet union
one can't be neutral about what is true? if you need sources to the piece that i wrote i will be happy to give it to you Naz45228517 (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Wi
Note this was original on Wolfkeeper's talk page, moved here for some reason:

You're the one re-writing the template to suit your interpretation of policy, not me. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  22:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, you have a different point of view. However, in practice not all points of view are equally good. If your different POV is a better interpretation, please explain how the template that says:

''Please do not replace this message with a simple or even extended dictionary definition of this term, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ''

is incompatible with:

''Note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length. A full dictionary article (as opposed to a stub dictionary article, which is simply where Wiktionary articles start from) or encyclopedic dictionary entry would contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed. Short dictionary articles are artifacts of paper dictionaries being space-limited. Not all dictionaries are limited by the size of the paper. Wiktionary is not paper either.''

(Quoted from: Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy- it's been there in one form or other since about 2001 or 2002.)

Because you removed that part of the template and put in:

Please do not replace this message with a simple dictionary definition, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Because that doesn't seem to be saying the same thing at all. - Wolfkeeper  22:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NOT: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject...". Policies are descriptive, not proscriptive. We have community-accepted articles (I don't think you need a list) which "are about the history and usage of the term." BTW, I don't think you're abusing your editing privileges - not sure why you moved this conversation to my talk page from yours. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  23:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So are templates; they are descriptive of the expected behaviour of wikipedia editors. And templates are expected to reflect policy. If you are knowingly editing the templates so as to be exactly the opposite of the policy then that is a deliberate act of vandalism of that template.- Wolfkeeper  23:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You ignored my points. 1) You have very little support for your particular interpretation of policy. 2) We have community-accepted articles about terms: prithee, gay, spastic, fuck, Yankee, etc., etc., etc. Saying I rewote the template is deliberately misleading. I reverted your changes back to a version dated Feb-11 (not written by me). -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  23:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should interpret policy. The policy should say something, and we should nearly always follow it, perhaps those, or some of those are examples where it should not be followed; but they wouldn't be tagged with Wi anyway. The policy in this case is really very clear, mere length is not sufficient to distinguish; there is difference in kind between an encyclopedia-type article and dictionary-type article, and the policy tries to explain the differences. You attempted to rewrite/revert the template to imply that short=dictionary. That's not correct.- Wolfkeeper  00:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I reverted to a version that matched WP:NOT and community accepted practices, "Remove this message and start an article if there is a fair chance it would grow to a full, encyclopedic size in the near future." Even now, there's an AFD which indicates there is strong consensus against your interpretation. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I do agree that "size" is not a factor and should be replaced with "article" or another term. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think to understand that is a very good start. Is 'article' precise enough?- Wolfkeeper  01:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What about: ""Remove this message and start an article only after making sure that it has encyclopedic information on the term."? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  01:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Imagine if there is more than one common term for exactly the same thing, for the sake of arguments the thing is 'a cup'? Would you agree that articles covering those terms for cup should be merged? If so, what's then the subject of the article? If you then completely translated that article into say, Chinese for their wikipedia, would that still be the same topic? By completely I mean including the title. If so, is the subject of an article in an Encyclopedia really the term? I mean, presumably all the terms, including the Chinese terms are the same in an encyclopedic sense?- Wolfkeeper  03:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, as the article would be about the word, not about other terms describing the same item. An an imperfect example, American (word) (I keep on discovering these encylopedic word articles!) should not be merged into Yankee. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  04:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, as the article would be about the word, not about other terms describing the same item. That's not how it works. You should really get your hands on a dead-tree encyclopedia and check it out. Synonyms get pushed together in encyclopedias. If they're different words, even if they're not totally synonymous, they normally get pushed together and the differences summarised.- Wolfkeeper  11:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And there absolutely are a fair number of articles that are about words, contrary to the policy. It seems to be for several reasons, some people don't seem to understand the policy or what an encyclopedia is, and some people just like particular words and edit war to keep them in. Mainly that. That's what Quiddity relies on.- Wolfkeeper  11:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But in percentage terms, it's quite a small number. The policy mostly works very well. Most people get it most of the time.- Wolfkeeper  11:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not follow every convention of dead-tree encyclopdias so your comparison is not really relevant. And I would argue that most people recognize we can have encyclopedic entries on words per policy but a few people (mainly you) edit war to keep them out. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  14:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Reporting NeilN to Sock Puppet Investigations
Due to his mistake on WP:BLPN, reporting in the same exchange with "Nil Einne", and both being inexplicably hostile to an IP editor who just showed up, I am going to report both of them to WP:SPI. 71.36.120.162 (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And waste yet more time Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of James dalton bell? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  19:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that you have such a similar name to the other editor, is it just a coincidence? Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They're only phoenetically similar. Nil Einne might be the real name of the other editor and NeilN is my name and last initial. Nil has a self-declared interest in BLP policy so he probably keeps watch on the noticeboard. I've asked questions and helped out on BLPN before so it's on my watchlist. When the Jim Bell topic came up I naturally had a look. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  22:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I see, just a coincidence, I can see why the thought came to the IP, I once had the thought that two editors editing political articles were the same person, Rrius and  Rsloch ... if you say them fast you get, hairy arse and arsloch, which is german for arsehole. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this edit that you referred to as whitewashing, it doesn't look like that to me, more like a little tweaking? Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you see my comments on the talk page? For example, you don't get convicted of using incorrect SSN's, you get convicted for using fradulent SSN's.  Tweaking like this would have us writing that a killer ended his victim's life prematurely, rather than murdering them. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  23:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Islam
I noticed your revert on the Islam which was reverted shortly afterward by the same user who I then reverted. I commented on this user addition of the talk page: Talk:Islam.--Supertouch (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384
First of all, 4 edits does not constitute 4 reverts. Secondly, I was adding back sourced information that was improperly removed from the article, so I wouldn't have been in violation of WP:3RR in the first place. So please don't make false accusations of edit warring. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ,, , - four edits to add the same information removed by different editors. Please stop edit warring. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  03:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mullazai
You have reverted Mullazai in wrong way. Just watch references and previous work done. Just watch the satellite coordinates provided.This is not Baluch or Baluchistan topic.What kinda wiki admin/moderator you are?.. Follow history,coordinates and previous work done.Please dont ruin this topic. i Have asked wiki admin to secure this topic from bad editing. Thank you AurangzaibMarwat (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Mk5384
What in the world gave you the idea that I removed those comments? God as my witness, I did not.Mk5384 (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For real; my edits to this article have run the gamut from rude to apologetic, but I never removed anything. Can you explain what's up with that?Mk5384 (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I swear, with my right hand to Christ, that I didn't. I've been quite adamant about my views here, but never dishonest. I swear I didn't remove anything. Something has to be going on here.Mk5384 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Look; despite what anyone thinks of my edits, I have never, ever vandalized. All I know is that 3 times in a row, when I was trying to respond to Baseball Bugs' post, it said that there was an "edit conflict", and my edit didn't register. Maybe that had something to do with her comment not registering, but I swear, I didn't remove them. Please help me figure this out.Mk5384 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes; that must be what happened. Again, I swear I did not do that on purpose. Check my history; I have never vandalised. Mk5384 (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do understand. I do not want to remove anyone's comments. I would also like this to be resolved on the ANI because I don't think it belongs there. Instead of AGF'ing, I got hit with all kinds of accusations. Then, when I tried to explain what happened, I got hit with even worse accusations. That's not right. I'll stand by what I say and do, and accept the consequences if it comes to that, but I would really like this charge to be resolved.Mk5384 (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate the help here. Fast work, that.  Tide  rolls  00:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Harassment
Tagging well established editors is considered harassment. But you know that and so you were doing it deliberately.- Wolfkeeper  03:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I was warning you against edit warring - something it seems you've forgotten about. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  03:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No.- Wolfkeeper  03:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good then. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  03:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)