User talk:Neogarfield

Relief India Trust
Hi Neogarfield. This is in context with the editions you made to the wiki page of Relief India Trust on 27th august, 2015. The editions made by you violate the core content policies specified by Wikipedia.The links and references provided by you are not credible and neither seem verifiable.You have substantiated your claims by citing links from review sites and blogs. The content posted on such links can not always be assumed to be genuine.It is highly plausible that content on such sites could be posted with an intent to defame the concerned organization or could be motivated by a competitive vendetta. This seriously violates the policy WP:VER. An organization cannot be claimed to undertake fraudulent practices just merely by believing such unverified comments.

Then, your editions also violate Wp:NPOV policy as the content seems to lend a negative impact to the reputation of Relief India Trust. The page no more seemed neutral. --Aarvig (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have commented on your talk page, please refer. Undoing your edits. --Neogarfield (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Neogarfield. This is regarding the editions you made to the wiki page of Relief India Trust on 30th august,2015. The underlying idea behind my editions was to restore the neutrality of the wiki page. None of the allegations have been proved. The way they have been mentioned by you render a negative impact. Such a content is not required.--Aarvig (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Support
hello Neogarfield, I support the addition of criticism in the sense you are citing the presence of alleged criticism on blog-sphere and social media which have been repeatedly deleted by few members on here Wikipedia article. Most probably the same socks who created this page initially (reportedly blocked from further editing). You can see the Talk page of the article: the creator and major contributor are all confirmed wiki abusers and blocked. As it is overwhelmingly pointing to a advert article the criticisms falls in to proper place to restore neutrality. DChinu (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dchinu. I'll try to contact an admin regarding this. Neogarfield (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations : RIT edits
Hey there i opened a case against the suspected accounts and in Preliminary review they might have found some irregularities. You might keep an eye Sockpuppet investigations/KatherineWatts.DChinu (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DChinu. Quite interesting! And good work! Neogarfield (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Relief India Trust. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Arjayay, please enlighten me how adding "claims to" or "states that" etc. on statements which have questionable verifiability is adding my own commentary. Further, those edits were not initiated by me, it was done by Jimfbleak in order to bring in neutrality to the page. I request you to discuss on Talk:Relief_India_Trust before reverting my changes, as I have already requested. Let us take a decision on it after a discussion? For the time being, I'm reverting your edits - please do not take this as ignoring your point of view, it is to keep the neutrality of the page as per previous discussions involving other editors. We can discuss the issue and if those claims can be verified by autonomous and authentic sources, we can edit the page. I request your cooperation. Thank you. Neogarfield (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Given the troubled history of this page, any significant changes should be discussed on its talk page first, Neogarfield was correct to revert your undiscussed and erroneous edit. WP:NPOV is not a personal commentary, it's policy. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply Jimfbleak. Would appreciate your comment on Talk:Relief_India_Trust

Neogarfield (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

University of Hyderabad
I really don't understand where you are going. Let me give you an example. Why are you listing QS rankings for 2013, other than to break WP:NEUTRAL? We have the 2018 listing which is the latest, and we list only the latest on every single other article about Indian institutes (I should know). Also, a sentence like "UoH was named by QS World University Rankings among the top 10 universities in India in 2013, faring among the top few in research indicators in India and the BRICS category" is very obviously WP:PROMO. This is just an example, most of the material you reintroduced is the same. --Muhandes (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since I got no response from you and some of these statement are glaringly promotional, I'm going to start correct them one by one, to give a chance to content any of my claims. --Muhandes (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm so sorry for the delayed response. I've been travelling a bit, and had work to prioritise. Thanks for leaving the note on my talk page. I do think you're right, and it was my bad to simply revert your edit without making changes which would have made it neutral. Please go ahead and make the changes you deem necessary, and I'll work with you on the page. I do think that some of the info I had put in is important; although borderline WP:PROMO, when we don't have a very robust university rankings system in place yet, it's good to have some more sources, like the Nature index report. Also, some of the previous rankings were for departments - those rankings were not repeated in the latest report. But I do agree with you on most other counts - it doesn't make sense to have the same ranking for multiple years. Thanks again for getting involved, and correcting me. Neogarfield (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding on, just took a look at the edits you've made, and again, I have to agree with you. Since the debate is mostly between us, let me go ahead and change a bit more. I would like to remove some promo material ("top ten" - I thought I had removed that earlier...), and the older rankings, while keeping the 2017, 2018, and 2015 department rankings. Would that be acceptable for you? I want to keep the 2015 department rankings because I couldn't find a similar version in the latest edition. Thanks, Neogarfield (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with departmental ranking, as long as it is accurate ("ranked 201-250" instead of "ranked top 250") and current. The reason I think only current ranking should be listed is that I think the fact that the university no longer appears on the 2017 ranking means it is no longer top 250, so mentioning the 2015 ranking might be misleading. But I'm not going to argue about it. --Muhandes (talk)
 * Thanks for the reply. When I meant 'I couldn't find a similar version in the latest edition', I meant that I couldn't find department-wise rankings in the latest edition. However, I went on to the QS 2015 department rankings using the reference links, and found that there were options on that page to check for 2017. And again, you're right, it does not appear in the 2017 rankings. Again, my bad for not being thorough while checking. I'll go ahead and remove those as well. Well, I guess we're back with what I started to correct - sorry for the trouble caused. If it's any consolation, you've helped me learn to be slightly better. Thanks. Neogarfield (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, have fun. --Muhandes (talk)
 * No problem, have fun. --Muhandes (talk)

DS alert
Capitals00 (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)