User talk:NeilN
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
| Archive 1: Aug 2005 - Oct 2007 Archive 2: Nov 2007 - Jan 2008 Archive 3: Feb 2008 - Mar 2008 |
[edit] RE:BarinStorm (sweden)
What do you mean nominated for deletion.. it's not my article. I'm not the author. --staka (T ・C) 05:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Improper Usage
There is no improper usage of blocking formats, please stop harrassment immediately. --216.229.226.54 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry about the spoiler...
I'd just seen the film last night and wanted to find some more info about it, when I saw the whole plot described I thought I should put a spoiler warning but didn't know the wiki policy for that. Shame my first edit was reverted within 3 mins of being posted, oh well. I'll have to read more of the rules before my next contribution. :) Nerd biker (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Television
hi neil, i cited The Los Angeles Times using the term "teevy" they are a reliable source. I lived in L. A. in 1980-1981 and you can go to the library and look at back issues from that era, you can verify it if that is a burning desire of yours.Sowff (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)SowffSowff (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Television
Dear Neil:
I would not say it is trivial, as it is an alternate spelling for something that is the primary source of information for a large portion of the world. It it almost as if TV is held as so sacrosanct that any alternate spelling incurs hatred, hostility, disbelief, and antipathy. TV has become a god. Rock bands that do not have pretty lead singers flounder without the ambrosia of MTV's loving glare. Devo failed in part because it would not edit its music videos to please MTV. The Seattle band Tad had an obese lead singer named Tad Doyle and Sub Pop dropped them because they only aired on MTV once or twice on "120 Minutes." The "teevy" spelling once used by The LA Times drops the god down a few well-deserved notches. And, I see the word "emcee" is used fairly often instead of MC. Why is "teevy" not as accepted? It is not as trivial as first meets the eye, Neil.
- It is trivial if the term was used by a brief period of time by one newspaper. And the word "emcee" is actually the correct spelling - see [4]. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 14:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hey
It be best if you mind your own business please. Thank you. - Pekin Republican - April 22nd, 2008 2:39 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs) 06:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Da Kine
What did I do wrong with my entry? Should I delete the German reference to Da Kine which is almost certainly wrong, instead of disputing it with immigration data and personal experience? Should I not have Used my experience as a "native" user of Pidgeon? Of course I am new to the Wiki so I know I made mistakes. I just happened upon the article and notice that I had something to contribute to it and I felt that it was in general weak and had an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbozon (talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Per your question
No disrespect to you: I would like to explain but not on a talk page. Maybe I just see this whole matter differently than you do. It seems like rules don't apply on Wikipedia anymore. Reply to my talk page.Agadant (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
I was reading trying to figure it out- and went back to page and there it was-DONE. I thought I had lost it for sure!! Appreciate you so much! Agadant (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Court
What I wrote is true, look it up. lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.114.249 (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Criminal Justice System
Again, I wrote the truth. In my country, Britain, we have a Criminal Justice System. A Criminal Justice System. Think about that for a moment. It's not the People's Justice System, not the English or British Justice system, but the Criminal Justice System. You think that's by chance? Think about it. Do you think the Government makes mistakes? The only mistake is that you're thinking they make mistakes. When they say criminal justice they know exactly what they're talking about; the criminals are in charge of the justice. That's why it's a Criminal Justice System. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.114.249 (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
How am I being disruptive? Everything I said can be backed up by fact. I am writing the truth and I feel people should get the truth. You need to do your homework before you dismiss something as factually incorrect my friend.
- WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:SOAP (if the editor comes back after their block) --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit war on Vladimir Putin page
Dear NeilN, thank you for advising me on 3RR WP policy regarding edit wars. In my understanding, poorly sourced contentious material on living persons shall be speedily deleted without argument. The 3RR does not apply to such removals. Please see WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material for more details. You are right that in case of doubt I shall seek advice at the BLP noticeboard and I have every intent of doing so. Thank you again for your valuable input. Cfeet77 (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear NeilN, I also see you have been alleging violation of 3RR rule by me. This is at least the comment that you have put to your last revert on Vladimir Putin page. In my understanding this is a serious allegation. May I ask your exact sources to support your claim for violating the 3RR. I will be watching your talk page, or you can put your response to mine. Thank you. Cfeet77 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In my understanding, your hints of violating a 3RR applied to edits done in good faith can be understood as a personal attack. This why it is so important for me that you cite your sources and references to support the claim. Cfeet77 (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea where you are getting that edits done in good faith are not subject to 3RR. Please read the warning carefully - it says not to violate 3RR, not that you have violated 3RR (you are at 3 reverts BTW). I've also added comments here [8]. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 02:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Still by performing your revert you reinserted material of dubious nature. I again refer to the WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material policy that you seem to have violated. Please visit my talk page for more details. Cfeet77 (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I am referring to the comment that you have put to your revert on the Vladimir Putin page. It reads: "Undid revision 210158226 by Cfeet77 (talk) this certainly falls within WP:3RR". This can be understood as a hint that the 3RR rule has been violated by the editor whom you are reverting. I am not sure whether the obscure wording of your comment was intentional or due to negligence. If the latter is the case, may I ask you to be more careful with your wording in the future. As I emphasized previously, your obscure wording can be understood as a personal attack. Cfeet77 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I stand by my wording as a response to your comment that your revert did not fall within 3RR. I suggest you read WP:NPA more carefully as my comment in no way could be construed as a personal attack. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 18:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds fine with me. BTW, I am at 2 reverts, not 3 as you suggest. According to WP:3RR, "consecutive reverts by one editor are generally treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule", and one of the reverts you are referring to is a consecutive combination of two. Cfeet77 (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I stand by my wording as a response to your comment that your revert did not fall within 3RR. I suggest you read WP:NPA more carefully as my comment in no way could be construed as a personal attack. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 18:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am referring to the comment that you have put to your revert on the Vladimir Putin page. It reads: "Undid revision 210158226 by Cfeet77 (talk) this certainly falls within WP:3RR". This can be understood as a hint that the 3RR rule has been violated by the editor whom you are reverting. I am not sure whether the obscure wording of your comment was intentional or due to negligence. If the latter is the case, may I ask you to be more careful with your wording in the future. As I emphasized previously, your obscure wording can be understood as a personal attack. Cfeet77 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I also see that you have been more than selective in putting warnings to the talk pages of editors of the Vladimir Putin article. You will generously put warnings of violating 3RR to Putin proponents' pages and avoid putting warnings to Putin opponents' pages for similar (or in fact even more harmful) activity. For this reason I believe that your impartiality is broken. I would appreciate if you address this claim, too. Cfeet77 (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- You can check edits of Muscovite99. I feel he is performing his edits in bad faith and he is constantly attempting to disrupt the atmosphere on the talk page with aggressive tone. I can collect evidence for my words on demand. Cfeet77 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not going to get involved in a dispute between you and Muscovite99. This article in only on my watchlist because I reverted some vandalism done to it earlier. If you check my contributions [9] you'll see my activity mainly consists of reverting vandalism and warning editors, removing unsourced info, and re-adding sourced info that was improperly removed (in my opinion). --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why would you ask "who else do you feel should be warned" then? I am not inviting you to engage into a dispute with Muscovite99. I think we can deal with the problem of aggressive users without your intervention. Instead, I invite you to be impartial and apply equal and fair policies to all sides. That said, I feel that my claim concerning your broken impartiality is still not addressed. Cfeet77 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not going to get involved in a dispute between you and Muscovite99. This article in only on my watchlist because I reverted some vandalism done to it earlier. If you check my contributions [9] you'll see my activity mainly consists of reverting vandalism and warning editors, removing unsourced info, and re-adding sourced info that was improperly removed (in my opinion). --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- You can check edits of Muscovite99. I feel he is performing his edits in bad faith and he is constantly attempting to disrupt the atmosphere on the talk page with aggressive tone. I can collect evidence for my words on demand. Cfeet77 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
So I could decide if I wanted to get further involved. I really don't, beyond making sure sourced material stays in if appropriate and unsourced material stays out if appropriate. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image credit
Please could you point out the guideline about only showing credit when the author is notable? I'd like to see it so I'll know in the future. In the case of NASA images, part of their image release license sates that their images must be credited. Also, the last I checked, NASA is notable. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here: Wikipedia:Captions#Tips_for_describing_pictures. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 03:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] my new page : Matthew S. Thomas
here it is a reference to my findings is that all i need to do?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseballkid721 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
he once was on the dodgers and i dont know about any newspapers but probably in like san bernadino newspaper Baseballkid721 (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
ok well you have any pages that you made or do you just critic other pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseballkid721 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
ya its fine but i was making an observation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseballkid721 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
what was your favorite page you have seen so far?? --Baseballkid721 (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Alice Cooper
Peacock terms? Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait, wait! Why did we have an edit war? The source was there all along! And I'm sure the author was just trying to make it more interesting. Oh, and don't bother telling me about the three-revert rule. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Nnng! So much for a short discussion... I was going to put in the source, then I realised that a link was put in the article. I really have no idea who Alice Cooper is. I just saw a user trying to be helpful. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks from Japan
 |
The Barnstar of Peace
Thanks for the quick help in the Cooper issue. As you see, I had already added what I knew was needed in the article. Up-to-date with refrences. You are not ignorant but very clear on making Wikipedia a modern day source of up-to-date information on any subject. Thanks! Electric Japan (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
[edit] "Per TW": please don't use in-group cryptic indicators
You removed a non-English language source from the article, Dawa, citing "per TW". Please do not use terms and abbreviations that only Wikipedia experts recognize. Use plain language and provide a link. At least cite a policy and guideline page, e.g., "WP:CITE". I tried finding "TW" by navigating to WP:TW, and it's not the pertinent topic. I still don't know what grounds you're referring to. Please explain yourself on the article talk page. Thank you. Hurmata (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Replied here: [10]
[edit] You revert the Shot Online Wiki.
All because it was a guide. Yet there are other Games on Wiki like World of Warcraft which is also considered a "Guide". Why is this?
[edit] wot is wikipedia
wot is wikipedias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.142.15 (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your reply to me
No, everything is cool, now. Thanks for everything. Do you still revert vandalism on the Van Morrison article? Or is there someone else who does? I check it occasionally and usually catch something in a day or so but will do so less frequently with summer coming on. Any info will be appreciated. Agadant (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Was I being threatening again?
I appreciate your help with this. Thanks for helping the anon read what I wrote. Darkspots (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mo Rocca
Thanks for helping me keep an eye on this page. Not sure why this one user keeps targeting it. It's a little disturbing, actually! Chrissypan (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I've seen the text inserted into several different articles - no idea what the user is trying to prove. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:YouTube
Thanks for unreverting the comment about the servers on YouTube. People have commented on the frequent loading problems of YouTube videos, and it seems to be due to the huge demand at certain times of day (see Latency (engineering)). Other video sharing websites seem to be less prone to this problem, which is why the need to check other websites before blaming the computer or internet connection was mentioned. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was my mistake. I still wasn't quite awake yet and thought your edit was to the article. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jesus
RE: see Talk:Jesus As a side, please remember to sign {use four ~'s} your posts to make it easier to respondLostinlodos (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Help fighting minor but irritating vandalism!
Hi there, I'm an inexperienced user; I removed a promotional link from the Bench page and then eventually figured out the person has been a repeat offender: User talk:Batam2008. I saw your note on his talk page, so I figured you might know what to do next. Thanks! Eeblet (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I figured it out!
Het sorry for the note i remeber how to converse. I'm not a vandal I'm the vandal buster neoonyalchemist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoonyxalchemist (talk • contribs) 02:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Can You Look At Something Please?
Thanks for the note. I've sent a message to the WP Oversight group who look after any pages with too much personal info. If you find any more user pages like that, the best place to go is straight to Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight - the overseers can permanently delete page info from the WP files, something which I can't do (as far as I know). Grutness...wha? 01:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User:72.165.221.122
This user keeps vandalizing articles. Has been warned several times by different editors, and shows no signs of stopping. Needs to be blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
