User talk:Neilrieck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Redirects

Hi. While on recent changes patrol I noticed you tried to create DUPIC as a redirect by creating the article with only the wikilink to the article you wanted to redirect to. This does not redirect the page to the other article, but in fact simply displays a link. The correct way to create a redirect, as outlined in Wikipedia:Redirect is as follows:

#REDIRECT [[Reprocessed uranium]]

I fixed your redirect, but figured I'd tell you this. Also, please note it is generally considered bad form to remove old discussions from your talk page; archiving them on a subpage is preferred because it allows editors to see your history more easily. Cheers Anna512 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my error --Neilrieck 13:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:John Moffat 2004.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:John Moffat 2004.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to life extension. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. MastCell Talk 03:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My link on "Guaranteed Human Life Extension" is not SPAM. It is a method to advance medical research by convincing people to join folding@home. IMHO it is the only method of "human life extension" that will really work. I've read many books and articles on other forms of "life extension" and they are all just wishful thinking. --Neilrieck (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You are adding links left and right to a website you appear to maintain (or at least which appears to incorporate your name in the URL). That's spam not to mention a conflict of interest. Please stop, or you may be blocked. This is not a forum to recruit people for any sort of medical research. MastCell Talk 01:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Since it is impossible to deal with a person hiding behind a pseudonym I will comply with your instructions. But a review a your talk page indicates to me that you are possibly a power-mad control freak --Neilrieck (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If you find it difficult or impossible to work with pseudonymous editors, then your time at Wikipedia will likely be difficult. In light of the fact that many editors seem entirely unable to discuss content issues rationally and civilly without unduly personalizing them, the desire for anonymity seems understandable. In any case, in the future, please comment on content, and not the contributor. MastCell Talk 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said previously, it was my intention to comply with your suggestions. Imagine my surprise today when I discovered that you found it necessary to justify your superior status on this site by "tossing a few official wiki hyperlinks my way" in what appears a childish attempt to get the last word.

So in my own defense (because future admins will read this) I find it necessary to point out that:

1) I have been entirely civil in this matter (in fact, of all the admin people I've communicated with on this site, you are the only one who has treated me in an uncivil way). My comments regarding you were based upon the number of disputes I viewed on your talk page. You appear to be very argumentative.

2) Your original complaint states "You are adding links left and right to a website you appear to maintain" which is entirely false and inaccurate. You also claimed my contribution was SPAM (and some wiki guidelines may prove you correct) but know this: I was adding a web-site link to the EXTERNAL LINKS area of an article. The link I was adding takes the viewer to my site which "doesn't contain any advertising" and "nothing is for sale". Meanwhile, if you visit the other EXTERNAL LINKS of Life Extension you will see some do contain commercial advertising and some are selling books and food supplements. In this context the actions of a pseudonymous admin could be misconstrued as supporting commercial links. AT the very least you are enforcing a double standard.

3) In my 50+ years on the planet I have found that people who hide behind pseudonyms (or wear masks) tend to be more extroverted. Your choice of MastCell as a pseudonym indicates to me that you see yourself as some kind of wiki immune response against the world. It was your choice to use a pseudonym rather than your real name (and I can only guess what Freud would say about your choice), and current wiki policy allows it, but perhaps the time has come for all admin people and regular contributors to use their real names. It puts everyone on a level playing field.

4) Since you have tossed some hyperlinks at me then let me respond in kind with a few I viewed today: here is one on admin abuse:
Administrator abuse
No Big Deal
Dealing with grievances
May I humbly suggest you re-read them all. I now intend to let this matter rest and hope you feel the same way --Neilrieck (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC) a.k.a. Neil Rieck (not a nom-de-plume)

I'm sorry you found the links to policy to be childish. Since you apparently see describing someone as a "power-mad control freak" to be an "entirely civil" and acceptable level of discourse on Wikipedia, I thought they might be useful. I can see it's probably best to just this drop, as the original issue (adding links to your website) is resolved. I would suggest not trying to psychoanalyze people based on a handful of Wikipedia edits - you might come to a conclusion as superficial and inaccurate as your charge that I support commercial links on life extension. MastCell Talk 17:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The first 11 words in your response say it all. I didn't say the links were childish, just your apparent need to get the last word. Either your reading comprehension is poor or you are deliberately trying to provoke an argument. This conversation can serve no useful purpose; good bye --Neilrieck 12:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:John Moffat 2004.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:John Moffat 2004.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen professor Moffat at any lectures for the past few months but will ask to take his picture the very next time I see him (this means I'll need to carry my wife's digital camera for a while) --Neilrieck (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:John Moffat at Cambridge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:John Moffat at Cambridge.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)