Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:20, 29 March 2014

If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. NeilN

Archives

Archive 1: Aug 2005 - Oct 2007 Archive 2: Nov 2007 - Jan 2008 Archive 3: Feb 2008 - Mar 2008 Archive 4: Apr 2008 - Jun 2008 Archive 5: Jun 2008 - Oct 2009 Archive 6: Nov 2009 - Dec 2009 Archive 7: Jan 2010 - Mar 2010 Archive 8: Apr 2010 - Mar 2011 Archive 9: Apr 2011 - Apr 2012 Archive 10: May 2012 - June 2012 Archive 11: Jul 2012 - Jan 2013 Archive 12: May 2013 - Jul 2013 Archive 13: Aug 2013 - Sep 2013 Archive 14: Oct 2013 Archive 15: Nov 2013 - Dec 2013 Archive 16: Jan 2014 - Feb 2014

Gee I guess I didn't get rid of all the vandlizism

Just pressed revert, no clue what is going on. Wgolf (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wgolf No worries. You just caught up in some bizarre behaviour by another editor. --NeilN 23:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

article: Muhammad in the Bible

What is wrong with you?!--94.59.248.196 (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, you are replacing references to two books with a reference to a random website. --NeilN 16:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

the website i provided presents the Arabic text in addition to several famous English translations of the meanings. Saheeh International is one of these translations .--94.59.248.196 (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

here is another website also: http://quran.com/7 . It also offers the translation of Saheeh International. --94.59.248.196 (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

and here is a book reference also: http://books.google.ae/books?id=bzRWiDTf4_oC&pg=PA153&dq=%22Those+who+follow+the+Messenger,+the+unlettered+prophet,+whom+they+find+written%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KrsUU-u2Nsap7Aae34HYAQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Those%20who%20follow%20the%20Messenger%2C%20the%20unlettered%20prophet%2C%20whom%20they%20find%20written%22&f=false --94.59.248.196 (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You also erased "The seventh Quranic Sura Al-A'raf contains a passage that has been interpreted to mean that Muhammad was predicted in Jewish and Christian sacred texts." which was the main reason the quote was there. Any reason why? --NeilN 20:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I will replace it with this sentence: "Several Quranic verses say that Muhammad was predicted in Jewish and Christian sacred texts. For example:"--176.205.112.146 (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree or what?!--176.205.112.146 (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Those sources you're removing provide the interpretation of the primary text. What source are you using for that? --NeilN 18:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

: Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful.
Can you tell me what interpretation is required here?!
--176.205.112.146 (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

NO PROBLEM! I will keep these sources if you wish--176.205.112.146 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. --NeilN 18:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on edit, that was removed by you !

Hi, NeilN,

First of all it is really great to know that I am communicating with human.

The Link I added was just an Directory that can can give an idea about escort agencies and how do they operate there Business.

I found few links in that directory that that explains how they operate and what they offer, and that is why I create that link.

I am planning to write a article on Prostitution and its effect on society and previous practice was just a part of that.

Hope you can understand my point.

Thanks and Regards,

Ritu Verma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rituvermapk1 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Rituvermapk1, please refrain from adding such links as it is obviously a commercial site containing no encyclopedic content whatsoever. And we already have an article on Prostitution. --NeilN 02:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey thanks!

Danke schon !! 69.165.246.181 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

In regards to a WP:RM discussion for Matt Schultz (disambiguation) and the other titles

Just wanted to inform you that a WP:RM discussion has started on Talk:Matt Schultz (disambiguation)#Requested move regarding reverting my moves for the "Matt Schultz" titles. Seems that the reverts back to their original titles were considered controversial by the administrator who was to perform the reverts. Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

self-importance

Your claim that my writing was: "...self-congratulatory puffery" --NeilN talk to me 01:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)" is untrue.

First, I was not speaking about myself and was not involved in the Street Artists Movement. In additional this has been documented in numerous newspaper accounts that the original artists practiced passive civil disobedience.

Your actions appear devoid of the scholarly method, immature and reckless that you would delete something you know nothing about, have not researched and have apparently not read the article. --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inquiringmindswanttoknow (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Inquiringmindswanttoknow, did you read WP:NPOV? Sentences like:

• "The artists of The San Francisco Street Artist Guild showed great tenacity and bravery when they stood up to the powers-that-be for Artist's First Amendment Rights to express themselves through their art."
• "And these artists achieved their goals solely using passive non-violence. A strong testament to the commitment of the participating artists and the founders of the San Francisco Street Artist Guild."

The article is not a soapbox to proclaim how great the organization is. Nor is it a place to chronicle their blow-by-blow battle against "the powers-that-be". --NeilN 00:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Original DYK Version of the Street Artists Program Article

Thanks for your recent efforts in battling the bizarre edits of William Clark and his possible sock puppet, User:Inquiringmindswanttoknow in the Street Artists Program of San Francisco article. The article was originally written with many primary sources from San Francisco's main newspaper, The Chronicle, and later went through a major rewrite by veteran DYK editor User:Yoninah. If you open the below link you can see the article when it was in it's DYK form. Please read that version as it seems like we should revert back to that state of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco&oldid=596854766

Since the time of DYK release, the article has been infested with a multitude of questionable, self-aggrandizing, and disorganized edits by the ever-persistent William Clark and Inquiringmindswanttoknow -- neither of which has even bothered to become a registered Misplaced Pages User or to even familiarize themselves with Misplaced Pages’s procedures and rules.

Sooner or later it seems inevitable that we need to apply some page protection, and a revert the article to its earlier state DYK state.James Carroll (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted to that version as it seems more adhering to NPOV and COI-free. --NeilN 00:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning

made the following edit with the words

This myth was however, finally exposed by the Planning Inspector at the Core Strategy Inquiry in 2011, when he made it abundantly clear..."

Been informed such wording is not appropriate phrasing for an encyclopedia

What's wrong with it? Shaun Cunningham (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN 19:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Apokryltaros

Are you sure "Mr Fink" is a legitimate alias? It's not mentioned on . Where has he used it outside of that debate? I think something might be amiss here.

InternetMeme (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

InternetMeme, check any of his talk page posts from January on back . You could have asked him as well. --NeilN 14:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Or in fact looked at User_talk:Apokryltaros. --NeilN 14:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's not my job to go looking up the all the aliases people elect to use. If he wants to use an alias, he should include it on his talk page. If his talk page lists different aliases, then it looks suspicious. In fact, it still looks suspicios: Why is he using four different names (Apokryltaros, Mr A, Mr Fink, and Stanton)? That is not at all appropriate for an editor involved in debates. This is one step away from WP:SOCKPUPPET. InternetMeme (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

InternetMeme, if you change another editor's posts on the basis of "identity fraud", you should probably talk to them. Why haven't you posted these concerns on Apokryltaros' talk page? --NeilN 14:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. I was just reading the discussion, noticed the name linked was different from the name specified, cross-checked the user page, found two other names, and concluded that there was a strong potential for misidentification.

So I made the correction, and moved on to the next article: I never considered consulting Apokryltaros before editing for the same reason I've never considered consulting Isla Fisher before editing her article. In hindsight, I probably should have thought harder about it.

InternetMeme (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"Stanton Fink" happens to be my actual name. I use "Mr Fink" as I'm sick and tired of other editors misspelling my username, "Apokryltaros," the name of a monster I created, because they're too goddamned lazy to copy and paste. Furthermore, I've already had this exact same argument with another moronic, deaf, bullying editor who tried to coerce me into changing my signature as he saw fit by dragging me into wikidrama hell for a month or two. There is no rule against changing one's signature to a name different to the user name if there is no intent to deceive. And until the Wikielders decide to pass a new law that retroactively bans users for having changed their signature names as their wiki-careers evolved, or if they decide to retroactively bar editors from having signature names different than their usernames, PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And just as a courtesy, until those who rule/make the rules for Misplaced Pages officially decide that what I have done with my signature, or my past signature history are not acceptable, I do not plan on ever changing my signature on someone else's behalf, and I will not acknowledge any messages or threads on my own talkpage asking me to do so, either. Because I did not actually do anything wrong, and because I really disapprove of someone else dragging me into another wikidrama hell because they won't give a damn about my explanations. --Mr Fink (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Your reverting

Why are you reverting my edits? --れ下がった (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What have I done that is wrong? Is it just my photo? --れ下がった (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Obvious troll is obviously indeffed. --NeilN 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The WikiNazi

Looks like we’ve found the official Misplaced Pages brown shirt, who relishes issuing commands. Well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicmart (talk • contribs)

I think Nicmart is upset because I removed his post promoting his own site. A read of WP:NPA might be in order too. --NeilN 16:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Dimitri Papadimos

NeilN I have made the changes...I was "quoting" and attributing with references...What else can be done now? Thanks for your help and yes pls do what must be done now for its creation...tksYani papadimos (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, I kindly remind you to my messages regarding the Article Dimitri Papadimos...what should I do next or what am I to expect from Misplaced Pages...many tks Yani papadimos (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Article: Mansoor Ijaz

Dear Neil,

Is there room for discussion on the wholesale edits you and others have made to the article?

For example, removing Jim Woolsey from my article is perhaps the best thing you could have done for me. I have constantly throughout the time this article has existed been associated with the CIA when in fact Jim, who is an old friend, simply served on my company's board for a number of years. The fact that this was ever mentioned in the article was designed to link me with the Neocon movement, of which Jim is an acknowledged member, and to link me with the CIA, which is absolutely false.

But if you are going to remove what you refer to as a name-dropping infraction (all I did was tidy up someone else's reference, I never added it to the article), then could you at least either delete the last sentence of the first intro paragraph, or barring that, properly add in Amb. Woolsey's name and wikify it?

With regard to the edit dispute about the Formula One section, the issue there is as follows -- I agree that it is a convoluted section describing a business transaction that has not yet concluded and is quite complex and drawn out. So it is fair game to be deleted wholesale. But it is a material matter in my biography, just as Memogate was, just as Sudan and Kashmir were. To remove it wholesale after having it be part of the article for nearly a year now makes it appear as if you have some knowledge that the F1 deal with Lotus does not exist anymore, and that is both factually false and currently and significantly misleading.

Is there no room for middle ground? Can I suggest a way to do that, or is that forbidden?

Thirdly, with respect to the COI tag, I created my own USER ID in my name so there would be no ambiguity about my contributions to the page. I did so after receiving that advice from three different Misplaced Pages editors as a way to manage disruptive editing and vandalism of the article. That I added relevant biographical materials in the most neutral way possible, I do not see where I did anything wrong. I strongly object to any insinuation that I have somehow made the article less neutral. And I also object to the Red Pen complaint that somehow the people of public note with whom I had material interactions throughout my life are now to be deleted wholesale because it embellishes my record. I did those things stated. And with the people involved, good bad or indifferent.

Does it now show editorial bias by the three of you who have taken the article apart, and I am sure will make more edits in the coming hours and days, by making edits that do not even consider a third point of view on how it might better be done. It is clear that you are all aiming to block me from editing in Misplaced Pages, so I won't enter into any editing again. But I thought I should at least point out some of the issues that your editing has raised which make the article less informative.

Sincerely, Mansoor Ijaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansoor Ijaz (talk • contribs) 05:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN 06:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Neil,

If you look at the article now, it has basically been butchered. It is now factually incomplete -- do I need to now show how many other articles on the Wiki system carry the name of a company and important personnel associated with that company in a particular individual's living biography? This has gone too far. This is no longer a "let's figure out how to accurately portray a person's life without embellishment". This is a wholesale hack job. And the agenda behind it was to try and write me out of the Formula One environment. That is factually inaccurate and it is really not correct to have done this to the article the way in which it has been done. How many places in Misplaced Pages tutorials are we told that articles are to be built up incrementally and not to be wholesale re-edited unless there is truly justifiable reason for doing so.

The original purpose of the Formula One section from whoever put it in was to point out that I was now an owner of a Formula One team. That was a material fact. That the deal did not complete yet due to banking complications then had to be explained. And it is still ongoing. So there was no justification to take out the entire section and then hack up the rest of the article at the same time. All the edits are of the same ilk -- take away anything that gives or lends importance or credibility to Mansoor Ijaz. That's all this is today -- is that fair? Is that accurate? Is that factually justified?

I ask one more time for your help on how to handle this because this is a wholesale attack on my person and it will not be tolerated.

--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you didn't seem to read what I posted on your talk page, I am reposting it here: "Hello Mr. Ijaz. You ask if there's a middle ground and if you can make suggestions. The answer is yes to both. Please read WP:COIADVICE. The accepted way for subjects of articles to influence/suggest content is to use the article's talk page - Talk:Mansoor Ijaz. Example: I think this should be changed because . The more specific your suggestions are, the quicker they'll be addressed by another editor."

Also, I strongly advise you to tone down your rhetoric. Removing info that does not belong in a biography is not a "wholesale attack on person" and your accusations of an agenda and a "hack job" are without merit. Recognize you do not and will not have everything you want in your biography. --NeilN 14:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Neil, can you now help by reviewing my suggestions to TRPOD edits? He has made factual errors in his version and I have suggested corrections. Thanks. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I did indeed request all images on my user page to be deleted as they are no longer going to be in use once all the editing is complete on the article. I am shortly making a request to delete User:Mansoor Ijaz. I would therefore request that you revert the deletion of the images. If necessary, I can also withdraw my permission as the uploader and author of the photographs in question, if that will help.

Thank you for helping me to understand how the Wiki project works. I wish you well. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mansoor Ijaz: Couple things: 1) It would help if you remembered to log in as I had no idea the IP editing the article was you. 2) It's not as easy as you think it is to withdraw permission for image use as you think it is as you agreed to "irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 licence." Plus there's the fact that some images are supposedly in the public domain. I have opened a thread at the Commons Admin noticeboard to get clarification on this. --NeilN 00:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: apologies, sir. I just forgot. That is why I clarified it to you. I would appreciate the deletions request being honored, but as it is clear I am not welcome in this community anymore, do as you must and do whatever is the right thing to do. I'm not able to contribute anything to the discussion anymore.

--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC) One last favor, please remove reference to my wife in the lead. She is my ex-wife now for over 20 years and has nothing to do with me anymore. Neither did I have anything to do with her decisions to contribute politically. As you have all now succeeded in running me out of the Wiki community, I would ask this as a last favor.

Thank you, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Mansoor Ijaz, I have removed the reference to your wife in the lede. You are still welcome to contribute here but you must understand that not every change you want will be done and some changes you may not like. --NeilN 00:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: 20:18, 18 March 2014 (GMT) I would disagree with your opinion that the Quantum/Lotus transaction is not in the public interest (but defend your right to that opinion). The transaction has been widely reported in the sporting press and has attracted a lot of hearsay and conjecture by other commentators. Misplaced Pages's strict npov guidelines mean that it is an ideal place for to present just the facts that are currently known. If the revised paragraphs that I recently sought to add are too detailed perhaps a shorter summary would be acceptable? --User:Ryuichinaruhodo(talk)

@Ryuichinaruhodo: A shorter summary would be good. Please remember this is a general biography, not something like Fortune magazine. Three or four sentences focusing on Ijaz would fit in. --NeilN 20:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: 11:51, 19 March 2014 (GMT) OK, have cut the commentary on the matter down to 3 sentences. --User:Ryuichinaruhodo(talk)

Date Format

Hi Neil,

Can you explain your reverting of date format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Looker30 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Looker30, please read WP:DATERET and WP:RETAIN. Particularly, "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another." --NeilN 18:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

St Patrick

St Patrick was related to St David, they were both from Wales. Great Britain never existed as a country also back then. The Kingdom of Great Britain resulted from the union of the kingdoms of England (comprising modern-day England and Wales) and Scotland in 1707. You could say he was born in Romano/Britain, it would be more historically accurate. Template:Ryangiggs69

Replied here. --NeilN 19:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok I looked about and it's uncertain where he was born in Britain, but he was definatly not born in Great Britain, The Kingdom of Great Britain resulted from the union of the kingdoms of England (comprising modern-day England and Wales) and Scotland in 1707. source: Great Britain Template:Ryangiggs69 19:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ryangiggs69 Other definition: Great_Britain#Geographical_definition. --NeilN 20:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright images

Dear Neil,

I´m sorry if i posted to many copyright images, i just want to put a image for the page of Ansel Elgort an actor, but every image is copyrighted.. Do u can find a image of him that works or help me how i put a image here that is not copyright . — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaDrew1 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You are reverting my changes rather than improving them

It looks like there are gang-up reverts on my changes rather than improving them, which is exactly the comment you left on my page. Why revert the text I added rather than improving on it, then accusing me of an edit war? Puck42 (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Puck42, if you want content added in, it is up to you to suggest wording on the talk page that will address the concerns of other editors. Stop adding the same wording repeatedly to the article. --NeilN 00:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ratan Tata page

Hi Neil,

Just wanted to point out the correction i've made to Ratan Tata article about him receiving a honorary doctorate is correct, no need to revoke it. I have included an official university source where it has been done. There is media coverage also available about it in case you'd like to double check.

Thanks, Egor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.98.33.27 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a source. --NeilN 20:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes to talk page

You are mistaken. What editing? I did no editing, replied back, but did not delte or edit anything. I know better then to delete what other people said. Apriv40dj (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You might have done it accidentally but here's the edit --NeilN 14:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please point out instance of editing

Please show me what I "did" as I did not do anything to change what someone else wrote at all. Not even by mistake. If you find I "did", I want it changed back at once, since I did not it and I have no interest in fake pages. Please change back anything to the way it was. Apriv40dj (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See above. And yes, I've changed it back. --NeilN 14:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I see what happened I went to reply and windows 8 must have deleted the post I was replying to, but strangely, I did not see the post reply when I was replying. But I replied. It would make no sense to have my reply and then delete the original message, I was replying to. The text must have been sucked up and deleted, but yet, I did not see the text there either at the time. I only recalled the post having read it last night, but was too tired to reply and the next morning it was gone. But, I replied even though I could not see it at the time. I think windows 8 selects text and then if you hit a backspace it deletes, but it did not happened on my watch. It must have occurred sometime in between last night and my reply. If I had known it was gone, I would have reinstated it before replying. I don't want to look like I am having an insane conversation with myself online. Thanks for fixing it. Apriv40dj (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the history I can piece together what happened. You made a post last night and stayed on the page. Today, you made a second post using that same page. But in the interim, other editors posted to Cullen's talk page which you didn't see because you hadn't refreshed the page. Misplaced Pages should have warned you about an edit conflict. If it didn't then that's the software's fault. --NeilN 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt I blame Windows 8, that's a joke, but seriously, I must have been so tired I just left the window open all night. Next time I will be sure to notice if a window is open. I did not see any notice, the text was just gone. Apriv40dj (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Apriv40dj you should be notified of this reply because I linked to your user page. Not everyone does this. In general, if you are involved in a discussion, you should check back every so often to see if there are any replies. --NeilN 02:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi

Thanks, that would be my bad. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, no worries. It would have helped if the IP had left an edit summary so that every other watcher didn't have to check. --NeilN 17:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wayback Machine magic

Hi Neil. I'm curious, how did you dig up the 1966 transcript archived in 2007, here that you linked to in Talk:Koi? I'm rather Orz... Best, Sam Sailor 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I have special magical powers that allow me to mind-meld with Google and... Not buying it? The IP that kicked up the fuss pointed to two other articles here. List_of_longest-living_organisms#Aquatic_animals has the link in question. Rather prosaic, huh? --NeilN 17:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Heheh! Good one, would have loved to learn the trick if there was one. Thanks just the same. Best, Sam Sailor 18:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Creationism

Thank you for your recent talk to me which stated creationism as a religous view. Like you, I don't want an argument, but I disagree. There are scientists (such as Stuart Burgess) who have written scientific contributions and are regarded as scientists, and are creationists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollettDavid (talk • contribs) 13:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

CollettDavid, please re-read what I wrote on your talk page. Repeating it here in bold. To make your change you need to show a majority of accredited scientists regard it as a scientific movement. Not one scientist. Not a hundred scientists. Not scientists who also hold religious beliefs. Find a reliable source that states Creationism is an accepted science within the scientific community. --NeilN 13:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

CollettDavid, this is very to the point:. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrongful reference of sombody else must be removed.

1. ( .. WRONGFULL REFERENCE OF SOMEONE ELSE BY C.Fred IS REMOVED .. )

Please, do not revert it as it can be harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 20:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Rajeshwar Prasad CEO of RAK Sovereign Holding under prominent Indians in UAE

Hi

You seem to have edited/deleted this entry. Are you familiar with UAE and this person for such action?

regards,

RP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikea1829 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No idea who he is. Did you read the message on your talk page? Specifically, "In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists." --NeilN 17:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Note that you are reaching the final stage of vandalism WP:VAN by committing two illegitimate sectional blanking of section in the article Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. Please post your opinion with objective justifiable reasons in the talk page before doing that. Any further sectional blanking will result in the report of vandalism WP:VAN. Thank you. Heritoctavus (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Reported for WP:3RR. --NeilN 20:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Good job on Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles and stopping an edit war by a user. TheMesquito (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you TheMesquito. And thank you for contributing your views on the talk page. --NeilN 20:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Arvind Kejriwal - New section on list of criticisms removed

Dear Neiln, in Arvind Kejriwal article - New section on list of criticisms has been removed. Criticism list is necessary to paint a fair picture, especially when it is adequately referenced inline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raamdharmaj (talk • contribs)

Raamdharmaj, not when almost the entire section is sourced to charges of political opponents. And no attempt at balance is shown. If you think the section should still go in, please use the article's talk page to see what other editors think. --NeilN 21:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Neiln, can criticisms be inserted in between already existing categories ? Many of them are not allegations but facts.Raamdharmaj (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Raamdharmaj, yes, criticisms can be integrated within the body provided they are relevant and not WP:UNDUE. Again, I suggest you use the article's talk page to discuss. --NeilN 22:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Piss off

You know it. Stop WK her and ignoring the vast evidence against rad-fem.

1. Saheeh International