- No, although I'm sure I could rival any editor for pedantry. For the moment, I'm just a college student (in economics, actually). But I'm pleased that you would think so! —Neil 00:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Neil, I added that link to justify my claims, that is, the line I added to the article adrenocorticotropic hormone: Adaptogens, especially Ashwagandha, may also help lower elevated ACTH levels, by normalizing endocrine system function.
Maybe my site isn't a medical journal but my claims are true since I speak from experience. I also have legit and verified lab results that support my claims.
I though that wikipedia is information sharing site and that my experience could help someone. External links from wikipedia have nofollow tag anyway. So, I won't have much use from it.
Now, I see that citation is needed. Should I add a link to citation or leave it as it is. (talk) 19:45, 29 Septemeber 2013
Thanks for explaining it, Neal. I could understand the fact if they reject non-proven claims with lack of evidence but mine is backed up with experience and plenty of evidence. However, it is not your fault. You are just acting as wikipedia policy dictates.
If reliable source could verify my claims, we wouldn't have this problem. Is there any way I could do this? Maybe submit my informations to organization that would looked into it? (talk) 21:58, 29 Septemeber 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)
Well, I agree with that. I have just one question. Could I add a link to references on adrenocorticotropic hormone article? Would that be violation of policy? I tried to do it before but couldn't embed it properly.
Third Opinion Award
|The Third Opinion Award|
|Neil has been most helpful in mediating a recent dispute. He set a fair and reasonable criteria for submitting strong reliable sources which helped us disregard tertiary sources and focus on what well renowned historians actually said about the matter. He invested much of his time in not only analyzing both sides of the conflict but in doing additional research to gain a thorough understanding of the time period in question. He sets an example to what any mediator should aspire to be. — Scoobydunk (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)|
Renaming of List of artifacts significant to the Bible
Hi, just to let you know that we're in the third and final stage of the RM discussion at Talk:List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible#Requested_move_09_November_2013. I'm sending you this message because you participated in an earlier stage of this discussion. We'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Oncenawhile (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Your request for undeletion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Netcall plc. JohnCD (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
don't see deletion entry
- Thanks! I just fixed it. Not sure what exactly I did, but whatevs. —Neil 00:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
|I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your thoughtful comments during my (now withdrawn) RfA. Constructive criticism is always appreciated. What doesn't kill us... Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)|
DYK for Thomas Osborne (publisher)
|On 17 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Osborne (publisher), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Samuel Johnson boasted that he once knocked publisher Thomas Osborne to the ground with a heavy folio? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Osborne (publisher). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.|
P & C
Notice of pending private communication only for the eyes of Scoobydunk (talk), Neil P. Quinn (talk), and Wayne (talk) is hereby made. To protect the privacy of and securely transmit the information, any one or all of the three will be required to email me for a link to the password-protected document. (One email for all three is fine as it may be shared among the three via private transmission not posted publicly.) Please reply below once you have sent your email, advising if you intend to share it with any of the others (identify which). Upon receipt, you will be required to verify your identity before the protected information will be released to you.
- Sladen, I certainly have no objection to reverting those moves. But I don't see why it's necessary to delete the redirects—I can certainly imagine that someone might type in "British Rail class 67" when they want this article, and it does no harm to have a redirect sitting around even if it's rarely used. Anyway, R3 is only for "implausible typos or misnomers", and the fact that a user tried to move the page there shows it's at least plausible as an alternative name.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Some bubble tea for you!
|Thanks for the "Thanks"! It's been quite a while since I've edited Wikepeida.... so many new social features (eg. "Thanks", "WikiLove", etc). Brianrisk (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)|
A barnstar for you!
|The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar|
|Thanks for doing such a thorough investigation and documenting your findings on this ongoing issue. It's nice to have something to link to in the block logs, etc. I will try to keep it updated :) Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 05:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)|
@MusikAnimal: Thanks for the barnstar! It helps reassure me that I'm not obsessive for documenting like this :) Do you know of a central location for logs like this? Seems like it might be hard for others to find in my userspace.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is a Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, so you could move your report to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Schwabacher vandal. The "Cautionary notes" you see at the top may not apply so much to our vandal, as they aren't out for that kind of recognition, but rather the patent which is the subject of their vandalism. — MusikAnimal talk 16:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal: Okay, thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for. I've removed some of the details, to better deny recognition, and moved it there (with the appropriate transclusions and listings). Let me know if there's anything I should do differently. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Cambia Health Solutions
Neal, Thank you for your interest in accurate Wikipedia entries, as well as in Cambia Health Solutions and our subsidiary, Regence Health Insurance Company.
We have some suggested edits that will make the entry more accurate, and bring us back into compliance with our agreement with the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) about not mixing Regence/Blue and Cambia brands. If you would like to make these edits, that is greatly appreciated.
If you are interested, we certainly invite you to create a separate Cambia Health Solutions page, being careful not to mention Regence or The Blues® in it. We think Cambia is a worthy topic, as it houses many subsidiaries and investments that bring a new retail focus to health care that is ahead of what much of the health care industry is doing. You can find more information at www.cambiahealth.com. Regards, Regena Frieden Cambia Health Solutions Regenafrieden (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the thanks at my attempt at compromise at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.
Unfortunately, it seems David Levy and Imzadi1979 had opposing opinions about the blurb text, and my tweak caused David Levy to shift from support to oppose, so I tweaked it again to remove WP:Easter eggs and that was satisfactory to David Levy again, but not to Imzadi1979.
As you can probably see from reading Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, it's been incredibly difficult for me to try to please multiple different parties at that debate.
- @Cirt: Thanks for the message! I didn't realize you had changed the blurb further; I honestly like it even better now. Either way, I support the request; I just wanted to let you know I thought the revision struck an excellent balance. I wish you luck trying to build consensus, and thanks again for writing the article! —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Request on 20:09:08, 17 December 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by M.Renae
Hi Neil, I just added a few more sources to the Simply Gluten Free Magazine page and I was hoping I could get your opinion and maybe some assistance with finding additional sources, if they are still needed. The magazine's editor-in-chief has been interviewed and featured in many publications, but I've found those are often geared more towards her than the magazine itself. Please let me know if the sources are sufficient at this time or if it still needs more. I didn't want to submit it again for review until I get a second opinion.
- @MichaelQSchmidt: okay, thanks for the heads up (and of course for your search for Korean sources and your work on the article!) I have to say I like her most recent film credit: "lethargic woman at group session."—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry: Not a problem at all! Figuring out the process can be a real headache at times. Happy editing!—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving your opinion on this one. I just have a couple of queries for you, if that's OK? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hello again. Thanks for giving your view on this. There's a similar debate about a source from 2005 going on on the same talk page, here. It's probably more complicated than the census issue that you gave a view on as there are several possible alternative sources (some of which are more recent), but they're not as comprehensive or nationally representative as the 2005 data. Would you be able to offer a view on this, as it's currently just kicking back and forth between me and one other editor. I understand if you don't want to - it's quite a long discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving your opinion on this one. I just have a couple of queries for you, if that's OK? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Yurgh, that's lovely. I pinged it over to Guillaume since he's been checking diffs for nowikis. And as for what I was doing, I was frittering away my life on a useless, soul-sucking MMORPG called Ye Olde Summe of Humanne Knoweledge.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
War of the Pacific
Thank you for offering an opinion. I don't think that it really answered what those two editors wanted answered, but I don't think that they wanted to have a dispute resolved. I may be cynical, but I think that they only wanted to have a dispute. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: You may be right. I guess we'll have to wait and see whether it actually helps.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- At least, you broke the code. You figured out what one of the editors was saying was original research, namely, comparing the opinions of different authors, and were saying that that is not original research if the authors are summarized correctly. Thank you. It wasn't clear to me at all what the issue was. That is sometimes a problem with third opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Neil and Rob. Keysanger has been "working" on this article for several years now, and there has been no progress toward it reaching the standards for GA (much less FA). In these type of controversial articles, the best approach is to follow the WP:Summary guidelines in order to avoid excessive argumentation (which is what generally causes WP:OR issues) and WP:WEASEL wording (words like "some authors" and "most authors" are used without logic in the article).
- If you can help the article follow the WP:Summary guidelines, it would be a huge boost towards making it more readable and less biased.
- Sater's book (Andean Tragedy) isn't a bad source, and Sater is an excellent historian, but I am sure that even he would disagree with basing most of the article on his point of view. Most of his work is about Chile, and Andean Tragedy is a continuation of his work on Chile.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- An example of a problem in the article is the following sentence: "Sater cites also another sources that means that the true causes of the conflict are not economic but geopolitical a struggle for control of the southeastern portion of the Pacific Ocean."
- This doesn't make sense because (a) Geopolotical conflicts and economic conflicts are not mutually exclusive, and (b) control of the South Pacific means control of the maritime trade (economics!).
- What the sources are actually indicating is Chilean expansionism. Even Pike writes that Chile "had been irresistibly tempted by neighboring territories" (and this is cited in the article).
- So, what is the problem? The root of the problem here is Keysanger. His paraphrasing and summarizing of the material is erroneous. Instead directly writing about Chilean expansionism, he writes a soup of words that are more confusing than clear.
- What Keysanger is doing in this case would be like claiming that the Mexican-American War was caused by Mexico's envy of the United States (instead of writing about the accepted view of American Manifest Destiny expansionism). I use this example because Pike is writing about this as well.
- I think that WP:COMPETENCE applies to this case. If an editor can't contribute positively to an article, either because he doesn't have the appropriate language skills nor has non-partisan intentions, then that editor should not be allowed to continue making a mess of the article.
- Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@MarshalN20: thanks for giving an example of the problem. It does sound like the article does a poor job of summarizing the sources, and could badly use some skilled attention (that was certainly my impression when I first read it, without knowing who wrote what). I'd genuinely like to jump in and try to address some of that, but I'm honestly not sure I can make that investment of time. I guess other dispute resolution procedures are an option as well, but, in the same way, I don't know enough about the article's backstory to know if that's appropriate, or to pursue it without a big time commitment. :( —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
critical page deleted! needs to be undone or corrected!
- Please see "talk:list of languages by number of native speakers#page was deleted, not merged!." Nicole Sharp (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Deleted material recovered and merge completed. See "talk:list of languages by number of speakers#merge." Nicole Sharp (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please see:
- We cannot have duplicate pages on Wikipedia. Either the pages need to be merged or they need to be separate, they cannot be both.
- Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
possible deletion of outdated sources
- If you feel that any outdated sources for "list of languages by total number of speakers" should be removed from Wikipedia, I would suggest that you create a new discussion topic at "talk:list of languages by total number of speakers." I personally would vote to keep the outdated sources available on Wikipedia until better data is published. Nicole Sharp (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi I noticed Draft:Sahlins–Obeyesekere debate just hidden out there after almost a year. I added WikiProjects to it to get some more eyes but would you could adding that page to the WP:AFC process? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ricky81682:: I'm glad you found it! I looked at the page and decided that, with a few references to prove notability, it was good enough to publish to mainspace. So I did! Thanks for giving me the spur!—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Ethnologue article Reply
- @Od Mishehu: Thank you very much!—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's how I tend to handle borderline cases - redirect reversals which are probably okay, but I'm not sure enough to put my name on it. The deletion is clearly a technicality; those revisions are clearly not any real history. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
you put "Such minor details distract from the overall points that the section is trying to convey"
question: How the time distract form overall points they trying to convey? And if so who points to convey you trying to keep? 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I am really iffy on your edit to Omarosa's biography. In a fair amount of biographies, education and upbringings are included in the lead. Please discuss editing on the talk page when making such a huge move of information. Aleccat 00:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aleccat: I wouldn't call it a huge move of information since I just reordered the facts in the first few sentences and then added a line break between that and the rest of the intro for easier reading. Obviously, you're welcome to edit it further...I just went in to add a missing space and tried to fix a couple more things while I was at it :)—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Didn't mean to sound like I was knocking your grammar concerns. It's a much trafficked article. If you don't watch it like a hawk, which I wasn't earlier, it begins to drift. Fixing it afterward is much harder. Grammar concerns are fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:Fowler&fowler thanks, I appreciate it, and I don't think anyone could call you inattentive to grammar!
- I do feel that you are being a bit rude in the discussion (e.g. "Please also stop speaking for Wikipedia or assuming that the mantle of normal English has descended on you."), so I am glad you are thinking about how your words might be perceived.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.