User talk:NeilN: Difference between revisions

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 Archive 17: Mar 2014 - May 2014 Archive 18: Jun 2014 - Jul 2014

22 July 2024
Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter Essay: Reflections on editing and obsession In the media: What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book? Obituary: JamesR Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword Humour: Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

ORIGINAL MESSAGE: Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Health insurance. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN talk to me 01:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash nutty (talk • contribs)

Hello Neil,

I understand that you have reverted my edit. All I wanted to explain is I am NOT promoting my business. Just because the video is created by my company, does not mean that you can consider it spam. I would like to bring to your attention that such information is not available anywhere in the internet it will be useful to wiki User. I would also take this opportunity to point out that the information I have shared on wiki is unique and is not available anywhere in the net.

As far as your message about the links go, I do not want a backlink or SEO value from these information. Let me also explain you that the links were pointing to a YouTube video. This is not leveraging my website in any SEO value. I would request that you read/see/hear the content first and then make a decision whether it is a spam or it is really valuable to the user of wiki. Just because we created it, does not mean we are promoting it. We have never used any promotional language or advertising speech in the video.

Thanks Ash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash nutty (talk • contribs) 02:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ash nutty, this is pretty much the definition of WP:LINKSPAM. Please read the conflict of interest info I put on your talk page and refrain from adding links to your business. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No links were added to the content, so I do not understand why it is perceived as advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9kondop (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@K9kondop: Please find non-commercial sources for the content you want to add and be mindful of copyright infringements like File:Concepts-3.jpg. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then why not simply leave the images out. That should solve the problem. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9kondop (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@K9kondop: No, please see verifiability. You still need to provide sources for the material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but if I add the reference URLs you will then say that it's a commercial URL and therefore non admissible. So, it's ok, I'll leave it as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9kondop (talk • contribs) 16:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@K9kondop: A source must be independent and have a reputation for fact checking and neutrality (e.g., newspaper, trade magazine). Not a vendor page designed to sell you something. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9kondop (talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I will add reliable sources thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish2470 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this revert... I must have been drunk when I made that one! Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NeilN,

I had reverted back 3 time on aricle 'Indian foreign service' malafied and unresobnable reverts by unregistered user IP 116.74.12.42 . I was not aware of 3RR Rule and more so I was not aware of diluting the quality of article and malafide editing by aforementioned user was already being observed by you and had already been issued warning by administrator. I regret my not keeping with rules. I only wanted to restore quality and integrity of article as all addition were duly referenced from reliable sources and all pictures added were relevant and in public domain.

As far as my 3RR is concerned, I have read carefully rules regarding 3RR and reverted my own latest revert as advised in article. Hope you will consider my mistake and also restore quality of article. Regret and Regards. Writereditor009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writereditor009 (talk • contribs)

Hi Writereditor009. You are in no danger of breaking WP:3RR. Consecutive edits count as one revert so feel free to undo the last undo of yourself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am an atheist, but found that Cherub article to be so slanted for Judaism up front, with little info on what a cherub is, exactly. I quoted the Bible with passages as sources; and you deleted my edits as unsourced--despite the Judaic texts in the article taken as word.

If I was a fourth grader trying to find the definition of "Cherub," your page would chap my brain. Wikipedia used to be the brand we all trusted--because we thought it was *us*. But now it is impossible to contribute. Your editors are mostly control freaks, the right-wing religious slant is stifling, the pages are filled with self-promoters & vanity press of dime store artists who put their own pages up, and blocks on anyone editing who isn't an insider--you have turned into the information control horror that you started to fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OhStop (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there's a better way to cite the bible. Maybe that'd help. - Denimadept (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there's a way. See {{Bibleverse}}. Would that work for you, NeilN?- Denimadept (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Denimadept. Although OhStop is blocked for socking, let me answer you. The issue is not citing passages, the issue is providing secondary sources for the interpretations he's adding. This is a prime example: "Gabriel, because he has been involved in major Biblical events, is likely one of the Archangels (though the Bible does not directly say so - see Daniel 8:15 - 16)." There's no cite to biblical scholarship provided to back up that statement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't exactly specialize in this area. - Denimadept (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should just stop reporting him already? Flyer22 (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for not only cleaning up breakage on my talk page, but for reaching out to help the fellow who was lost. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IT IS NOT A MUSLIM JAMAATHU , BUT IT IS A NON MUSLIM JAMAATHU. KADIYANI IS NOT A MUSLIM , BUT HE WAS A FROAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by SALAMMK (talk • contribs)

@SALAMMK: I can make little sense of this. Please stop typing in ALL CAPS. Your edit removed sourced information and a link to the proper sub-article. If you're saying Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was not a Muslim, Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not editors' personal opinions, to determine that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

plz c the Wikipedia page of the heading Muslim,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim.SALAMMK (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SALAMMK: What about it? If you expand the Denominations section in the Islam infobox you'll see that Ahmadiyya is listed. Note: please don't surround text with {{ }}. Wikipedia thinks you're trying to insert a template which is adding to the confusion. I've fixed your posts up above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that I was trying to fix other changes that was made to the Roman Empire article. The previous person replaced Roman for Irish and I thought that I would change them. As for the Obama Sr. My son put something wrong on there so I quickly changed it so it would not offend anyone. Thanks for helping me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh12357 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Consider this opening statement of belief: "The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community ... believes that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate ... is the re-establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate ...." This is an opinion altho it may have a reference from one of their own community theology books.

Now consider my edit in terms of the above belief statement of the Ahmadiyya community and the below explanation:

If you believe that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate established (after the passing away of the community's founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) is the re-establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate and which belief as you well know is a belief that no Muslim accepts, therefore the researcher/reader on Islamic topics has the right to know why that Ahmadiyya belief (about the re-establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate) is unacceptable to the Muslim majority (assuming that the Ahmadiyya can still be considered a minority Muslim sect in spite of all Muslim sects denying them any Muslim recognition) vis-a-vis the Muslim beliefs as follows:

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and their Caliphate are considered heretical by all Muslim groups due to one deep theological difference. The Quran asserts that:

Mohammad is not the father of any of your men but he is the Messenger of God and the Seal (the last and final) of the Prophets. (Quran 33:40)^[1]

Prophet Mohammad also had said:

Indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah, each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. But I am the last of the Prophets. There is no Prophet after me.^[2][3]

It's simply a matter of putting forward both referenced belief i.e. one against another referenced belief. I have no axes to grind against the Ahmadiyya. In fact I think it would have been better for the Ahmadiyya not to have mentioned anything about their Caliphate which makes no sense in Islam because it is against the belief system of a billion plus Muslims as opposed to their estimated 10 million(?) Ahmadiyyas worldwide. How are 10 million excommunicated Muslims going to push thru their candidate for a Muslim Caliph against that of one billion Muslims? Really it is altogether an absurd situation.

Please let me know if you need more explanations. In the meantime I have cancelled your revert.

Please also inform whether you are a Wiki Administrator since you are threatening to block me as if you are one. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salim e-a ebrahim: This is classic synthesis which is not allowed here. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." As to your admin question, looking over your past edits I see that you seem to be fixated if editors are administrators or not. No one has seemed to have told you this explicitly so I will: It does not matter. Admins do not have any special powers to judge content or to hand out warnings. Anyone can do so. If an admin does that, they are acting as a regular editor. Their admin powers are used for performing the actual block, after the editor to be blocked has disregarded enough warnings which, again, can be issued by anyone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit the link below which describes the Dispute posted by me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Caliph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim e-a ebrahim (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NeilN - I recedntly posted material to the Rolling Coal entry that was deleted by you and tagged as "not relevant". My post had to do with the emissions control performance of equipment disengaged on pickups for the purpose of generating higher emissions. The material comes from a credible and often cited source, the U.S. Envoronmental Protection Agency. I believe my post is both relevant to the subject and credible.

Thenk you,

EpaulF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epaulf (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Epaulf: And none of that is relevant to the topic. It's like adding a section of the properties of modern steel to the Eiffel Tower article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil, the article by Bob Metcalfe (the inventor of the Ethernet) was in an InfoWorld article dated 12/18/95 based on an interview with me (John Bentley) while demonstrating the Viewcall STB entitled "Couch Potatoes armed with Viewcall can surf the Web through the tube. It went on to say in a 2 page review that "we are watching our first intervision" as he explained the first internet on TV.There are numerous references to Viewcall on the Net and the later sale of its business to NetChannel an Oracle subsidiary. I invented TV internet well before anyone else and Viewcall was my company. In the light of other claims I simply want to put the record straight for reasons of Internet and TV history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekyman (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beekyman. "we are watching our first intervision" does not mean you invented TV Internet. It simply means it was Metcalfe's first experience with it. Where is the two page review? All I found was Metcalfe's column. Also, please read our conflict of interest guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Catch 22 in what you are asking. Before my giving the interview for the Metcalfe article no person had claimed they had invented Internet TV, and indeed nor have they now although some writers now attribute it to Microsoft or Oracle. In fact the product had no name other than Viewcall or OnTV as Viewcall later called it, since it had not been invented by anyone else or even thought about. I have other inventions to my name and do not generally boast about them but I am just trying to put the record straight for historic purposes.

Metcalfe is a very well known TV industry figure and himself the industry acknowledged inventor of the Ethernet. His InfoWorld publication was an authoritative industry publication and he was the first knowledgeable journalist in the US to whom I demonstrated the Viewcall STB which was also exhibited at the CES exhibition of that date, and had been demonstrated some months earlier in London.

This seems to me to fit your conditions that an invention must be witnessed by some other recognized person or publication other than the inventor who lays claim to it. The University of Montreal also published a review entitled L'Etat d'Internet in 1999 which described me as follows:" Indeed , although one allots the invention of Internet on Television to a certain John Bentley, a British (sic) who was the first to put on the market of the consoles giving access to the Web by the means of television this one and his company disappeared early from the race because they did not have the funds to compete with WebTV Networks and Microsoft."

Metcalfe gave it the name of "Intervision" and his article makes it clear that what he was watching was in effect the forerunner of what Microsoft later called Web TV and what Oracle called the Network Computer since it was Oracle who purchased the business of Viewcall through their subsidiary NetCannel Inc. There are numerous references to this purchase on the net but they do not say I was the inventor since Oracle liked to lay claim to it as their product, but not that they had invented it. Viewcall America purchased the rights for Viewcall's product from Viewcall Ltd of the UK and acknowledged me as the Founder of both Viewcall Ltd and Viewcall America Inc, both of which companies I was a director. There is no article that says I was the inventor of Internet TV since I did not go looking for kudos, but neither has any other individual laid claim to it, unsurprisingly since they did not invent it. If this means you refuse to recognize any inventor simply because he is modest enough not to have gathered up sufficient evidence to suit you purposes then so be it, but then the truth of the record, which I assume is your purpose on Wikipedia, cannot therefore ever be recorded, and so the public are left either in the dark or with a false impression given by those with power and money to suppress the original inventor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekyman (talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Beekyman: Wikipedia's purpose is not to be the record of truth, but rather to report on what reliable sources say is the truth. This is straight from one of the core policies: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Do you have more information about the University of Montreal review? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neal. I respect the need Wikipedia has to ascertain sufficient independent appraisals. I will contact the University of Montreal to see if they have a web link to their review of the Web industry in 1999, in which the words I quoted to you are contained, and of which I have a physical hard copy. Is a link to the University a necessity or can its review be linked to another web site? It does have the name of the University on the heading, although it is a translation from the original French. If this cannot be found then perhaps the second best way it can be done is to ascribe Viewcall as the company which originated Internet on TV of which there is a fair amount of evidence, and then make it clear I was its founder.

In passing I would remark that as an inventor, as I imagine with most others, the thought of the invention comes into ones head as a vision and so cannot be shared at that moment with anyone, and if it was then that person too could possibly lay claim to it. It is possible the reason why so many inventions are contended. The world tends to understand an inventor as the first person to show an original product in some sort of working order. I did this,both in London and with Bob Metcalfe in the US, but in the name of Viewcall, a company,of which I was the founder and main stockholder. My vision took three years to complete as a product, having the need to raise the necessary funds, to research the available hardware, and to re-engineer it, and to outline the software requirements that would make the net appear acceptable on a TV screen with the novel fractal use of images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekyman (talk • contribs) 18:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Beekyman: Sources do not have to be accessible via the web, they just have to be accessible to the general public (e.g., in a library or archive). In order to use the source on Wikipedia enough info needs to be given to identify it (journal title, article title, date, author) and to ascertain what weight to give to it (e.g., a review by an undergrad for the university paper will carry no weight while a published overview in a paper by a professor will carry significant weight). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekyman (talk • contribs) 11:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Hi Neil. this morning I re-edited the Wikipedia Internet TV site as you have previously stipulated with authoritative evidence of references:- a) in InfoWorld Magazine that John Bentley of Viewcall demonstrated the first Internet TV product at Comdex to Bob Metcalfe in December 1995. Metcalfe is a Professor Emeritus and the inventor of the Ethernet whose reputation cannot be disputed. b) that the highly authoritative British Guardian Online newspaper in January 1996 reported Viewcall's world first Internet TV product and that John Bentley was Chairman of Viewcall. c) that the authoritative US BYTE magazine reported Viewcall in April 1996 as having the first Internet TV product d) the press report in April 1997 that NetChannel purchased Viewcall. NetChannel being a subsidiary of Oracle e) the several page interview of Ruel Set Top magazine between its editor and John Bentley entitled "John Bentley Inventor of Internet TV"[reply]

Ruel Magazine is now defunct but was a widely read internet TV industry magazine for a decade or more.

By refusing to let this information be published you are suppressing the truth of the invention of Internet TV and giving no contrary evidence. Not least that Viewcall was the first to demonstrate it which is referenced in all of a,b,c,d and e above. secondly that John Bentley was the demonstrator, thirdly that he was Chairman of Viewcall Ltd when its product was demonstrated. fourthly that it became the Network Computer of Oracle, and fourthly as reported in detail in 1999 in Ruel Magazine that John Bentley was the Inventor Of Internet TV, which has never been disputed by any other party. Additionally all of these references can be found on the www.johnbentley.biz web site as I had previously pointed out to you. If you do not respond satisfactorily I will take my case to the owner of Wikipedia directly whose object I feel sure was that Wikipedia should be an instrument of the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekyman (talk • contribs) 14:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Beekyman: Please start signing your posts as you were shown to here: User_talk:Beekyman#Your_recent_edits. Also, please add your posts to the correct section - you can read WP:TPG for more info.

I did not revert your latest addition, another editor did likely because the cites were completely incorrectly formatted. [1] Please read Help:Referencing for beginners for help on this. Lastly, the owner of Wikipedia is the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization. Employees of the WMF, acting on behalf of the WMF, cannot dictate article content unless there's some legal issue involved (very rare - I believe there's only one article out of 4+ million under Foundation control). Volunteer editors such as those working on Internet television will always dictate content for the other 4+ million - 1 articles.

My edit to the Qatar pages is not just attributable to The Daily Beast. Dozens of web sites and news sources including U.S. intelligence say that major funding to ISIS (IS) is being provided by Qatar. ISIS (IS) is committing atrocities including forced religious conversions, beheadings, genocide and more in its move to form an Islamic Caliphate. Your removal of my edit is tantamount to a cover-up. I don't have a talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozoni11 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ozoni11. Your talk page is where I posted my message to you - talk. As to your edit, I didn't say it was unsourced, I said it was non-neutral (see WP:NPOV). "Additionally, Qatar is one of the biggest donors to ISIS (no called IS or Islamic States). IS continues to threaten and kill Christians, other Muslims and those who do not believe in their fanatical brand of Islam." is not encyclopedic language. Also, that is the top-level article of Qatar, we need to be careful that recentism doesn't creep in. I suggest you try to integrate the material within the existing content using neutral terminology. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your revert, there seems to be some sock who added it, I was about to revert it myself. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvajna (talk • contribs)

Hi Neil, The entry for Jehovah Witness mistakenly lists this as a Christian denomination. I can edit if you like. But I am new to wikipedia editing aand am not certain how this works. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccsarchitect (talk • contribs) 01:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ccsarchitect: No, please don't change that as you'll quickly be reverted. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not editors' opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neil

I do have a source for that, namely Dr. Yeshi Dhonden, The Ambrosia Heart Tantra, p.5. Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, Dharamsala, 1977. Please tell me how to insert this citation. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.130.151 (talk)

Can you please type out the sentences from the book that back up your edit and what qualifications Dhonden has as a historian? Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neil,

The relevant passage reads:

"It was in his manifestation as the Sovereign Healer that Buddha Shakyamuni delivered the following teachings (comprising the Ambrosia Heart Tantra)". ibid.

Dr. Yeshi Dhonden. Yeshi Dhonden's qualifications are impeccable. Among other peerless achievements, he was personal physician to the present Dalai Lama for 20 years.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshi_Donden

Also see http://yeshidhonden.com/

From the brief biography of Dr. Yeshi Dhonden: Dr. Yeshi Dhonden was born in Lhoka, Tibet on 15th May 1927 to Mr. Tashi Tsering and Mrs. Metok Dolkar. His family comes from the popular medical lineage of Ngok Lotsawa and Ngok Choeku Dorjee. He is very genius that he has finished his medical training at a very tender age of twenty. In 1960 he took up the challenge to found Men Tsee Khang, the Tibetan Medical College and was succeeded.He was both Director and principal until 1979.

Yeshi Dhonden is a Buddhist monk and was Dalai Lama’s personal physician for about twenty years from 1960 to 1980. His primary goal was to prove that these Tibetan formulas were safe and non toxic and have successfully done it. He now uses Tibetan herbal medicines and diet for curing cancer. Since 1967, he has long list of patients seeking his care and help at his clinic in Mcleod Ganj, Dharamsala.

Dr. Yeshi Dhonden is one of the foremost Tibetan doctors of the world. Over the last 50 years, he has successfully treated patients with all kinds of ailments. One of his specialties is cancer. He has treated thousands of cancer patients from all over the world, including women with breast cancer. His treatment basically includes ancient Tibetan herbal therapies. He is a successful doctor in treating diseases such as AIDS and cancer. He even gave life to the patients who are in last stage.

With respect to your question about being a historian, Dr. Yeshi Dhonden is a Tibetan Buddhist medical doctor and monk. The citation does not say anything about historians, it says that the tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, as expressed here by the Dalai Lama's personal physician, states that the Ayurveda text Heart of Amrita (Ambrosia Heart Tantra, Kelsang 1977) was preached by the Buddha, which would place the provenance of the text north India around 500BC - centuries before all the other leading Ayurveda textbooks.

Given Dhonden's clear impetus to promote Buddhism, and lack of qualifications as a historian, I don't think he's an acceptable source for, "The Four Tantras are traditionally held by Tibetan Buddhist lineages to have been preached by Lord Buddha several centuries before the appearance of any other Ayurveda text." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you or do you not agree that the Dalai Lama represents Tibetan Buddhism? Next, the Dalai Lama's personal physician definitely represents Tibetan Buddhism. The view expressed by the Dalai Lama's Tibetan physician is the same view as the Dalai Lama's himself. Contrary to your claim, it is not in the Dalai Lama's interest to undertake mere self-promotion. Due to these facts, it is not incorrect to state that the Tibetan Buddhist tradition holds that the Buddhist Ayurveda treatise, Ambrosia Heart, of the Heart of Amrita, was preached by the Buddha, which places its composition many centuries before any of the later Ayurveda textbooks. The view of Dr. Dhonden is that:

"It was in his manifestation as the Sovereign Healer that Buddha Shakyamuni delivered the following teachings (comprising the Ambrosia Heart Tantra)". ibid.

I still would like a historian's perspective but I've copied our conversation to Talk:Ayurveda#Buddhism_and_Ayurveda to get more input. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not harassing anyone. Please review the edits of HelenOnline. She is severely violating WP:OWN in her control of the Oscar Pistorius article, to the detriment of Wikipedia. All I am doing is trying to add accurate information. Please do not abuse me any further. Thanks. If you wish to wield your mighty banhammer, consider the one in violation of Wikipedia's principles, who is damaging the accuracy of Wikipedia ==== HelenOnline. Thanks. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a moderator, you are a poor excuse for one. Please stay out of things that you aren't bothering to investigate. I am the good guy here. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continue your harassment of HelenOnline and you can explain yourself at WP:ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am harassing nobody. Check the history. HelenOnline is a major abuser on that article, has added in huge amounts of inaccurate information, controlled the article, and harassed multiple editors. You should be defending me!!!! Let her speak for herself. All I am asking is that she back away from this, to allow level-headed neutral people to edit it, so that her bias isn't there. There is no way that that is anything close to harassment. Your behaviour, on the other hand, is clearly abusive and bullying. Please stop it. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So ban me, bully. Wield your banhammer for great justice. Get your kicks out of it. And don't bother to check any facts at all. I am sure you feel really good for defending someone who you presume is female. What would happen if Helen was male? Would you still blindly defend someone who was adding in inaccurate information if they were male? What if I was female? You don't know. I could be a supermodel. Anyway, enjoy your power trip. Wikipedia is so terrible. Wikipedia doesn't care about accurate information. All they care about are people like you on massive power trips. So go ahead, feel good about yourself. It doesn't change the truth at all. Just makes you look bad. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

123.2.223.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Looking at the BLP notice posted here, I found that the IP added unsourced content [2] which HelenOnline removed. She also removed a copyvio committed by the IP. [3] The IP then made all kinds of accusations here. Despite other editors' support of Helen and a warning to stop, [4] they continued to tell Helen to stop editing the article. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, too slow. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for personal attacks and disruptive editing, which includes the BLP issues and the copyvio. Acroterion (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Acroterion. It's pretty bad when someone gets attacked for upholding our core policies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that escalated really fast! Thank you for taking care of it. Oh, you should never be given the mop, since you seem to be getting "massive power trips" by enforcing policies against possible "supermodels". Inexcusable.  NQ  talk 01:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your help and sorry Neil got dragged into the nastiness. I was out all day, probably just as well. HelenOnline 08:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HelenOnline: No need to be sorry. We're supposed to be a community and that should mean editors sticking up for community standards are supported. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the subject matter and the articles targeted, this is rather obviously User:Internodeuser aka User:Blissyu2 aka User:Zordrac - Alison ^❤ 05:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the text I added is properly sourced and relevant to the topic section, Volume, why did you revert my additions to the original?

If there is a comment on Hypospermia there should be a comment on Hyperspermia as well as clarification on normal volumes.

I will be adding my edit again but await to hear your reasons with anticipation.--BigBearLovesPanda (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BigBearLovesPanda. It was because this is questionable as a reliable source and it's definitely not a WP:MEDRS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. I did have doubts about this but as it had references on the page I thought that may be adequate, much like a university medical text book. I'm sure my Hyperspermia citation is compliant as it is used on the Hyperspermia article page and Flyer22 thinks it probably is a WP:RS. I'll double check and add the reference again if it is compliant. By the way, thanks for the feedback re my references, I'm rather inexperienced at the Wiki editing malarkey and it's 20 years since I wrote my thesis so I'm a bit rusty but I know how important it is so I will hope to do better next time.--BigBearLovesPanda (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have copy of a letter dated 4 June 1947 which was my source for including the names of the first batch of IFRS officers.

If you had asked me for that source rather than simply removing my post I would have understood.

FYI, the last name on that list was my father!

I do not know who you are or why you have taken upon yourself to be the guardian on the IFS page, I do not care.

If you send me your email I will gladly send you that letter, but only if my edit is added back on.

Regards, Madhav Agate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agatemike (talk • contribs) 15:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agatemike. Wikipedia does not accept private letters as sources. Per WP:SOURCE: 'Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form"' For letters that could mean a publicly accessible archive or library. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion is inappropriate. Let it stay there. She owns the article, with your assistance. Let's leave it at that. Congratulations, by the way, on winning the war of truth, by keeping the article in a false condition so that it can never be returned to a true state. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[11] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I highly disapprove of your actions. You continue to revert my edits when they are perfectly legitimate, and your blocking threats are unacceptable.

Please reconsider the way you go about these things as it is both rude and inconsiderate. Edfilmsuk (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Edfilmsuk: I'm sorry you feel that way but as I alluded to on your talk page, verifiability is core policy. You need to provide a proper source that specifically backs up your addition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though hosted on the Harvard website, isn't his CV a self published source? Section - "Awards and Honours" - faculty profile as sourcing - Reliable? Could you take a look?  NQ  talk 06:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NQ. Yes, it's a WP:BLPSPS. It's probably reliable as lying on a CV hosted by Harvard would get the author torn apart. However that doesn't address the question of WP:UNDUE. Secondary sources are also useful with determining what is important enough to belong in a biography. For example, is "Harvard University Certificate of Distinction for Teaching Undergraduates" really notable? I don't think so but who knows without secondary-source coverage? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Awards and certificates for "developing second year course material" and "for teaching undergraduates" have no place there. I'd recommend scrapping that entire section and maybe include the important honors in the body itself. A quick web search shows only him being mentioned getting the 'Raman Subramanian Prize' and the 'McGillicuddy Doctoral Fellowship'. So probably those awards aren't that significant or to say the least, important enough to include in the biography.  NQ  talk 05:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to know that you wrote that I am involved in reverts. Please check some one else started it when deliberately my edits are reverted. Regards.--Khalid Mahmood (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khalid Mahmood: Yes, your edits are being reverted because your personal pictures of your relative/acquaintance don't belong in articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ne1N it is not easy task to make some one's picture and post it here. I have posted many celebrities' too and I have to give them guarantee that the pictures will not be misused on Wikipedia. Well the picture IS relevant. Did you check in detail who started this business of reverting posts ? --Khalid Mahmood (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khalid Mahmood: What does that have to do with you sticking a picture of your relative/acquaintance in an article? Wikipedia is not Facebook. There are 1.2 million British Pakistanis. They all can't just add a picture of themselves into the article. And, as you are the one pushing for the addition, it is up to you to get consensus. P.S. I hope you're telling all those celebrities that if their picture is on Wikipedia, anyone can do anything they want with it subject to the applicable publicity laws. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you've read my edit summaries, you'd have known that neither reliability or reliability was my problem. It makes it clear to me that you just reverted over and over, without a second thought, since you never addresed my arguments for why I removed that stuff. By the way, the word "lite" means something cheaper than "rock" (in this case), in case you didin't know. -Erik P.S.: Sorry if I sound rambly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.229.222 (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erik. Your arguments are based on your opinions. If you want to change genres then you need to provide sources to back up the change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind taking a look at this, Talk:Anti-balaka, You have been quite helpful to me and I greatly appreciate it. AcidSnow (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. AcidSnow (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Sitush said. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neil,

Above proofs are not the unreliable sources, I gave given the sources from Indian archaeology department that has given from the previous temples.

Sitush said about the author for book, but above proofs are not from the book they are the real sources from Indian archaeology from the temples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.150.30 (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NeilN, above proofs are from Indian archaeology department which gives raju kings from suryavamshi and chandra vamshi with vedic gotra from seven rishis, they got from inscriptions on temples.

what are your action on the proofs from Indian archaeology reports.

As Sitush said. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I hope you can help me. I have an account on Flickr with many photos i shoot.

But i have now found one of my photos on wikipedia without my permission. File:Didier Drogba, ORANGE, Hotel Sofitel, Abidjan-Plateau, Ivory Coast, 11.06.'08 (9994).jpg - Stefan-meisel1 (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Stefan-meisel1 You have licensed the image under "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)" on your flickr page which states that one is free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided there is attribution to your work. The image is hosted on Wikipedia Commons, where you are listed as the author, in accordance with the license. Please read Commons:Flickr files for more information.  NQ  talk 10:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan-meisel1. NQ is correct. You've licensed the photo under CC BY 2.0 [12] and proper attribution is given. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	my first edit
	Thank you for the link and invaluable evaluation of my content. TheLeopardTree (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my personal opinion. It is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tozalak (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tozalak: This is an unsourced rant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And the user blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. Neil, do you attract these? Drmies (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: 26,000+ articles on my watchlist, sooner or later these types of editors are going to hit on one, prompting a look at all their contribs. In this case it was Liliane Bettencourt, an article mentioned at BLPN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's my third indef-block from this morning--and they're all cuz of you, pal! Drmies (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Actually I did notice that. I figured you were amusing yourself by reading through this talk page. BTW, if you want one more: [13] I was going to report if they continued (duck sock of [14] and this and this). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't--I want to go home and eat lunch and read Sensational Religion: Sensory Cultures in Material Practice. Start an SPI, pro forma, to tidy up loose ends--maybe. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Will do. After I eat my lunch. I just have to point out the spills for others to mop up :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shashini123. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but you don't need to tell me when you revert one of my edits. You are the only user I have seen to do this. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caealn (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First time I've been asked not to explain a revert :-) I think you'll find as you continue editing here, some users will come to your talk page if they feel a revert should have a better explanation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see zh:国家历史文化名城 and zh:Category:国家历史文化名城 and [15]. The list was published by the State Council of the People's Republic of China.--Huang Jinghai (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK.--Huang Jinghai (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwangjinghai: Thanks. I've added the description here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Huang Jinghai (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey wait... Apparently this user is doing a drive-by wherever he can and hoping to sling some mud. Isn't that lovely? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Serenity, I actually looked at the user's history to determine the tone I should take. Oh well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even so it kinda disturbed me that it seemed the same sort of blurb was copypastaed. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to what I told Bbb23, more eyes are needed on the Reproductive coercion article. This commentary of mine explains what I mean. If you are willing to lend your eyes to the article, it's much appreciated of course. If you'd rather stay away from this matter and simply stick to watching the Domestic violence article out of these two pages, I don't blame you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NealN,

I am a Korean, so I find it hard to keep a neutral point of veiw. However, I am always trying to do so. Your undo of my edits on Liancourt Rocks was fair, I see that now. But as a Korean, I had never heard of the "Sea of Japan" before in my life. I have and had known it as the "East Sea", and it has been like that for years. The first time I saw anything about the "Sea of Japan" was in fact when I saw the article on the Liancourt Rocks.

I feel that the "East Sea" should be incuded on the Liancourt Rocks and any other page that says the Sea of Japan, not only for people like me, but for maintaining a neutral point of veiw on the East Sea and the Sea of Japan.

Marty Jefferesson 12:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bestmj3300. Articles usually don't list alternatives for place names everywhere they're mentioned as this would quickly grow unwieldy. NPOV is satisfied by using the common name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neil.

Can you please explain me why did you edit my part about the Berbers in North Africa?

Xxx xbrunette

Hi Xbrunette. Did you read the note I placed on your talk page? Information in articles needs to cited by reliable sources. "In North-Africa does 90% of the Arab population in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya have Berber/ Amazigh roots.^{[citation needed]} They only get Arabized some century's ago and keep speaking the Arabic language.^{[citation needed]}" indicates what needs references. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does there ever come a time that you can block an editor who refuses to cooperate? The language barrier and his lack of cooperation makes it hard for him to be a good editor. I get that his edits are in good faith, but he's been blocked, what? 6 times? And every time he says he's sorry, he won't do it again and then...does it again. Edit wars, disruptively edits, adds non-notable information and then says he doesn't get it why we revert it. Will this go on forever or is there a breaking point? LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:COMPETENCE comes to mind. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lady Lotus. The breaking point usually comes when the editor appears at WP:ANI. Indefinite WP:CIR blocks are handed down there if a good enough case is made. I've shown SergiSmiler how he can contribute and MirrorFreak has agreed to help but this is really his last chance before an ANI post is made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, who wants to wait for that. This was nothing but a time sink--lack of English skills and edit warring. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He said that when his edits were deleted he got mad so he began to edit war. He also thinks that users should fix a mistake if it small.Mirror Freak 16:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Or an admin takes notice :-) FWIW, I agree with the indef block as his mistakes were by no means "small". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have told Sergi how he can contribute and MirrorFreak has helped but unless I completely read it wrong, Sergi still expects us to correct his mistakes which is totally missing the point. Even with Mirror's help, I just don't see Sergi making the effort to go to the talk page or Mirror's talk page when I have said that to him for MONTHS. It just seems like a vicious circle. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: Yup, that's why I think the indef block is needed. If he's still characterizing his mistakes as small then he has no idea how bad they are. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I want him to stay, I don't. I tried to tell him that he cant make edits that aren't intelligible but he didn't listen. Hope being a personal translator helped you guys.Mirror Freak 16:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you Mirror, I'm glad someone was able to talk to him in a way he could understand, even if that didn't help. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MirrorFreak: Yes it did, thanks for your assistance and offers to help. You can lead a horse to water but... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, If you ever need a translator, just let me know.Mirror Freak 16:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing this out there, [16], he doesn't appear to be any better in his own language either.... So the block is the best thing LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your replied to my talkpage and said Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Superpower has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you

Just how is this inaccurate? I provided academic sources.--216.31.10.170 (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary read, "posted an update on source material". No, what you actually did was revert to a version eight months old. [17] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia by adding filthy and abusive words from local language, as you did at Yuvan Shankar Raja, you may be blocked from editing.Wasif (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliatory warning for this warning I gave for this edit. Wasif, I strongly suggest you read WP:NOTVAND and read your sources you add carefully. [18] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP policy asks you to remove the entire info, if one line is not in the source? Seriously a childish play. Please be open minded to remove the particular line which you find it not from source.Also you have deleted the source. What is your intention there? Have to report for vandalism if you are not stoppinh this.Wasif (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasifwasif. Enough. There's a lot more than "one line". Either quote properly and accurately or desist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot violate WP:3RR as you violate easily. Please discuss in talk page of Yuvan Shankar Raja. Wasif (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasifwasif As I am removing a made up quote from a BLP, my reverts fall under WP:3RRNO. Do you seriously not see some of the quote you're adding does not exist in the source? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of a community decision, broad editing restrictions apply to all pages broadly related to the Syrian Civil War. These sanctions are described at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions and a brief summary is included below:

• Sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process.
• If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic or article ban.
• A one revert per twenty-four hours restriction applies to articles broadly related to the Syrian Civil War, with the wording listed here.
• Please familiarise yourself with the full decision at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions before making any further edits to pages related to the Syrian Civil War.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

Sanctions may only be imposed after the user is notified sanctions are in effect. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

This notice is effective only if logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions#Log of notifications.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]