User talk:Neilrieck

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

#REDIRECT Reprocessed uranium

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

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

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

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

{{{icon|25px }}}Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia{{{{{subst|}}}#if:life extension|, as you did to :life extension}}. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} MastCell ^Talk 03:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

:You are adding links left and right to a website you appear to maintain (or at least which appears to incorporate your name in the URL). That's spam not to mention a conflict of interest. Please stop, or you may be blocked. This is not a forum to recruit people for any sort of medical research. MastCell ^Talk 01:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

::Since it is impossible to deal with a person hiding behind a pseudonym I will comply with your instructions. But a review a your talk page indicates to me that you are possibly a power-mad control freak --Neilrieck (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

:::If you find it difficult or impossible to work with pseudonymous editors, then your time at Wikipedia will likely be difficult. In light of the fact that many editors seem entirely unable to discuss content issues rationally and civilly without unduly personalizing them, the desire for anonymity seems understandable. In any case, in the future, please comment on content, and not the contributor. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

4) Since you have tossed some hyperlinks at me then let me respond in kind with a few I viewed today: here is one on admin abuse:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_abuse Administrator abuse]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#No_big_deal No Big Deal]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Dealing_with_grievances Dealing with grievances]

May I humbly suggest you re-read them all. I now intend to let this matter rest and hope you feel the same way --Neilrieck (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC) a.k.a. Neil Rieck (not a nom-de-plume)

:I'm sorry you found the links to policy to be childish. Since you apparently see describing someone as a "power-mad control freak" to be an "entirely civil" and acceptable level of discourse on Wikipedia, I thought they might be useful. I can see it's probably best to just this drop, as the original issue (adding links to your website) is resolved. I would suggest not trying to psychoanalyze people based on a handful of Wikipedia edits - you might come to a conclusion as superficial and inaccurate as your charge that I support commercial links on life extension. MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

:The first 11 words in your response say it all. I didn't say the links were childish, just your apparent need to get the last word. Either your reading comprehension is poor or you are deliberately trying to provoke an argument. This conversation can serve no useful purpose; good bye --Neilrieck 12:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nuvola apps important.svg

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|target={{PAGENAMEE}}&namespace=6}} this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

{{ {{#ifeq:|{{void}}|void|Error:must be substituted}}|PRODWarning}}

Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Fusion-io has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

:Not notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{tl|dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{tl|dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eeekster (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svgAn editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Fusion-io. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion-io. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Neilrieck/Peter Urban (karate) has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter Urban (karate), this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Peter Urban (karate), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Kim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct and thanks for bringing it to my attention. I have corrected the links. Neilrieck (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, :File:PeterUrban.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Neilrieck. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Neilrieck. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Neilrieck. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Neilrieck. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}