User talk:Nealmcgrath

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Nealmcgrath, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! MastCell ^Talk 04:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Velleu[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rick Velleu, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.theclimategroup.org/about/our_people/rick_velleu. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blonde Dora[edit]

Really? I have not heard of this before. Were the blonde-Dora episodes ever aired, or was blonde-Dora just a pre-release character? I tried looking for info on the web but I can't find anything. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blonde Dora[edit]

That's what one of the creators told me, he showed me video clips of some early artwork, these were never shown it was part of the original idea and the character evolved into the current Dora long before any episodes were made.

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009[edit]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Singapore. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Singapore, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 17:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

A friendly advice to you, stop adding words that are not WP:NPOV into the article page of Singapore, please heed this advice or I would be forced to report you at WP:ANI or WP:3RR the next time you do this again for not adhering to the NPOV rule. Thank you. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 17:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Singapore. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Singapore, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the statement which you pointed out could be percieved as a point of view and not as a fact, please tell me EXACTLY which amendments I made which are not factually correct, and I will either 1. find the references to support them as factual (they are) or remove them until such time as I am able to secure the references. I have adhered to the NPOV rule, and if you believe I have not, please tell me EXACTLY which statements you believe to be points of view and not factual.

A friendly piece of advice to you, stop being so Singaporean, hypersenstive to criticism (real or percieved) about your country, accept that no country is perfect and that the purpose of Wikipdia is to inform people of the FACTS, not to act as a media for pro-Singapore propaganda.

Dear Amatulić:

I am surprised to see you categorize my edits as "disruptive." I am inserting factually correct information which can be sourced. As facts, they are by nature neutral. My apologies if you believe them to be "disruptive," however, if you believe that anything I have posted violates Wikipedia policy, please tell me EXACTLY which edits I have made which violate the policy and I will correct them.

You may feel free to report me, but there is no need to do so as I have openly and in good faith offered to correct any content which does not comply with Wikipedia policy - and bear in mind that just because you do not like what something says does not mean it is unverifiable or disruptive - if it is factually correct, I believe it belongs in Wikipedia. Againm allow me to reiterate that I have openly and in good faith offered to correct any content which does not comply with Wikipedia policy.

You inserted massive amounts of unsourced information. Whether it's factually correct or not is irrelevant if it isn't sourced.

Furthermore, all the information you added shows a clear bias to paint the country in as negatively as possible. Facts are not by nature neutral when you choose to emphasize certain facts over others. As such, you violated the Wikipedia:Undue weight policy.

Your words "just because you don not like what something says" suggests that I reverted you based on personal feelings, or that you feel attacked somehow. That is incorrect. I reverted you based on Wikipedia policy.

I have no objection to you removing biased terms like "transparent", but dwelling on all the other countries in last place for journalistic freedom, over-emphasizing the point that Singapore is near the bottom when it was already obvious, and spending paragraphs discussing government transgressions that belong in related articles such as human rights in Singapore and censorship in Singapore, clearly suggest you are inserting a non-neutral point of view to the article. Yes, that is indeed disruptive, especially when you add huge swaths of controversial text without citing proper sources.

To avoid being blocked from editing, I suggest you discuss your proposed revisions on the talk page first. That's what the talk page is for, especially for controversial edits. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Amatulić:

I will once again review my edits and ensure that all are properly sourced. I will also, once again, review the POV policy.

However, upon reading the Singapore article I believe that IT violated the POV policy by presenting an extremely biased view on the country and giving only cursory attention to many aspects of Singapore that are unflattering, such as the lack of freedom of the press (no, the ranking was not clear, it did not state that "1" was the best and "157" was the worst, so saying Singapore was "147" was meaningless), it gave only cursory attention to the extensive and systematic harassment of political dissidents, it gave only cursory attention to systematic harrassment of journalists who have pusblished articles the government did not like (I can name them and the articles in question for you if you like).

I added these sections specifically BECAUSE the current article itself is unbalanced, and therefor itself extremely biased. I would challenge you to review the contents of the article and assess how much is positive versus unflattering, then tell me that the current, existing article is "unbiased." This article needs this additional information to portray an accurate, unbiased view of Singapore and your threats to block me from adding unflattering information appear to me to be censorship.

The information was completely neatural, factually correct (if it is correct, how can it be non-neutral?), and your characterization of it being "controversial" is baffling - again, it is factually correct, there is no controversy about that (aside from those people, mainly from the Singaiore establishment) who do not like hearing it.

No, I did not take your reverts to my edits personally, however it sounds to me as though you took my additions personally...can I guess that you are either 1. Singaporean or 2. married to one who has indoctrinated you with their "kool aid"? I'd like to ask if your background may be unduly influencing your reactions to my unflattering postings, which are meant only to provide balance to an overly flattering article on Singapore.

Hope you guys don't mind if I butt in, I figured I'd add my two cents. I think you (Neal) raise some good points with the article. I just think the tone of some of your edits comes off as quite biased, and in some cases you elaborate on points that don't need elaborating on in a main country article. For example, a detailed description of the problems of Dr Chee is probably not suitable for an article summarizing an entire country. I'm all for making this a balanced article, I just think you might have gone a bit far one way. And you were making the article a less cogent summary of Singapore. TastyCakes (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tasty Cakes:

I do not mind butting in at all - in fact, third party artbitration was going to be my ntex suggestion.

If I could see my edits (they've all been unilaterally removed) I wll more carefully and thoughtfully review them with your comments in mind, and seek to modify the tone. However, I stand by my view that they are all factually correct, but will seek to tone down the wording nonetheless. On the case of Dr Chee, I will shorten but think he serves as an excellent example of how political dissidence is handled in Singapore, so while shorter, I think he (or some other specific example) MUST be mentioned, otherwise it would be an unsubstantiated claim. The article as it stands is EXTREMELY biased, take it from someone who lived there for 5 years and covered it a a journalist for 9 years prior to living there - the article glosses over so many unflattering aspects that it would be like an article on the Soviet Union that did not cover political repression and all the things that did not work with that system - whether you believe strongly in the concept of socialism or not.

Thank you for your two cents, and Amatulić, I would appreciate if you simply did not delete my edits.

Sincerely,

neal McGrath

Neal: Your past edits aren't hidden from you. You can see them; just look at the edit history of the article. Click on the "diff" links in the history to see what changed in each version.

The factual correctness of your edits are irrelevant. The tone was clearly in violation of WP:NPOV, the emphasis was clearly in violation of WP:UNDUE (especially when other articles already exist on some topics, cursory mentions of those topics are appropriate in an article about an entire country), and the lack of sources was clearly in violation of WP:V and WP:RS.

Your speculations concerning the motivations of other editors here is similarly inappropriate, and in violation of WP:AGF.

I did not "simply" delete your edits, I deleted them with warnings on your talk page as to why, followed by explanations. Continued violation of Wikipedia policies will resulte in continued deletion of edits. Sorry, that's how it goes here.

I have suggested to engage in discussion on Talk:Singapore, and until you do, I think that you won't get far pursuing arbitration.

I agree with you that the Singapore article has much room for improvement. I suggest starting out by carefully editing the text that's already there to bring more balance to the article, especially if you find any peacock terms that need excising. If you want to add long passages of material that may be considered controversial, suggest it on the talk page first. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FINAL WARNING[edit]

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Singapore, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. This warning template serves to inform you that you might have a Conflict-of-interest issue after you've mentioned that you were stationed in Singapore for 9 years as a journalist. Please take note Wikipedia is not a platform for you to hijack in order to press home your own personal issues, this has nothing to do with being Singaporean as I also maintain the golden rule of neutral point of view on other article pages as well. Now, I would advice you to drop the stick or we will really have no choice but to report you for Administrative sanctions (which could result in you getting WP:BLOCK~!) should you continue to ignore further advices from us. IF you are truly interested in improving this or other article, please proceed to the article's discussion page and voice out your opinion to gain consensus before conducting further edits. Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 02:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest? Are you kidding? I live and work in Calgary, should I avoid editing Calgary because I have a potential conflict of interest? TastyCakes (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are problems with some of Neal's edits, I disagree that those problems have anything to do with a conflict of interest. He also seems to be keen on improving his edits and the article in general, and I don't think your lecturing him here is particularly helpful. TastyCakes (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to the article's discussion page so that all the regular editors can discuss this along with Neal, if he is as he claimed as - a journalist. And most journalist live by a code if they want to be fair (or neutral as we know it) in their reports, which is sadly missed at the start of his edit on the article. We can assume good faith but to what extent as to his behaviour on Wikipedia, it still remains to be seen. So without further ado, shall we go over to the Talk:Singapore and discuss this? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 02:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave:

I will take this to the dicussion page, and make no further edits until I have once again reviwed the relevant policies. However, I agree with Tasty Cakes, is he not allowed to write about his place of residence, and does being Singaporean, Dave, not also raise the same questions about you and possible bias? Is it possible you have bias? Do your coments about me also not violate policy about questioning the motives and intentions of contributing editors? And again the threats to have me blocked I find difficult to understand, as I have agreed already to work with you and within the framework of Wiki policies.

And to be clear: I covered as a journalist Singapore for 9 years while based in Hong Kong, and yes, I exercised the utmost integrity of writing about facts and actual news - in other words, REALITY. Sometimes people did not like that information being mae pulic, but that is the case everywhere in the world: Governments seldom like being criticized or having information they prefer to be kept quiet made public, some are simply more tolerant of it than others, and it is a challenge journalists face, but it's also the job of the jouralist to provide information to the public they would not otherwise have.

Then, I LIVED in Singapore for five years doing a totally different kind of work, and to be clear, I loved it there, but also saw many things that were less than ideal - as one finds in any country. In the case of Singapore, the ability of political opposition candidates to challenge the status quo and the heavy restrictions on the media I found odd, especially for a developed, modern society.

So, the article about Singapore as it stands is heavily biased, it presents heavily positive information and gives only cursory coverage to some of the less flattering facts about the country. Please see sections on North Korea and Burma, which discuss in great length the problems those countries face, and the Burma section devotes long sections of text to one individual dissident, it does not simply mention that political dissidence is not tolerated - it explains in detail.

And please, get a dictionary and look up the word "controversial." FACTS are not controversial, they are just facts. Controvery arises when there are differences of opinion and the facts are not established. Once something is a fact, it is correct and indisputable, it is not "controversial" any more, it's just a fact.

Neal: Again, please familiarize yourself with policies here. Wikipedia clearly has higher (or different) standards of journalistic integrity than you have demonstrated on this project. Being a journalist isn't a claim of being neutral. Journalists are not inherently neutral; if they were, we wouldn't have extreme political publications like Mother Jones Magazine on the left or Spearhead on the right. Your implication that "I'm a journalist, I have vast experience in this area, therefore I'm writing neutrally" comes across, frankly, as a bogus claim.

On Wikipedia, it really doesn't matter who you are or what you did. You can not write from personal experience here. Verifiability, not facts are the order of the day. If you don't provide reliable sources for inconvenient truths, then you will be reverted according to Wikipedia policy.

Facts are indeed controversial to those who find them inconvenient. That doesn't mean facts shouldn't be presented, but cherry-picking or over-emphasizing certain facts as you did, violating WP:UNDUE is not neutral. As a journalist, I am surprised that this point has escaped you. Furthermore, any potentially controversial "fact" you add must reference reliable sources. No exceptions. This is especially true for biographies of living persons, if you ever venture into those articles. But it applies to articles about countries and any other subject also. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:18, 19 December

2009 (UTC)

Dear Ametalic: This discussion has gone on long enough. Clearly, journalism can and often it biased.I know this (just look at the Singapore media, for example.) What I said was that in MY 9 years of journalism I practiced the utmost integrity for factual coverage - what I would like to respond to you regarding my journalistic career probably would be inappropriate for the forum of Wikipedia. I have stated that I will read the suggested sections of Wikipedia before making further edits to the Singapore section, so please stop admonishing me to do so. Any additions I make will be in line with those. As for you, I suggest you ask yourself whether your own opinions, views and beliefs about Singapore are influencing your visceral responses. I stand by my statement that the current article on Singapore is biased and presents a glossed-over view on the country by omitting or giving only cursory attention to many of the facts of life there, the government, political system and other areas. Does this not represent the cherry-picking and over- (or in this case under-emphasizing) of certain facts which you mention and therefore render the current article biased? It does. And your "warnings" to have me banned again smack of censorship, so please stop lecturing me on journalistic integrity.

I agree, the discussion has gone on long enough (and after a whole week I assumed it had ended).

First I want you to know that I have no bias regarding Singapore. I enjoy my visits there, but I am also aware of the issues you raised in the article. I have some personal experience with this when one of my letters to the editor of the Straits Times was published but heavily edited to remove paragraphs the government would be sensitive about.

Second, be aware that I was in total agreement with you regarding the factual basis of each of the edits you inserted. However, my personal agreement with your point of view is completely irrelevant, which is why I never brought it up. The only things relevant here are the Wikipedia policies, particularly regarding verifiability and undue weight, which you had disregarded -- and that's why I lectured you on journalistic integrity after you claimed to be a journalist, because you weren't adhering to Wikipedia's standards.

Some of the things you added were more appropriate for other articles, as I pointed out earlier. I'd say, find reliable and verifiable sources for your text and make proposals on the talk page first. Especially inconvenient truths that would be considered as controversial - not controversial from your point of view or mine, but from the point of view of those who would feel provoked. Do those things and you should have no further problems editing here. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Group[edit]

Hi Neal, no problem I've seen far more amateur attempts at leaving messages ;) I agree that the article is written like a PR fluff piece, and you're completely correct that that's not how it should be. There are a few ways to proceed. First, so far there are no reliable sources, or citations of any kind, in the article, there are just links to the organisation and what appear to be affiliated organisations at the bottom. If independent sources are not available to demonstrate notability, the article could be nominated for deletion. However, looking at the group's website, it seems that they are substantial enough that there's no way the article would get deleted. So that leaves fixing the article. Basically, there are three things I'd recommend. First, you could make changes yourself, making sure to describe your changes in the edit summary (I'd say adding sources would be a pretty high priority change). Next, you could put tags on the article, highlighting the problems. For example, {{NPOV}} and {{References needed}} would probably be appropriate. Also, for any specific comment you disagree with, you can add ^{[citation needed]} by writing {{fact}} in the article. Lastly, you could (and probably should) engage with the people that made the article the way it is in the first place. You can do this at the article's talk page, or look up in the article's history who the main editors were and talk to them. At a glance, it looks like user:Marthajeanne was one of the main recent people. Probably the article's talk page is best. I'll go through the article now and try to help... TastyCakes (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'll go back to that page perhaps and edit to make it more balanced. But does it not violate Wiki rules to write about yourself? Marthajeanne is Marth Deary, she works for the Climate Group in London and is one of the organization's web content managers, the other is probably Tom Howard-Vyse, the group's head of public relations for Europe, also based in London. I left a note there asking the authors to idendify themselves but they have not responded. The group IS noteworthy and should be written about, but this is basically a press release with regular updates by the group's PR people. (I know this group and so can see the fingerprints all over the Wiki article).

Neal McGrath

It is definitely not encouraged for people to write about themselves or companies they're involved with, but it's not outright banned. My personal opinion on the matter is that for some topics, the only people with the time, inclination and knowledge to write a good article are those directly involved with the subject. I don't think we should throw out the very people most qualified to write a good article just because we don't trust them to be fair. The problem is when these people don't know how to write a good article, they don't know how to look at the subject (and themselves) dispassionately and without bias, and we end up with slanted articles like this one. And sometimes it's much more subtle, they do write an article with all valid and referenced facts and so on, but they omit facts that are just as valid that they don't like. TastyCakes (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]