User talk:NottNott/Archives/2015/October

Chris Alexander

In regards to my edit. Chris no longer works for fangoria and has a new job writing for a horror news site, so the reason I changed the page was because not only was I updating the information but alot of the citations talk about Chris getting the editing job at Fangoria from 5 years ago. Its seems kinda pointless to have a citation that reads "Meet Fangoria's new editor" from 5 years ago when he has since resigned from the company. Alot of what is written there is old news and needs to be updated which is exactly what I did.Ninjarobotsamurai (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ninjarobotsamurai:Most new accounts deleting a ton of sources are vandalising, which you're clearly not doing. I've reverted your edit because no matter when the source was made, it can justify content in the article which if anything needs more content rather than less. When something happened and keeping an article 'up to date' isn't what's important, what's important is whether something is notable enough to be included in the article. If you have any questions feel free to ask, thanks. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 17:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Geocaching reversion

Hi there. I noticed you made this reversion earlier today, and warned the person who made the previous edit that it looked like they were vandalizing the article. I don't think that's the case; it looks like a good faith attempt to improve the article by removing a possibly facetious backronym. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Torchiest:That's pretty hilarious really. 99.9% of all edits containing 'swag' are pretty much vandalism. What a funny revert. I'll restore his change :) ~ NottNott talk|contrib 18:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

See his talk for my response to the edit itself. Thanks for alerting me to this in the first place. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 18:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove Mushtaq Omar Uddin Wikipedia page

The information displayed is a violation of privacy and defamatory. This page has not be authorised by Mushtaq Omar Uddin which would like to have this page remove as of immediate.

See WP:NOTCENSORED. Unfortunately, there is little chance that the page will be removed because someone does not like it; plenty of articles on Wikipedia are like that. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 19:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

How do I vandalise without no bots/admins destroying me!

so ppl are like "WOAH!" thats right! "THEY WILL LOSEE" --drelo (youtube) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibelad2 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove Mushtaq Omar Uddin Wikipedia page

This a second message asking you to remove Mushtaq Omar Uddin page. The information displayed is a violation of privacy and defamatory. This page has not be authorised by Mushtaq Omar Uddin which would like to have this page remove as of immediate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrak15 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Amrak15:See WP:NOTCENSORED. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove Mushtaq Omar Uddin Wikipedia page

Removed PROD. Can you direct the user to OTRS? Drmies (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Jay Nady page

I see you have reversed the additions to the Jay Nady wikipedia page. That page is a stub and needs more information about a man as great as Jay Nady. I work as one of his 500+ employees and my own testimony should be a good source for this information. I don't have any news articles to site, so what other things can i site(cite?) in order to get my changes unchanged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.210.194 (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Good question, and thanks for asking. I'm terribly sorry, but if you can't find any independent reliable sources to reference, it's in breach of WP:NOR, especially a problem under WP:BLP. Otherwise, it's not really suitable for inclusion.

I'm truly sorry to turn a genuine, positive-minded question from a new Wikipedian into a deletion discussion, but I'm only doing it for the benefit of the wiki, as I want to see as many high quality and WP:VERIFIABLE articles produced as possible. If you can find a number of independent sources backing up the information in the article, please list them either here or visit WP:CITE and place them in the article. Otherwise I'll have to tag the article under WP:CSD. I'll do that in a day if sources aren't added.

This can't portray the community in a good light for a first time editor, especially working for the man. I promise to answer any questions you might have. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 18:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm very new to wiki-editing, but love the website and want to be able to contribute. As for being new: I'm not sure if this is the best way to respond to your response, maybe i need to read up on how the editing/communication work on here. When I read the page on Jay Nady, it looked like there were several pieces of information written about him without articles attached to each statement. I'm also not sure how to attach articles to a wikipedia page, so any pointers you have for a noob would be appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.210.194 (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@174.71.210.194:Starting out editing the wiki is pretty fun, as you get to learn a lot in a short period of time. The first thing I'd say is that if you're planning on editing in the longer term, you should check out WP:ACCOUNT - it lists all of the benefits you get with making one.

I've posted a collection of links on your user talk page. These list many central policies that all content should ideally follow - one of them being citing sources. Another reason for making an account being you can use WP:ProveIt, a powerful tool for citing sources with ease instead of having to remember complicated code. Feel free to ask me for any help with doing this. Hope you find your way around. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 08:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Jerry "Flux" Douglas

I don't know who dubbed Jerrie as "Flux" although there is at least one live recording of a tune called Fireball Mail when Rickie Skaggs urges Mr. Douglas to kick it off by saying, "Flux, git it!"

You will notice a couple of his albums reference the word Flux. e.g. Fluxology and Fluxedo. Don't know if that's enough to prove my point, but that's all I can offer.

Thanks for your time.

(----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.41.100 (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@70.176.41.100:I've readded and revised your edit, with a citation. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 10:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Khowar language

hi, yes, you made a mistake see properly your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khowar_language&action=history revert to my version thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisardrosh (talk • contribs) 14:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nisardrosh:You'll have to explain why you've added '@nisardrosh' to the lead section of the article. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 15:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Gaffney Page

NottNott: I noticed you recently reverted changes to a bio on Frank Gaffney by what appeared to be a SPA. I agreed with these changes although I understand why you reverted them.

This page has POV issues and massive revisions without Talk Page comments. Here are difs to these reverts: [dif 1] [dif2] [dif 3] [dif4]

I noticed on your page that you do a lot of counter-vandalism. I was wondering if you could look over the above reverts.

I've been involved in an edit war with another editor over changes I tried to make to this piece to add balance. My changes were documented on the talk page. I think this is a big deal since it is a BLP. This individual may be controversial but that doesn't mean his bio shouldn't be fair.

FYI, writing to you will probably lead to more charges against me by the other editor who has accused me of sock puppetry, COI, SPA, meat puppets, and WP:duck as well as postings of complaints to conspiracy theories and BLP discussion boards. I say this to head off any more groundless charges.

Anyway, given your background, your opinion on whether this piece was vandalized or inappropriately reverted without comments per the above difs would be welcome. Zeke1999 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zeke1999:Thanks for asking. I'm assuming good faith from both editors.

After around a ten minute read session of the diffs above, unfortunate to say in your case I have to strongly side with LavaBaron's revisions. I can see why he would accuse you of both a COI and SPA as well, but clearly you wouldn't be contacting me if you were purposefully trying to damage articles. Here's a collection of revised sentences I feel have NPOV issues:

• "Gaffney is a highly polarizing figure because of his strong positions against radical Islam and the July 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran." (second sentence is already taking a stance against the subject matter, especially with 'highly')

• "[...]have caused him to be reviled by the Left" (reviled is such a strong word for the lead section of a BLP!)

• "The Center, which was recently renamed "Secure Freedom," pursues research on U.S. defense, homeland security, the Middle East, Latin America, securing American infrastructure[...]" (too much detail for a BLP in my opinion)

• "Criticism of Gaffney from the Left" (using the words 'left' or 'right' in the title of a section is really not a good sign)

• "Among the conspiracy theories Gaffney has promoted include:" -> "Critics of Gaffney claim he has promoted conspiracy theories such as:" (he either said them or he hasn't, whether critics say he has or not is irrelevant surely)

I make all of these observations just so I can strongly justify my opinion, not to beat your changes into the ground. The changes made seem to remove far more balance than improve it. In addition I fail to see how any experienced editor or even casual reader would identify these changes with anything but more biased. I don't need to know any detailed facts or details about the subject to even begin to question the validity of this article. I believe my opinion is clear.

In light of this, assuming you are more than a SPA who has come here to improve the encyclopedia I'm beyond willing to answer any questions you have about editing articles on here fairly and without bias, as well as any other questions you may want to ask. Feel free to talk with me any time.

Hope you're okay with my judgement. Best wishes! ~ NottNott talk|contrib 18:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Great input and good call, NottNott! LavaBaron (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

NottNott, We may not agree but thanks for looking at this. (FYI: Lavabaron posted a "canvassing" warning on my page after I queried you about this.) I'm backing out of this. Time to move on. Hopefully other editors and admins will take this up. Again, thanks for your time!Zeke1999 (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

India Germany relations article

Hi, the article (Germany–India relations) has been updated to reflect the 100s of sources that I have read in order to compile the text in good faith. The sources are EXCLUSIVELY from international mainstream media. So, IF you have a POV concern, then please indicate where and what you want exactly done (with a suggestion) instead of erasing everything which tantamounts to a 'disruptive deletion'. I will continue updating the article, but take care to watch the TALK page o as to address the concerns that you write therein and which you can explicity ask me to modify). THanks. 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)~

I appreciate your restoring the article to the updated state. I have spent atleast 40 hours to read the hundreds of articles from main-stream media and go through trade statistics, government policy documents, university publications so as to compile text for the article which is founded on facts instead of paid-advertisement type journalistic material. If there is any manner in which the article can be improved, then please do contribute/advise either directly or through the talk page. 20:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.175.173 (talk)

@81.240.175.173: Sincerest apologies. A ridiculously influential editor citing sources all over the place does not deserve such treatment. Like really, YOU are a brilliant editor. We need more people like you here! :)

In WP:Huggle (a vandalism removal program), if an editor makes say three edits in a row, one edit before the first edit that IP makes and the final revision that the IP editor has made are displayed in a diff. Shifting around massive paragraphs of text, mass-moving sources are huge red lights which can get a quick snap-revert judgement. In your case, this was happening all over the place, and reading just one word ('incessantly') got me to the snap-judgement WP:NPOV revert. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.

Out of my at minimum 2500 article mainspace reverts, this has to be the worst accidental revert for me - you're an undeniably great contributor. The worst thing anyone could do by this point is scare you away. If at any point you need any help, please ask for help either from me or by placing a {{help me}} tag on your user talk. Thank you. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the rapidity with which you reverted the article once I hailed you with my concerns. Thanks & all the best!

Thanks for your offer of help. You never know I might just require it someday (esp with 'admin-level system tasks' since I am more of a 'text-level content contributor').

81.240.175.173 (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@81.240.175.173: I think it's probably you who needs more thanking than me - contributing that much content isn't too easy. I've posted an extensive list of links regarding Wikipedia policy on your talk page, to be read at your leisure if you're interested. With drive and the right direction, you'll make a great regular contributor if that's what you're aiming for.

I'm going to reiterate that you make an account as per my post on your userpage once more. Whether you're going to make one more edit or hundred more, giving a name to your contributing history will help you immensely. You can do it in the top-right corner of any page. Thank you once again, and you're always welcome to ask any questions. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting the edits

When you make accusation of someone not being neutral in his edits on Wikipedia page you should provide proper arguments and historycal facts that support your judgment and your deleting of my edits. Instead what you do is keeping the parts that you like to be known to public society and panicaly deleting, hiding and erasing all the history facts that makes you feel very unconfortable. All my edits can be easaly checked on Wikipedia links that I provided in the edited text. If you have problem with that than you are in seriouse confict of interests here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.235.226 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@94.102.235.226:You haven't provided a single WP:CITATION to substantiate claims made in your revision, which goes against WP:VERIFIABILITY. Phrases like 'were cruelly', 'blood sheding' and 'the age of black hand[...]' all appear to go against WP:NPOV - this form of prose isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. With respect to the fact English isn't likely your first language, the additions made aren't particularly well written. For all of these reasons, your changes are being continually reverted. Please understand that this is well-founded policy, so the change of your edits being committed are unlikely. I'd recommend you stop restoring your revision. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

My English is better than yours thats for sure. The statements such as: "cruelly murdered" and ""blood shedding" are offical statements of European newspappers of that time in which these happenings took place. In fact some English and French daily news were even more hard on words when they reported about those crimes and murderings. In fact the first page of Paris newspapers in 1903 was covered with CAPSLOCK title: "May Night Vandalism In Belgrade" or "Cruell terorists act in Sarajevo". If you have problem with that go to the history libary of Paris/Berlin/London and digg out the examples of newspapers of that time. Or you will call whole Europe as non-neutral aswell, just as you gave yourself a right to call me. So get your facts your English and most of all your History knowledge fit the truth because at the moment you are embarrassing yourself and you are a disgrace to the Wikipedia comunity. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.235.226 (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@94.102.235.226:You haven't cited any references to these claims, and with the prose you have written I don't need to know anything related to the subject to revert your change - you would be more effective at making your changes with agreement and WP:CONSENSUS to revise your changes. See WP:Edit warring. Two other editors have reverted your changes as well, have you stopped to consider that you might be wrong in your changes to the article? ~ NottNott talk|contrib 22:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

3RR at Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)

WP:3RR is a BRIGHT LINE. The anon did leave an edit summary explaining the edit. Be careful, this behavior (known from personal experience) leads to blocks. Cheers Jim1138 23:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I'm aware of this - I was reverting his edit foolishly over and over again as he had not responded to any warnings or elaborated further in the edit summary. I was expecting him to make a move explaining the edit rather than investigating it myself. I've learnt my lesson - hopefully anyone could see my reverts were in good faith. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 23:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Fager

Dr. Fager is the best horse of all time and he has defied the laws of physics. It is proven many books. For example if you have read the book about Dr. Fager written by Steve Haskin. If you would allow me to make edits I would be very appreciative. I have one question, who are you? Do you know that the press has hidden the story of Dr. Fager and have covered it up with the story of Secretariot. In advanced thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saratogawiki (talk • contribs) 23:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Christ

If only wikipedia, and so called "progressives" (degenerates) like yourself acted so swiftly to protect other religions from criticism in the same way you seem to stonewall anything less than ultra positive about the peaceful, loving, "gonna destroy the UK as a whole because of icecream" religion of peace that is Islam...it's quite sad.

See WP:NPOV. I reverted your change due to Wikipedia policy, and nothing to do with my personal opinions. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 09:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

negative vandalism

(Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.)

I'd like it a lot better if my edits weren't maliciously undone! I'd like it a lot better if it was written in html rather than wiki-language.

I hate things being incorrect - but sometimes it's hopeless trying to change them.

and I have an account - just don't use it ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pmailkeey seems I was saying the same thing 3 years ago!

@79.64.2.170: I'm not responsible for reverting any of your edits as far as I'm aware. I didn't send you a welcome message in bad faith. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 16:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Animal buttock

Not sure what happened there - apologies! samtar ^(msg) 18:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: Haha! It happens to everyone. Have a good evening :) ~ NottNott talk|contrib 18:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Frustrated

Dear User:NottNott, I do not understand hy you are treating me so rudely. The statue IS a pretty funny statue, and it happens to be one of the only reasons why anyone ever comes to Daggett. The town used to have this huge iron mine there, but it's economy dried up after the iron deposit was exhausted. This is all our little town has, aside from 1 stoplight, a few farms, a school, a gas station, and a sports bar. How would you feel if you loved the place you grew up in, but had nothing to show people? Besides, all I wanted to do was post a picture, not write a whole damn article about it! Look, it's special, not only to me, but to the people of this small Michigan town. This is not your page!! But it's not my page either; it's Daggett's page, and tonight, I write this message on your talk page from our city council meeting telling you that all members, including myself, have voted. The town of Daggett, Michigan has voted for the Naughty Cow Statue to represent us on Wikipedia, giving the world something to smile at when they think of our town. -User:Bnnnperdue Bnnnperdue (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)9/30/2015

@Bnnnperdue:I just fail to realistically see how it has any encyclopedic value, and most people would just be trying to insert a picture like that to troll. Looking at your contributions however, it's clear that you're a genuine editor. Is it this picture by any chance? ~ NottNott talk|contrib 16:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Bnnnperdue (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2015 (UCT)9/30/2015

@NottNott:Yes, that is the picture. I know it seems silly, but the "Naughty Cow" has done a lot for Daggett. We have people passing through ever since the statue was put up in 2006. It has put us on the map, giving us more and more businesses and a greater economic standing. Thank you for understanding, and I appreciate you're help. -Bnnnperdue

@Bnnnperdue: I can see reasons for it's inclusion, certainly. I do strongly feel that the low quality images out there will lower the quality of the article, and it may be seen as a joke rather than a legitimate addition. Perhaps, just maybe you could take a high quality picture of it yourself (a modern smartphone would do) and upload it to the commons? Then I'd see it being fine with an inclusion - otherwise the quality would severely contrast against the other two high quality pictures. Let me know what you think. (oh, and you don't have to use an 're' template if you're replying to that person's talk page! :) ) ~ NottNott talk|contrib 21:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my page. I was gone so I didn't see it until now! Adog104 (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104

@Adog104: No problem! Cluebot would have likely got it otherwise :) ~ NottNott talk|contrib 21:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

hi you did just right that was my mistake thanks -majid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majid i44 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

RE: The Stone Roses

this addition constituted original research as it synthesized viewpoints from multiple sources to support a statement none of those sources explicitly make, i.e. "On the other hand, some have seen The Stone Roses as heavily overrated". It is acceptable to summarize the third paragraph of "Reception and legacy" in the lead, which is a summary of the article's main aspects, because SYNTH is not summary, but it is unacceptable to clutter multiple citations like in that addition. So it has been reverted. I'd appreciate some support with the pesky IP who keeps restoring it. Dan56 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted it back to the revision before the edit war. Any new changes regarding the content that's been edit-warred over should be discussed at the talk page first, where there is already a section started. Dan56 (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dan56: I'm heading to the talk page it seems, it's not just an IP editor anymore. Let's try and reach a consensus on the article's talk page, but if any warring continues it'll be taken to WP:AIV instead. Sorry for the long response time. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 21:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there was a previous RfC regarding a near exact version of the synthesis by what is likely the same person who added it back recently, and consensus there found for good reason it should be removed. Dan56 (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dan56: Thank you for the context. I'll be keeping an eye on the talk page for now, I don't know what to suggest that hasn't already been said. Let's see where this goes. For reference, I have no knowledge of the subject matter or article history. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 21:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP has continued restoring their POV edits ([1], [2]), removing any and all warnings to their talk page ([3]), and refusing to discuss the content of their edits ([4]). This IP is clearly the same person who was editing as 5.69.237.6, whose attempts to introduce the same emphasis on negative criticism to the article was rejected in several RfCs at the talk page ("RfC:_Are_particular_sentences_in_this_article_synthesis", "RfC:_Extraneous_quote", "RfC:_Overemphasis_of_negative_material"). I've opened a new RfC at the bottom of the talk page and am reverting back to the status quo ante (WP:BRD). Dan56 (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

See the article's talk page: I have linked an instance of Dan56 being illuminated by a senior admin as a problem editor. The Stone Roses is immune to criticism because, well, Dan56 loves it. My additions were cited and required discussion in Dan56's mind only; hopefully his desperate manipulation tactics haven't worked. 90.222.127.214 (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

MEOW here is a kitten for u

Qunera (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

How does Counter-Vandalism work?

Good evening nottnott.

I don't have any questions about my contribution to Mr. Addazio's page, cause I was clearly being sarcastic/an asshole.

I was more wondering about the mechanisims within Wikipedia's review process. Why did my comment get flagged? Why did you respond so politely? Do people look out for users that are clearly manipulating their own pages? I probably spent a couple minutes typing this to a wiki bot or something but I'm geniuinly curious. Email address is [email protected]. Thanks. User talk:2601:182:c000:14d6:59c9:e240:4ad7:996e (signed by NottNott for reply template usage)

@2601:182:c000:14d6:59c9:e240:4ad7:996e: See WP:HUGGLE for an automated tool used to revert vandalism quickly and politely. See WP:VANDALISM for an overview of what constitutes vandalism. User:ClueBot NG is the main anti-vandal bot for near definitive vandalism, but more questionable vandalism is done by users typically using either Huggle or WP:STiki. These two tools pull any edits from recent changes and screens them through people, and with a button press you can revert it and send out a warning message. I hope that answers a few questions, feel free to ask anymore :) ~ NottNott talk|contrib 16:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion on reverts to text in Germany–India relations article

Hi, may I please take you up on your offer of help/assistance (if you can make available a few moments of your time)? I would like a second opinion on removal of some text content which was on the India Germany article for several months and to which a user (User:Shrikanthv) is repeatedly flagging as WP:SYN even though I have tried to address his concerns.

According to the 2014 BBC World Service Country Rating Poll which measures the influence and perceptions of countries across the world, Germans lead the list with 68% expressing a negative view of India, surpassing Pakistan where 58% held anti-India views.

The relevant discussion is on the article's talk page Talk:Germany–India relations. Could you review the rewritten text which I have submitted/proposed against the Wikipedia content submission rules ? How does it look to you ? Could you add your comments on the matter in the article's talk page ? Thanks.81.240.175.173 (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done See Talk:Germany–India relations#WP:SYN. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Thanks for your recent deletion of comments about Christopher Columbus on the "Morris Park, Bronx" page. I made edits on that page during the past month, so I noticed that it was the third time that user 96.57.254.26 had made similar comments that don't belong on Wikipedia, and moreover have nothing to do with the page title. (I deleted them manually the first two times when I went back to re-read the page.) No wonder he or she hides behind an I.P. address. And thank you for your general anti-vandalism efforts on Wikipedia. Ira Leviton (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ira Leviton: No problem, and thanks for the barnstar! :) ~ NottNott talk|contrib 16:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Faraday's laws of electrolysis

Hi there, I just reverted some likely vandalism on the page Faraday's laws of electrolysis. I notice that you also reverted some edits recently. I believe you should have gone further back: The last good edit was really SkateTier's, as there was an intermediate edit by an IP address which only added elipsis (...) and had a non-matching edit summary, and not rolling all the way back in a case like this threatens to hide unhelpful changes. (Yet another IP address made a mistaken edit and corrected it, leaving the article in the same state as SkateTier.) --Edwin Herdman 22:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Friendly Notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Signed
41.143.222.134 (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Mushtaq Omar Uddin

You mentioned in your las message that you made edits however you didn't you just reverted back to what it was and have excluded correction about the page. Can you please explain why you would want to display incorrect to incomplete information? i.e. the artist does not have a Iranian Parents... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrak15 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Amrak15: See this diff by Tanbircdq - my revision is good, and his is also good in my eyes. Perhaps he could share his thoughts here. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 13:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This source from Alesha Dixon's biography states the subject was "born in London to Bangladeshi and Iranian parents". There are also two sources from PopMatters and CMJ New Music Monthly describing him as "a Middle Eastern Muslim". Tanbircdq (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tanbircdq: The fact is that his parents are not Iranian. They are both from Bangladesh, whether Dixon's bio says it or not. You are writing information that is incorrect even though the page has been corrected on many occasions. So you are deliberately writing incorrect information. Regarding the subjects personal life, the mention of his religion is reducing his personal life to a religious belief. The information is not quoted by the subject or is quoting the words of the source you mentioned. As it stands, the subject seems to be labelled without any context or purpose. Many other subjects with a wikipedia page have no mention of their personal life or religious affiliation at all. I would therefore edit the way this information is displayed with quoting a source or the the subjects himself, or put this information in context.

@NottNott: You have kept the correction made however you still translate his name in Bangoli and Persian (when it has been corrected on many occasion - the subject is not Iranian). There is not relevance in doing this. He was born and raised in Britain. The fact that his name is translated comes across as an attempt to segregate the subject from his British roots. The subjects work is also not exclusive to the asian community.

@NottNott::@Tanbircdq: I have made changes to the page based on my comments above. I think they are fair changes. The subjects page is now reasonably structured based on the information available which avoids any possible labelling or segregation of content. The page structure follows the same pattern as other wikipedia pages. However I have taken our the Bangoli and Persian translation and mention that the subjects parents are Iranian because it is simply not true. Thanks.

Amrak15, for future contributions please ensure that the content is not promotional, does not contain original research, is written from a neutral point of view and is supported by verifiable reliable sources.

I would suggest that before attempting to edit articles, please read the following pages below;

Further information: WP:VRS, WP:GNG, WP:IRS, and WP:INDY

See also: WP:BLP, WP:BIO, and WP:V

Also bear in mind WP:COI, WP:SUBJECT and WP:UNDUE.

In the meantime, can you please explain what connection you have with the subject of this article, and how you know the information about his early career in the New York hip hop scene and that his parents are both from Bangladesh?

At the moment, there's a reliable source from an official biography stating that he was "born in London to Bangladeshi and Iranian parents" plus two other sources describing him as "a Middle Eastern Muslim", these can't be ignored. If you think otherwise you'd need to provide evidence supporting your claim. Maybe Samuel J. Howard, C.Fred or NatGertler or NottNott can weigh in on this too. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Amrak15: As per Tanbircdq above, I'd suggest editing improving other articles for which you don't have a deep connection with to improve as an editor. Policies like WP:NPOV for example are really crucial, and phrases such as "His work is amongst a list of iconic records" without a source doesn't stir the most confidence. As for deliberately adding incorrect information, we're not. We need to make sure something is WP:VERIFIABLE as an utmost priority, especially if it's a WP:BLP. Whether you know a lot or little about the subject, any content without inline citations in a biography is likely to be removed. Other stylistic changes may be to do with WP:MOS, which another editor could perhaps weigh in with. Hope that clears this up, and feel free to ask any questions. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 09:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Since I was asked: if we're going to mention the nationality of his parents, yes, we have to go with the only verifiable source that we have, not what someone who wants to edit wishes to claim. I'm not sure of the degree of weight it needs, however; being mentioned as an aside in a biography of someone else does not launch it to top import. But as he was born in Britain, would have been legally named in English, and the article shows no sign of the basis for his fame being outside of the English-speaking world, I can see no reason why foreign translations of his name should be included. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Della Terza Page

I need to know why you want to delete the page I am writing on Dante Della Terza. Thanks. Malaguti64 (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Andrea Malaguti.

@Malaguti64: Hey there. There aren't enough third party, published and verifiable sources to back up claims made in the article, which is strongly against WP:BLP. There's also nothing to insist that the subject of the article is particularly WP:NOTABLE either - a google search turns up few sources. I suggest that you move the article to the WP:DRAFTS namespace and add these features in: otherwise the article will be deleted from the mainspace unfortunately. Hope you understand, and if you want me to move the article for you as I've said, I'd be happy to do so for you. Cheers. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 22:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Stop beating me to vandalism! :) GABHello! 19:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Thanks! Right now it sure is rampant, isn't it? ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Admin

How do I become an admin? --Rabauter (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A lot of hard work and a WP:RFA. GAB^Hello! 20:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I have applied. Wish me luck. --Rabauter (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rabauter: Being a constructive editor for several years beforehand in a diverse range areas on the wiki. Right now, you have no chance given your history. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am starting now and I hope to be an admin by 2018. The adventure starts now. --Rabauter (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Purpose (Justin Bieber album)

Hi, I just wanted to ask you what I should do about the vandalism being done to the page "Purpose." Justin Bieber has announced the first 6 track titles, but he hasn't revealed the rest yet, but people continue to add more song titles. I have been removing them, but apparently that is considered edit-warring, so what should I do? 156.12.252.137 (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@156.12.252.137: I'll try and sort this out: we need citations on the song names that have been announced, and comments on the page against adding names for songs not announced. I'll try to do this. Thanks for getting in touch. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 21:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you! 156.12.252.137 (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@156.12.252.137:  Done ~ NottNott talk|contrib 22:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

ALan turing

Sorry my freind was messing about very soorry94.3.157.1 (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@94.3.157.1: No problem. Remember that if an editor continues to vandalise, they are usually blocked, no matter who is doing it on an account. NottNott talk|contrib 14:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit

My surname is Das. I AM A HINDU. So its my kind request to give respect to Hinduism and my Surname. If you want to add some more names of people you are fond off, then please edit and include at the list I have provided. And please kindly stop editing my article. You have already re-edited it more than 5 times today. Kindly stop it, or else I have to take it personal and start tracking other articles for editing. Thanking you Das. DrJekilMrHyDe (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@DrJekilMrHyDe: As per my message on your talk page, I believe that the revision before your changes was better, mainly to do with how concise the article should be in comparison to other surname articles, such as Smith or Hopkins. Feel free to reread my comment and add suggestions for improvement. Please remember nobody "owns" the article (WP:OWNERSHIP) and all editors should try and incorporate each other's feedback in a process known as WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you. NottNott talk|contrib 14:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ken Whitman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ken Whitman is now a widely known scam artist. All one has to do is google his name to find solid evidence of this from many many people who have been ripped off by him. He is a serial kickstarter who takes peoples money and runs without delivering what they paid for. There ARE pending laesuits against him currently.

The reason I keep changing the wiki about Ken Whitman is to warn others and make it known that he is in FACT a scam artist. Despite his pendibg lawsuits Ken keeps starting new kickstarters and people who are unaware of his dishonest business practices keep investing money in his scam efforts only to be ripped off. People need to know to beware of Ken Whitman. There are many more people who have been ripped off by him who will continue to edit this wiki to warn others of his business fraud. Im not the only one. Please do research for yourself on Ken Whitman and help us warn other potential people about doing business with him by not changing my wiki edits. Thank you. NovaStar1984 (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@NovaStar1984: I understand, it's clear there are a lot of sources on this with a quick search. At the same time, your edits aren't in the correct prose style either, for example listing his occupation as a 'scam artist' seems to be a WP:NPOV issue.

I'll try and balance the article by citing sources in a new section about his allegations as scam artist, in the right style for an encyclopaedia. Good on you for trying to warn others :) NottNott talk|contrib 13:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@NovaStar1984: To be honest, the article is mostly fine as it is, giving a a balanced account of his Kickstarter practices in a seperate section without being borderline libellous. Unfortunately for the public good, Wikipedia would only host messages that brand him as a scam artist if several WP:RELIABLE sources were published saying so - otherwise it would be a WP:NOR violation. At the moment given the sources out there, this is as far as the article should go about his scamming activities. Feel free to link some more sources that might justify further content in the article here and I'll see what I can do. Cheers. NottNott talk|contrib 13:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ken has multiple lawsuits against him, including legal action being taken by the Kentucky Attourney General. Call them and find out for yourself: Department of Criminal Investigation (DCI) — 866-524-3672. The "public good" in this case is a large group of people who have been scammed by Ken Whitman making a noble effort to protect others from Ken's habitual scamming stunts. You want credibility? Call the Attourney Generals office. The amount of people who will be editing this wiki about Ken, exposing him for the scam artist that he is, is credibility enough. It is not libellous when its TRUTH and can be backed up by a simple call to the Kentucky AG, or a visit to ANY of Kens failed, kickstarter scams full of outraged backers who have been ripped off. In a court of law, the jury uses a group of WITNESSES to determine the verdict. The more witnesses there are, the more valid their claims become until the court undeniably comes to the conclusion that there is substantial evidence from the witnesses to make a ruling. This is no different. There is plently of people who want the wiki updated on Ken Whitman. He is NOT a game designer. He has NOT produced a single successful game. The mere title you have in place for him is a lie. Who are you to police what the public wants on a wiki page anyway? You are grossly outnumbered regardless. Please work with us in correctly updating Ken's wiki to help spread awareness of his fraudulence based on the SUBSTANTIAL and obvious legitimate evidence against him. Otherwise you will be very busy continuously editing this page. Im not the only one who will be updating. There are MANY more. NovaStar1984 (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@NovaStar1984: Please remember to WP:AGF. Wikipedians and the articles they build here are based on reliable, published sources that have already been documented - if these sources are not available say in a book or online in a way that can be referenced, then it does not belong on Wikipedia. This is Wikipedia policy, and I haven't created it - the community has over many years of elaboration. Any edits I make should go in line with such policy, and any edits that don't go in line with the policy should be reverted or adapted.

I will send you a link on your talk page to a list of policies that you should be somewhat aware of in editing the article. Crucially you should bear in mind WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:NPOV when changing the article. If you have any questions let me know, thank you. NottNott talk|contrib 14:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

How is providing accounts of many, many victims of Ken's victims who all claim he frauded them NOT verifiable evidence. Do some more research on Ken for yourself and discover the amount of people he has harmed. Something needs to be done about this. This wiki page giving him the title of "game designer" is just perpetuating his credibility as a trustworthy person and enabling him to continue to rip others off. NovaStar1984 (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@NovaStar1984: Nobody is obliged to edit the page, so I'd suggest you find your own sources and add them into the article in a balanced and fair way. A lot of content about his Kickstarter exploits is already on the page, however until you find overwhelming third-party sources labelling him as a scam artist it could be considered potentially libellous and a WP:BLP violation.

Could you link me the victim's accounts? NottNott talk|contrib 15:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you get the links i provided? I tried posting them twice here and they arent showing up. All ypu have to do is google "ken whitman kickstarter" go to any of his scam kickstarter pages, click comments, and read the numerous accounts from the very people who have been ripped off by him. There is nit more of a direct, indisputable source than from the mouths of the people who he stole money from via his kickstarter projects. NovaStar1984 (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This wiki should NOT title him a "game designer" that is completely false and by keeping his title "game designer, you are contributing to his fraud. NovaStar1984 (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There are MANY outraged people over this guy. I will be showing this wiki to all of them and will let them edit it however they please. NovaStar1984 (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless you want to constantly sit and relentlessly edit this page to no avail, please work with us on correcting the falsity of this wiki page. NovaStar1984 (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@NovaStar1984: You can post links like this: [https://www.falselinkhere.com] when writing it in an edit box.

See WP:SPS - comments sections of a website have little to no editorial oversight and have no basis of guaranteeing reliability.

You're going to have to understand that without published and reliable sources that credibly call this person a scam artist, that it is potentially libellous to post such statements. Fully read WP:BLP to understand what I'm talking about before replying: the quality of the sources must be extremely high to do such a thing. If you instead want to remove sourced content for no apparent reason, recruit others in an attempt to bypass policy and accuse others of editwarring then you're unlikely to influence the article's permanent content any time soon. NottNott talk|contrib 16:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"the quality of the sources must be extremely high to do such a thing." How is referencing the numerous official kickstarter comment pages, which are full of HUNDREDS of people who explain their accounts about how they were ripped off by Ken Whitman througj an official legally binding agreement via the kickstarter rules NOT extremely high quality sources??? There is no other higher source than the hundreds of people via kickstarter who have been directly ripped off in violation of kickstarters legal contract between backers and the creator of the kickstarter page? NovaStar1984 (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What is your exact "title" and your affiliation with wikipedia? NovaStar1984 (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@NovaStar1984: I don't have a title, no editor has a title or affiliation. Just like you, editors sign up and make an account.

Read WP:SPS again. It specifically states: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." NottNott talk|contrib 18:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) just jumping in to state NottNott's "title and affiliation " is the same as yours - an editor. I would also advise you to take any advice given, as a quick read into this is looking like someone who has openly admitted to wanting to edit war... samtar ^{t} 18:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for you patience and concern. Regardless of how you interpret the rules, I cannot control the angry mob of hundreds of people who will not stand to see this wiki page falsely giving Ken Whitman the title of "game designer" Your reverting the page back to the way it is now after edits are made, without having any "creditable" sources that Ken IS a game designer is no different than anyone changing this wiki "without creditable sources" to state that Ken is NOT a game designer. NovaStar1984 (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@NovaStar1984: That is a reasonable point to make: there are barely any sources on him at all, much less to sustain a BLP. This seems like a WP:NOTABILITY issue, so when I can I'll open an AFD (articles for deletion) on it. I'm currently writing this on a phone. This seems to make the most sense by this point. NottNott talk|contrib 18:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your info and for being reasonable and undertanding of my point. As one of many victims of a scammer who calls himself a game designer, you surely understand my strong concern for this wiki page existing as it is. It would be very helpful to unsuspecting potential future victims of Ken Whitman, if this page could be modified to more accurately portray his current reputation based on solid evidence. Having this page removed might do more harm than good seeing as it already does contain some info on his background that would help desuade people from becoming victims of his scams. I do think that this page should more clearly reflect his current reputation. Im just trying to prevent him from scamming more people. NovaStar1984 (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@NovaStar1984: No problem, I hope you can understand that we're trying to build an encyclopedia here - we're not explicitly trying to protect people or anything, we really just want to write something that's professional and well-written. If the Britannica wrote about Ken Whitman calling him a 'scam artist' without sourcing the claim properly, you can understand why it could be seen as damaging.

However, in my eyes there simply isn't enough reliable content in general to warrant his own article, as there's little to demonstrate he's been particularly influential in the industry. He's only got one source to back up the 'career' section, with loads of primary sources (not the best quality) then going on to document his Kickstarter exploits. And it's really hard to find any other sources to expand the article on in the right direction. I think this is the best option for both the wiki's article writing interests and the interests of those affected by him. I hope you can understand, and feel free to ask any questions if needed. NottNott talk|contrib 21:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Youre still talking like you are an authority over this page. You are just like anyone else, an editor. All im saying is depsite what YOU think and desoite what I think. HUNDREDS of people who have been ripped off are going to have their own opinions on what this wiki should say about Ken Whitman and edit it how they like. I hope you can understand. NovaStar1984 (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@NovaStar1984: Relax, I'm not disputing that at all - I'm just explaining the situation to you. I don't claim to be an expert in the subject matter at all either. Nobody owns an article on here. I probably shouldn't reference wiki-terminology left and right to someone who clearly has no interest in being a long term editor. I'm not for or against your cause despite what you might think. NottNott talk|contrib 11:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

We have to work out a compromise. I nor many other people who have been ripped off by Ken Whitman will not stand to see such a falsely stated summary. The summary doesnt even reflect the content of this wiki article. Given the content of the article woth references to botched kickstarters, shouldnt the summary reflect that? Right now the summary is misleading at first glance, especially if thats all you read. You would go on to think Ken Whitman is a legitimate game designer. This is simply NOT true. The summary needs to better reflect the article given the cited evidence. NovaStar1984 (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@NovaStar1984: Ken Whitman has credible sources backing him as a game designer. Until you find some sources that can be referenced in the article strongly stating the contrary, the article cannot and should not be changed. I'd recommend you wait for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ken_Whitman to pass in a week's time, to which the article will most likely be deleted outright. NottNott talk|contrib 16:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Ken Whitman article itself is full of cited evidence CONTRARY to the fact that he is a sucessful game designer. Thr summary as you keep editing it to, is misleading and does not properly represent the content of the full wiki article. NovaStar1984 (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(Redacted) NovaStar1984 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@NovaStar1984: Read the comments above. Any editor that knows policy will tell you exactly the same things has I have told you. I suggest that you wait for an outcome on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ken_Whitman to see if the article is deleted for other reasons. With this said I'll likely close this discussion in a while if there is nothing further constructive to be said. NottNott talk|contrib 17:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you may have a WP:COI situation here as well, based on this last post. If that is the case, Whitman's article is one you should definitely not be touching. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

give us a chance mate

i was going to add the inctrovertible reference ie the companies house form and you removed it before I had a chance.#please copy it form the talk page. VarthVarthdaderdeathstar (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:OneWeb satellite constellation

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:OneWeb satellite constellation. Hi NottNott. In the interest of transparency on an issue you were previously involved with, I have added some info to the OneWeb satellite constellation Talk page. There is no particular need for you to comment, but I did want you to be aware of that discussion. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks. N2e (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

On Spamlink movie reviews

If you are going to claim I didn't use an edit summary it would help if I ACTUALLY didn't use an edit summary. It was spam exactly as my edit summary said. 72.240.137.150 has made no edits other than spamming these links all over wikipedia. Before that IP, it was 159.116.254.5. Before that it was Ned_Brainard. It is all just self-promotional spam. 108.94.155.69 (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@108.94.155.69: Understood. It's a good thing you explained the situation to me anyway, you can understand why the removal could be considered dubious otherwise. NottNott talk|contrib 15:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Lyoness edits

Hello, I am finding it hard to come to terms with the other editors of the Lyoness article. I am very happy for official sources such as legal cases, both open and closed, to be published in this article. For they represent official authoritative objective information. On the other hand, I do not see internet blogs and television sitcoms in the same light.

Furthermore, I find it unacceptable for the opener of the article to contain primarily the same content and tone as the controversy section.

Also, I am very confused about how to have a conversation with you - do you reply by writing on my talk page? Or do I have to keep coming back here to continue this conversation.

@Metaperl: This is fine, hold on - I'll write a response in a moment. NottNott talk|contrib 16:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

As per Samtar, you'll want to seek an agreement with other editors before making such a huge change. The quality of the sources already presented in the lead section is impressive, so I'd be on the fence with such a change. It seems important enough to keep in the lead for now until strong evidence to suggest that Lyoness is not highly illegal can be found, if that makes sense. While bearing no relation in terms of subject matter, an article like Jimmy Savile for example summarises the sexual abuse section in the lead while expanding upon it in the article body. It's a matter of opinion right now, but the current revision seems better. NottNott talk|contrib 16:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)