User talk:NottNott/Archives/2015/December

Thor: The Dark World - Page Changes

Hi there, I recently notice on the wikipedia page for Thor: The Dark World that it states the film received mixed reviews. However, I respectfully disagree with this and feel it would be more accurate to say it received generally favorable reviews (66% on rotten tomatoes). Hopefully you will agree :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.12.228 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@86.129.12.228: Hey there. I don't know much about the subject matter at all, but I would say classifying it as generally favourable at 66% on Rotten Tomatoes is inaccurate. See Rotten Tomatoes#Website - it's only 7% over the 'Rotten' rating! I feel as if it's better to remain as mixed for that reason. NottNott talk|contrib 23:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Well on Rotten Tomatoes, anything above 60% is regarded as 'Fresh' and films that exceed this rating are seen in a relatively favorable light. For example, The Incredible Hulk received 67% and it's page says 'generally favorable'. Man of Steel, on the other hand got 56% and it's page says 'mixed', both which I feel are accurate. Therefore, in my opinion, 66% garners a generally favorable reception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.12.228 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@86.129.12.228: Good enough justification for me, I don't feel too strongly either way. NottNott talk|contrib 15:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

NottNott identify yourself

I am Venkatesh Ramakrishnan, and how can you state that my opinion is not neutral and the opinion of others is neutral ? First of all identify yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.117.129 (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Editors do not have to identify themselves. Doug Weller (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@108.45.117.129: As Doug Weller said, I don't need to identify myself. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. as per WP:RELIABLE - so if you can't find a reliable source justifying the claim in your edit, it shouldn't be added. NottNott talk|contrib 17:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Alan Wright

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/barry-bannan-iniesta-and-messi-prove-height-does-not-matter-2363833.html

the mighty atom was a very widely used nickname for obvious reasons. Just type Alan Wright the mighty atom into google and you will see countless examples from reputable sources. I applaud your attempts to maintain the integrity of Wiki but this amendment is genuine.

p.s. Lev Yashin was most popularly known as 'the black octopus' again for obvious reasons which has also been removed after my addition. This should be restored for the same reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.166.244 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@92.12.166.244: Understood. Apologies about this, and feel free to restore your edits. NottNott talk|contrib 18:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For the Baron Corbin article, you beat me to it. RazingRazor (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@RazingRazor: Thank you! I appreciate it :) NottNott talk|contrib 13:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Herschel Jacobs (boxer) and CSD

Please be careful not to misuse speedy deletion. This article made a credible claim to notability in the very first sentence: "New York State Light Heavyweight champion". WP:CSD#A7 should only be used when there is no claim to notability whatsoever. If the deletion could in any way be controversial you should use WP:AFD instead. Pburka (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Pburka: Noted - I did CSD it under notability guidelines and not the A7 criterion itself. I'll make sure to PROD or AFD it in the future. Thank you for the heads up. NottNott talk|contrib 13:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Note that notability guidelines are explicitly not valid CSD criteria. See WP:NOTCSD. Pburka (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

fabricated information

How does someone change something on wikipedia that can't be proven as true because it is not true? Vekian (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Change made to Muktananda Wiki.

I've provided a correction to the Muktananda Wiki article. You removed the correction claiming it was unsourced, and returned to the previous, dishonest text. But my correction wasn't unsourced.

The source was ALREADY provided (i.e., the footnote to the William Rodarmor article). Although the source has always been correctly noted, the previous actual text in this wiki is deceptive, since it attempts to hide the actual misbehavior that Rodarmor detailed in his article. My correction of the wiki text makes clear exactly what William Rodarmor revealed about Muktananda, rather than trying to hide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.161.55.226 (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@50.161.55.226: You're right. I can find many sources online suggesting this behaviour: you're also right in the fact that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. I can't find anything backing up the 'underage' claim, but I'll revise your edits now to the article. Thank you for getting in touch. NottNott talk|contrib 13:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@50.161.55.226:  Done NottNott talk|contrib 13:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Cantal is a department ruled by a prefect and with a prefecture or capital , its number is 15.

Hi ! Could you help me translate this , please ?

• fr:Conseil général du Puy-de-Dôme (Puy-de-Dôme General Council)
• fr:Conseil général de la Haute-Loire (Haute-Loire General Council)
• fr:Conseil général du Cantal (Cantal General Council)
• fr:Conseil général du Morbihan (Morbihan General Council)
• fr:Conseil général de la Drôme (Drôme General Council)

Thanks. Lookinland (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

France is divided in departments , each of them is ruled by a prefect nominated by the president of the republic and has a capital or prefecture.

@Lookinland: Sorry, but I don't know French well enough to try and translate anything. NottNott talk|contrib 18:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Why doesn't everything not meeting the WP standard get reverted? Why would one expect different? Institutional norms.

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.

---

Hi, You noted wikipedia's citation standards, and the contradiction of (your perception of) my attitude, and the official stance that everything of substance must be cited. I don't cite everything, so how could I expect not to be reverted? Well....this seems not an area of primary interest to you, so I'll stay brief as I can. If I'm in error about that, I'm looking for people with practical experience making the citation standard work in the real world. Just started. In answer, technically I KNEW that ANY comment I made, based on whatever standard, would be reverted, so my concern was only to make it small, solid, obviously correct. Citations were out as a matter of protest against harassment--but aside from those details; I'd have expected the edit to carry because it was successfully uncontroversial, and obviously true--no citation required. And because it was restrained. The standard is nigh, unmeetable, but it easily met wikipedia NORMS. Usually you aren't reverted then. So that's your answer even if it was rhetorical. Happy Christmas and all that. Present situation here, so far as I can tell: WP Standard (cite everything, or near to it) WP Norms (most recent articles have substantial sourcing. But they tend only to get likely contested issues, and the important background. The more prominent, the more sources) WP Norms2 - Then there are all those articles still on the books, often still useful--that remain completely uncited, but which are, many, of good quality. My apologies if this was a waste of your time or an unwelcome presence--you did ask, rhetorically, and a dude used your rhetoric in a banning attempt. :P If I missed an obvious insight, you've got a zinger, or this was unwelcome, zing me if you so desire. Randall Adhemar (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Randall Adhemar: Firstly, merry christmas to you too. Clearly you're having a good faith jab at the Wikipedia bureaucracy, which certainly is funny to watch but in other ways you might be wasting your time. You're definitely the most verbose rule-breaker I've ever met :p

I don't really understand your aims in escalating this conflict - are you WP:Here to build an encyclopedia or are you here for a WP:Battleground? The issue is that there's no debate over whether your contributions are useful or not. WP:NPOV is a core content policy that states All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. - it's a basic rule in writing content on this site. You can't come here, speculate something like His actions may or may not have [...], not cite a source and then complain about the system for ages on end expecting something to change. The issue isn't the fact you've made a mistake, the issue is that you're unwilling to realise you've made a mistake and are going nuts at all of the good-faith editors as well as the policies of the site to somehow prove you're right.

You'll have to ask yourself why you're here in the first place. Wikipedians sort issues out through good faith discussion - more experienced editors can shine a light on what new editors might want to do or read beforehand. I'm not a perfect editor by any means, but as someone with a good amount of experience I'd suggest you drop this conflict and go improve the encyclopedia. I'm on your side more than you think as I'm sure you're capable of making brilliant contributions, but you've got to show respect for the policies of the site and the regulars here. WP:Assume good faith. Drop the conflict, read up on some good policy guidelines (I'll send you a list), be willing to accept advice and improve the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks NottNott talk|contrib 15:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, first thanks much for the cordiality and...optimistic welcome here (also, where I just found, on my normal user page--the map of resources. I REALLY needed that. Extremely obviously, I'd imagine. This place has been a complete maze, the entire time--and don't think I haven't otherwise tried to find my way amid procedures, power-structures, and all. So, yes, thanks. Other news there, rather more grim than I expected. Consider as you will, of course. I'm completely exhausted from damage control and lack of sleep for that purpose--and I'm pretty sure I'm exacerbating it instead.

Symbolic, ouch! At the mistakes of mine indicated by your reaction. Moving on.

Quickly and simply, NO antagonism was intended toward you, nor have I intended to have a jab at the leadership, as you say--but since, so far, other than NielN whose name I dearly hope to be spelling correctly, I've actually no idea what the power structure here is--and don't imagine I haven't asked. By the way, I only contacted you because you addressed me with a question. My answer, to the effect that, well, nothing actually cites every statement--nothing, at least that I've ever seen--was meant without any offense. Just practicality. In the academic worlds I know I'd be laughed at for such. More depressing, there's much the same attitude toward neutrality and lack of bias--well, I take that very seriously, sure--but as an aspiration to be paid great attention to pursuing. Again, academic thinking is too cynical in my experience to consider the idea. Now, I greatly disagree with that, but...neutrality of observation as a consistent action among contributors? A policy? It's an immensely optimistic idea I'm not used to--though I strongly favor it as a conscious aspiration.

Apologies--I meant no escalation, and have no interest in tawdry internet drama. Whatever WP:Battleground. didn't have any idea you were someone I would be escalating with. I sought you out as some person with an obvious strong interest on this subject, answering a question you HAD posed to me (yes, given a second chance I'd have regarded it as rhetorical, asked someone else) with what seemed to me an answer that...might actually be useful to you. But also in hopes you'd respond illuminatingly. Which in fact you have, quite, and thanks for your time. I merely wish a huge part of that illumination weren't that I seem to be communicating myself confusingly and offensively. But that's not on you, the world will work out, thanks very much for your time. And, well, apologies for the obvious irritation and confusion.

Um, also, as for your point, taken, about 'may or may not have, well. In that particular case, it wasn't actually speculation, the answer is known--merely an attempt to be as bland as possible about it to avoid provoking folk where political content was present (The correct statement would simply have said 'did not'). Such weaseling is commonplace and important in humanities study, it's here too--in one articles I attempted to remove it from (suppressed), I'm sure you know, and used to horrible excess in journalism--much rather not have done it here--AND I see it's actually made it more offensive here, as well. Right, then. Woah. Seeing your bottom sentences. Please--Sir or Madam, I've no problem recognizing an error, and sucking in knowledge from those who have more. I don't seek conflict. I have not. Nieln smacked me down some time ago, and well, I noted I'd made three major mistakes (I'd misjudged the situation in a number of ways, underestimated the current popularity of the dual-invention hypothesis [that one rises and falls by generation, it seems], and been lazy and inadequate in my research due to such misjudgments. And I made no further comment. I don't seek out conflict, well, not anything of this sort. It's a waste of energy. And, everyone makes mistakes--what fool wastes his energy trying to somehow disappear it. I'm sorry this has been such a long response, by the way--that one--well, don't know what your referring to. I might have made a mistake and not recognize it, of course. Let there be light--with respect, you greatly misjudge me on that, sir or madam. If you think conflict is desired by me. Not at all. I've gone long, sorry, so no further questions now. Ah. Another message now beckons. Well...should be...fun. Thanks for time, and peace to you. Randall Adhemar (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

^(tps) @Randall Adhemar: Above you write: "...also, where I just found, on my normal user page--the map of resources. I REALLY needed that."

Well, you already had the welcome message and the map ([1], resulting in [2]) on your user talk page, but you immediately removed it ([3], resulting in [4]). And you removed a similiar message with useful links from the IP talk page. ([5]). - DVdm (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

NottNott, I apologize for bringing this presence here--the user is under the mistaken impression s/he possesses a relationship involving conversation (for example, with me)or anything other than attempts by him or her at harrassment, I'm sad to report. And of course I knew about the matts. Your set of links was more useful, thanks much. Please feel free to delete the effluvia. It loses me votes with the Plebians to be have my name seen near this other's. Not that I mean to direct you on your own behavior--my apologies. Just a suggestion. Again, sorry for any trouble. Or for any distress caused by the other entity, whom you may have some sort of relationship with. I simply don't, and it refuses to understand or comply with that basic decency. Not my intention to disturb you. I wish it had chosen another venue, or, better, not messaged me. I would address it to that effect to convey that would be better, but...anyway, I see no way to make this less bad. So I'd better departRandall Adhemar (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Randall Adhemar: Firstly, relax - I don't know what 'stated norms' you're talking about, or any of the 'stress' you're causing me or whatever. Relax, it's fine.

Your verbosity in communicating your ideas means you can be hard to understand. DVdm is trying to place facts down on this talk page which is perfectly fine - and I'm sure given an ANI he wouldn't claim to have any relationship with you. Just relax. I don't know what it means to 'lose votes with the Plebians' but it sounds pretty funny.

Read up on the links of policy and begin to follow it in your edits - uncited material is still removed. Remember WP:NPOV when writing your edits - articles will only cover the opinions of published scholars supported by an WP:inline citation (read this guide on how to cite sources). Read some WP:featured articles to get an idea of the factual tone articles should be written in. If you have any questions related to doing this, feel free to ask me or anyone else - just remember to keep it short and to the point Y NottNott talk|contrib 14:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I did read up on citation procedure (and what edits? I haven't edited more than a misplaced character in months; DVDm kills absolutely everything. Everything. And harasses in all reasonably convenient ways, and boasted on your own page about lying to me...I deleted my reaction to that, did you not see the other comment, either? She remove it? Was it unclear to you that this was what she was boasting of? Well, it was that, exactly that--extensive lying and suppression of my activities here--lying TO me, lying ABOUT me...though mostly she's (or he's) just vandalizing documents into obscurancy on my page, which isn't so bad. But that's just the nastiness of behavior him or her to me, that I can think up in like...three minutes and recent. There's nothing cute or clever--so yeah, edits--reference guide gives a number of standards for citation and the question. I'm definitely not saying I know everything, but the 'verifiable' standard is quite clear, and...I'm hoping that you agree, and your meaning is semantic distinction. Because the verifiable standard is, to me, common sense--and has done well that way for a long time. I'm not really selling myself that this is just a semantic issue between us. And it's a problem if you can't source based on extremely well-established common knowledge--for WP especially I'd say. It's not nearly as interesting now that all the independent communities of scholars that created various regions of this space are, either. The content is much more conservative and more like...some other encyclopedia. Except if you have no 'verifiable' standard--it's going to get stodgier. The standard you sent me was quite clear, yeah, about verifiable, a very standard version of it, being effectively cited, not something one should spend time adding a 'verified' standard to. And that's quite good policy. If this is about you worried about me running around willy nilly here, well, put your mind at ease. If more, oh, god this place is going to become boring.

I don't know what an ANI is, I'm afraid (please don't tell me, yet. When it can be verified I'll never have to deal with DvD again, then I'll come ask maybe. But I have a policy of not knowing anything, just anything at all about this person who's currently leading an effort to ban me--as well as vandalizing the materials, I don't know, probably hourly at this point. There's nothing there but a deliberate attempt to irritate--but that can be mildly irritating)--but I'll take your assurance the referent of that term is not to be worried about. As for the rest, please understand, it's not an exaggeration when I say that DVdm evidently feels him or herself to have a relationship with me

Re: losing votes with the plebes, well, occasional nonsense like that, that's me being calm. I was just...with a touch of Stanislavski, inhabiting the character of some Roman politician on TV (either a BBC drama from 1970, or, what, must be 15 today--they usually have a number of shallow Patrician Senators who always need Plebeian support, but obviously hold the Latin lower class in contempt, because the way 'Plebe' sounds like a slur--from a snob. Probably played by an obese British Actor talking to a mirror image of himself. Sorry, a bit at length, but that's all that was.

And, hey, hold up on all that below. Please I may as well have written most of those standards--don't give me flashbacks. Send me to a warzone, again, instead. K? Anyway, My concern is with the standard above, verifiable, which covers the most material in most scholarly or encyclopedic work, provides the most...everything, and, well, If WP:NPOV conflicts with that...that's a huge ___ problem--but verifiable/common knowledge non-citation (call it what you will), isn't about opinions

@Randall Adhemar: DVdm hasn't made any WP:Personal attacks or accusations, he's simply pointing out facts with evidence and questioning your intentions. I can totally understand where he's coming from based on a problematic message like this, and I don't blame him for a WP:ANI report. Making personal attacks at an editor with ten years of experience and claiming he's a vandal without any evidence is ridiculous. If you can't drop this hostile tone while addressing other editors, just leave.

WP:NPOV means that your opinions don't become apparent in the text while you read it at all - but a scholar's are made obvious. For example: ...significant impact by far of Leon Czolgosz's[...] or even more powerful and far more remembered figure[...] - these aren't in a factual tone. There's also no source backing up the claims that he's 'far more remembered'. WP:Verifiable is the policy about ensuring that claims like this are sourced. I hope that explains the two policies a bit better. NottNott talk|contrib 21:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Randall Adhemar: Just to be absolutely clear, you're not welcome here with comments like this, at all. NottNott talk|contrib 21:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

(copied from RA's talkpage, addressed to me, NottNott)

@Randall Adhemar: I suspected something was up really - inventing scenarios of conflict up, being unable to gauge people's emotion, your situation is really tricky. Knowing the full details now I can only wish you the very best with your situation. I've had to deal with intellectuals really close to me that suffer from mental illness as well - it's painful. I can relate to your situation well. Most people message other people in the way you have fully concious of what they're doing, but if you can't help it due to a disorder I have no judgement for you - I even respect that you're asking for help in *some way*, like talking to me. I won't get too personal here however - this is my online self.

I hope you can understand why I've had to be firm in warning you about your comments to editors like DVdm, as most people would see those comments as very hostile. I might understand a bit better why you thought it was okay to make those edits now. I want to tell you now purely so that you know and not in a warning-like way that you're still in risk of a block if you continue to make them as Wikipedia still has its policies that don't discriminate on mental illness.

I'd recommend you just stop editing, for your own sake. Being on here is only aggravating you after all. I do think for you as a person behind the screen though and I can only wish you the very best in dealing with this very difficult condition and I hope you have a support network to see you through. NottNott talk|contrib 23:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

(in response to first paragraph)

--HOLD, please. You are seem...a remarkably generous person, and, in this situation, luckily, your empathy isn't wasted on someone who cannot relate to your situation, because, yes, for me, some family, friends even worse. Dealt with the worst. A friend cut himself off from me the other day, from the rest of his life. That one's a bit different, but without being explicit, there's a level of illness behind the path he's taking, which I can't do anything about. I can relate. And...I've made wrong assumptions--I extrapolate extreme sleeplessness onto others. Usually, something else. But, I was a medic, to the extent we had one, the psych ward was mine (under the PA). I get it. And...the other night, hey, completely understand the blockage and I do hope I've cleaned it up properly. But there was no excuse for putting you in that position. Sleeplessness like such is indeed debilitating, and it can affect ability to pick up nuances of communication, quality of conscious thought, but it's not the same as....a break. That's not an excuse I can make, I'm ashamed to say just now. I absolutely understand the warning/blocking--you're doing something here, people need to feel safe, and I have nothing bad that should be said here. Worry not. But, any nonsense that might have been said, Dvd--I've interacted. I see how I got the letters wrong. Important that I did. But the other side of this, for me, for everyone, but I've had immense amounts of someone on my log--not my choice--I'd say go by and take a look, but there were two pages, that was sanitized? I'm merely saying, well, nothing, really, luckily, or sadly, I'm saying nothing, but I can't claim memory deficiency, now, last night, last two months and more. It's quite documented here, in fact. Perhaps I may not stop by again as a result, but, well, the last months today or last night were no different than any other time--by which I mean cold! I hope you understand. Luckily, the weather is not something either of us need to have any antagonism for. Certainly not you and, me, I am no man of violence. Indeed, matters would need to be exceptional for such comments of violence to be made. Apparently, well, there was a very extensively documented recent case, but that is pretty rare on today's quora. If, hypothetically present. I must leave, and, apologize regarding the nonsense comments. Luckily, words are just words. Even true ones, nastiness helps nothing. I do apologize greatly, hope you are not too disgusted with matters spoken aloud--nonsense--but, yes. Dm would understand I could mean no such thing. I believe I should really go immediately.

(in response to second paragraph)

Hey, this came up in email, very late. Definitely understand strict blocking policy, potential friendship or just 'good faith' in the third party. My salute. But I've worked in medicine, etc etc--no need to add qualifications. Whether rules apply to the mentally ill is not relevant to me. Not a defense I could use, with great respect, and appreciation for those who...don't get that fair shake, you're misreading--probably based on powerful insomnia just now. Apologize for causing any worry. And you're making your page a safe place. But, notwithstanding insomnia isn't the best for a clear head, there's no excuse for such a lapse of judgment such as that.

Oh, no. That other...the incoherent, horrible message. I swear no one ever came within a mile of hitting send. Please delete all memory if possible. I will leave immediately. But...unbelievable. All I can say is that the incoherent and unacceptable thing you got was created, then destroyed, briefly. I will GET OUT. Because that's just.....screwed things to hell. has a very, very nasty habit: it saves your drafts. Then it sends them.

(in response to last paragraph)

Damn. Sorry, just read that and am leaving. I only hope the, to others, indecipherable garbage, wasn't supplemented by anything else. Apologies again, I leave in great regret. And, hey. That was a very polite way of saying leave and don't come back. Genuinely appreciated. I won't come back. Wikipedia is not the place it once was. I'm sorry our interaction was ultimately not a positive one. But...that you received that...I'm walking out. Know only that I am no stalker--that's my IP up there. You don't need to hear it. Best in all things, especially with your family.

(in further response)

-always so decent. That's an excellent recommendation. I planned to do it anyway--wikipedia used to be a place of freedom, diverse sub-groups who knew things no one else did, where articles that neverwhere else could have come into existence. To me, I mean no offense to your excellent page and establishment, but it has no such dynamism anymore, its democratic character is gone--I do not write under such restriction--or if I do, they pay me. And...I'm wasting your time. A presumed final goodbye, and thanks for your quite correct thought--if you remember me, I hope you won't judge me too much on those partial texts sent. I consider it an outrage that happened. But don't forget what a great chap you are. I'm out the door permanently.

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.

That image is still a question.

Hi NottNott; That image on Dostoyevsky is still a question. After the entire week-end I could not verify that it was actually Dostoevsky in the image and not someone else. The hair-line does not match FM, the eye-brows do not match FM, and the oval of the face itself does not match FM. Since the image only identifies its other member, this is an issue. If you have a second source to verify that it is definitively FM then by all means let me know. Otherwise, if you cannot find a second source to verify it is FM, then for safety and accuracy the image should be archived at least until it is verified. Let me know if you find a second source. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fountains-of-Paris: Hey there. I couldn't find any source for the photograph either so I've removed the image again. File:Valikhanov.jpg probably should be updated on this. NottNott talk|contrib 18:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

RMS Republic

Your language suggests that the Republic - Florida collision occurred on January 24, 1909, which is incorrect. My language makes perfectly clear the collision occurred the previous morning. Also, "reduced speed" was put out by White Star Line as a part of her defense. Ships at the time, including Titanic, maintained their speed under adverse conditions - to maintain schedules. This is also referenced on the rms-republic.com website. Inman Sealby was Captain - "William" was a mis-interpretation by the papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.44.122 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobel Oil Group page - removal of reliable sources, edit warring

NottNott, thank you for your message. Could you please take a look at Nobel Oil Group? Two potential sock-puppets have been messing with the page, removing reliable sources, removing any criticism and controversy surrounding the company, removing information about the owner of the company, etc. See here [6] and here [7]. Judging from the coordination of multiple IPs they will engage in edit-warring. Multiple such potentially paid users who have created or edited this very page have previously been banned as sock-puppets (e.g., User:Factsforus and User:Feelingfancyfree). This whole page smells like a PR campaign for the company, with a lot of uncited, unsourced information that reads like a corporate press release. Thank you. Redzed9876 (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redzed9876: I've requested page protection for the page as shown here. This will stop anyone not WP:AUTOCONFIRMED editors from editing the page - which includes you unfortunately. You can become autoconfirmed by making 10 edits and having an account 4 days old or by requesting the confirmed status right by going to WP:RFP/C. I hope this doesn't deter any future edits. NottNott talk|contrib 15:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NottNott for your intervention. Please note that one of the IPs editing the page are employees of the very company they edit the page of - see proof: [8] Redzed9876 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Your intervention to prevent problems through WP:Autoconfirmed didn't last for too long. Once again a seemingly Nobel Oil Group company employee came from an IP address 178.237.77.166 (in Baku, Azerbaijan, where the company is headquartered) and vandalized multiple sections of the page. I have reverted it to the last stable version, but some other warning and action is needed perhaps to stop vandals and/or paid editors. Redzed9876 (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redzed9876: Unfortunately I'm not an admin, so I can't actually apply page protection, only request for it. NottNott talk|contrib 23:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be wonderful to have on the page for some time at least. Although more information could be added and in general the article can be much improved to read like a real encyclopedia article instead of corporate press release. Redzed9876 (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing

Please stop deleting my edits. What gives you the right to do so?i have been keeping gobies for 15 years and I find it very disrespectful with you deleting what I have to Say calling it vandalism. You need to worry aout other things besides what I do on Wikipedia. Fish guygobies (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fish guygobies: Hey there. First and foremost, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not an advice center. Many of your edits add WP:UNSOURCED material that goes against our editing policies, as such they've been reverted. I've sent you some helpful links to get started editing the wiki which you can find on your talk page. In response to your question remember that Wikipedia has a set of WP:POLICIES and guidelines that you are probably not aware of as a new user - have a read around to get the jist of how to make constructive edits. If you have any questions, please let me know. NottNott talk|contrib 00:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Block Redzed9876 , he is confusing readers and Wiki

Vugar69 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Dear NottNott , the user Redzed9876 under nickname is trying to confuse readers and to harm corporate reputaion. Please block Redzed9876 . He is ignoring the firm facts that he is wrong. Thanks

User Vugar69, could you please offer any proof of your horrendous attacks? It seems quite the opposite, that the one confusing readers are the editor(s) who try to remove information critical of Nobel Oil Group. Such editor(s) are either employees of Nobel Oil Group, as was proven with undeniable evidence, or are paid editors who specialize in creation of corporate and vanity articles, a known problem in Wikipedia. It's a bit strange that you suddenly appeared just to remove critical information, assume bad faith, and spread misinformation about editors. Redzed9876 (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

A cup of 2016 for you!

Good luck in 2016 and enjoy the best of teas! - DVdm (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@DVdm: Only the best of teas will do Y. Happy New Year! NottNott talk|contrib 17:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Nottnott, you are not replying regaring your wrong action

Dear Nottnott, I am still waiting your reply asap regarding your wrong action on Nobel Oil group page. Vugar69 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vugar69: I'm just a vandalism reverter - I don't know anything about the subject itself so my input wouldn't be very useful. In the future if you want to notify someone you can do it with a {{re|Username}} template - this will produce @Username: and notify the person through the WP:ECHO notification system. NottNott talk|contrib 19:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Nottnott, it is OK and thanks for your recommendation. But we need to fix the situations with wrong content on Nobel Oil group page. There are a plenty of links which supports that last input was wrong. So I am feeling that it should be amended in the sake of readers. Thanks for the help in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vugar69 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

User Vugar69, there is no "wrong content" about Nobel Oil Group. All content is sourced, with independent, authoritative sources that conform to Wikipedia rules. Just because you do not like critical information about the company doesn't mean it should be removed. What is your interest in the Nobel Oil Group? Are you an employee of the company? Or are you a paid editor? If it's former, it's OK. If it's latter, it is not OK. Redzed9876 (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redzed9876: It seems Vugar69 has been blocked from editing. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a paid affiliate. NottNott talk|contrib 17:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I won't be surprised either. I've shown before that their company is editing the Nobel Oil Group's page in Wikipedia. Which is fine as long as they don't make a corporate vanity project out of it. Even now the article is still filled with various PR-like expressions and vague statements. I am finding some interesting sources that I hope to enrich the article with soon. Redzed9876 (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year NottNott!

Happy New Year!

NottNott,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

.

@Poepkop: Thank you! All the same to you too Poepkop. NottNott talk|contrib 22:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)