User talk:Nandt1

Robert Latham Owen looks good, I recommend doing a final check over and nominating for GA
I have placed the article on hold for a week, to give you an opportunity to address my concerns. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your turn. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and thank you for your kind words. Good luck with the article. Racepacket (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:POLE
Thank you, S., for the cookie and the recognition! Nandt1 (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Roger Scruton
Hi Nandt, I've posted an RfC at Talk:Roger Scruton—see here—to ask whether the neutrality tag should remain on the article. There are a number of issues in dispute; if you could comment even on just one of them, or your overall impression of the article's balance, that would be very helpful. I'm leaving this note because you've edited the article or talk page, but if you have no interest in commenting, please feel free to ignore the request. Cheers, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
I had a quick look at some recent edits of yours at Che Guevara and I think they were well done. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Nandt1 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

warning 1
This account seems to be used essentially for what is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.121.116 (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have already left you a message at your own Talk Page. Please edit responsibly and coherently and abide by Wikipedia's rules and conventions. If you are not comfortable writing in the English language, perhaps you should consider contributing to one of the other versions of Wikipedia. Nandt1 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "do not use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.121.116 (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Response: You have several times deleted material from the article on Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy -- material which has been translated from an article on the Dreyfus Affair in the French version of Wikipedia -- claiming that Wikipedia does not permit copying from one article to another. This is an incorrect understanding of Wikipedia policy. Indeed, Wikipedia fully allows for strengthening articles in one language version with material translated from another. Please see, for example, the article "Wikipedia: Copying within Wikipedia". Please do not continue deleting material in Wikipedia articles based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Nandt1 (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Robert Zoellick - some concerns about use of source
Hi Nandt1, I've removed some of the material you added here because it made much too close use of the source's own wording.

Would you be able to give me any pointers on exactly which source the last paragraph of that section, added here comes from? The source URL you added for it here currently seems to lead only to a menu of different documents (the World Bank site is very slow at the moment, which makes it hard to navigate).

Thanks --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you are worried about quotation, I suppose I can go back and either put it into quotation marks or do a paraphrase of this stuff. As to the sources, one does have to work a little at finding material on the World Bank website -- sorry to hear you are finding it a slow site, I haven't had that particular problem. When I have more time, I guess I can try to go back and add more specific citations for the different material. Nandt1 (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

For continuation of this exchange please see the Talk Page for the article on Robert Zoellick. Thank you. Nandt1 (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
for hanging in there in regards to the Louis Sullivan middle name thing. I looked it up in my Morrison and he goes with "Henry" too. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A pleasure to learn from you. You are clearly far better-informed on LHS than me! Nandt1 (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did my main LHiS pilgrimages about 25 years ago and various pictures from then can be found scattered around wikipedia. I think the one of the much maligned grave marker was mine - might still be.  I just learned how to create a link to the middle of an article, so will try one here - something that you might enjoy, Talk:Home Building Association Bank

Article Kenneth Fisher
Hello Nandt1, now you do not need to worry about those blanking vandalism edits on page Kenneth Fisher. The edits made by User:94.192.166.75 and User:Andrewjames1977 appears to be the same person as determined by their actions. I had reported them and both the IP address and account has been blocked for 1 week. If you suspect that same edits are happening again from the same IP address and account or some other IP address or account, then feel free to contact me and i will then forward the report accordingly. And also if you find this kind of problem on any other articles too. Thank you for your help in defending and improving Wikipedia :). TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your backing on this! Nandt1 (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger Casement
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Roger Casement. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. PatGallacher (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, Pat Gallacher,

Thank you for your feedback here. I certainly wouldn't want to enter into a dispute on these points -- you may very well be expressing institutional policies here. This said, I can't help wondering, as a purely pragmatic question, what percentage of WP readers ever actually visit a typical article's Talk page? It did seem to me that explaining in the article's text that treatment of the major controversy concerning Casement had been deleted from Wikipedia might help attract attention to the task of replacing it. But as I said, you may very well be expressing institutional policy. Nandt1 (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa!
It never occurred to me to check who originated the thread. My mistake. --Drmargi (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

At last, a Wikipedian who admits his or her mistake! Welcome, brother (or sister)! Nandt1 (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I've done my best to help my Russian friend with these articles (he writes them in Runglish), but I'm steeped in 19th century novels, so my grammar is old-fashioned and clunky at best. If you ever want to try your hand at a raw article check out Konstantin Balmont, Dmitry Merezhkovsky, Nikolai Uspensky, or Zinaida Gippius. For more "light" work like Bunin, check out A. K. Tolstoy, Nikolai Leskov, Aleksey Pisemsky, or Mirra Lokhvitskaya. The gentleman who wrote these articles is the same who wrote the FA and GA versions on ru.wiki. I haven't been able to keep up with him. Thanks again for the help with Bunin. I  Never  Cry  17:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the recognition. I enjoyed learning more about Bunin -- entirely new to me -- after seeing the NYT review of his play ("In Paris") currently (August 2012) playing in New York with Mikhail Baryshnikov in the lead.  I'll hope to have a chance to read some of his work at some point down the road.  No promises on your other Russian authors, but I'll keep them in mind!  Nandt1 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. Sorry to read on your own page that you have been experiencing health issues, and my sincere best wishes to you for progress on this front. Nandt1 (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I Never  Cry  22:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Titanic (1997 film) plot section
Hi, Nandt1. I was going to state that I don't understand how this wording is more accurate. But now I see that you must have been referring to the placement of where it mentioned Cal's wariness of Jack, a mention that was less accurate because, after Rose explains to him "the circumstances" of how Jack saved her life, he is mainly indifferent to Jack until he disovers that Rose snuck out with him...and he isn't even aware that they've spent time together before that point. However, the new version fails to address the fact that Jack and Rose spend time together before she sneaks out to visit him later that night. The current text makes it seem that they first spend time together during and after that dinner Cal invited Jack to. The fact that they bond before that point is a significant aspect (later referenced at the end of the film when we see that Rose lived the type of life she discussed she would live with Jack) that should be included, as was mentioned on the talk page before. That is why the "Jack and Rose develop a tentative friendship" line was included where it was. As the hidden note in that section shows, all aspects of that section were carefully considered. So will you add this material back? 31.193.138.223 (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. Actually my real concern, having seen the film quite recently, is that I do not recall that it is "at Rose's insistence" that Cam invites Jack to dinner -- so I wanted to take that out.  The other changes in wording were incidental to that change.  If you feel that, inadvertently, I introduced some new misinterpretation, please feel free to fix it in whatever wording you feel is most accurate.  But unless you have the film in front of you (which I do not), and I am mistaken about dinner (not) being "at Rose's insistence", I'd be grateful if that phrase did not go back in.  Best of luck!  Nandt1 (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, I figured that I was a tad off about the "wary" part being your concern, since both versions do include it. But I couldn't think of any other reason you'd changed the text, and the previous "wary" part makes it seem as though Cal is already aware of Jack and Rose bonding (which is why I'd concluded that that's why you'd changed it). As for "at Rose's insistence," you are obviously correct that she doesn't insist that Cal invite him to dinner. It's apparent that the editor who wrote that was trying to convey that it is because Rose expresses disapproval with Cal paying Jack so little for saving her life...that he invites Jack to dinner. As for restoring what you removed, I can't. The article is semi-protected. I'm an IP, which is the main reason I came to you about this. The other reason is curiosity. 31.193.138.223 (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is fixed. Hope you'll consider registering in future.  Again, good luck. Nandt1 (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


 TheGeneralUser  (talk)  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hello Nandt1! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :)  TheGeneralUser  (talk)  12:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Awards lists in play articles
Based on your past editing activity, you may want to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Following up on Deepwater Horizon oil
Hi Nandt1. My name is Arturo and I am BP's representative on Wikipedia. Perhaps you have the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article on your watchlist but if not I wanted to let you know that there has been information added to the article and a few comments on the talk page based on the message you posted in July.

This information is now addressed in the article, though not without flaws, as it relies heavily on an opinion piece. To address this a few weeks ago I suggested a few additional sources that could be used to expand this information in the article. I tried reaching out on a couple of related WikiProjects but no editors have come to join the discussion. Now I am reaching out to you and the other two editors who responded to your message to see if someone can come back and review this information. If you'd like to help you can see the information about this July's events in the final paragraph of the Spill response fund section and here are the sources I shared. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Arturo, Thanks for your efforts on this piece.  I am afraid I am not really in a position to undertake this work at present, but I shall try to keep an eye on the article to see if editing by others at least meets the "smell test" of credibility.  Nandt1 (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Catherine Ashton
I returned to this subject after reading the comment in the Daily Mail from which I quote. The article is far tidier than when I first edited it. As her time in EU office draws to an end it we may perhaps moved to a more balanced assessment, neither wholly good nor wholly bad. Zero to hero and now somewhere in between. I hope you'll recognise that my sources are not notably pro-Russian, though I removed a writer who is likely to be anti-Russian. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As you'll see, I've provided an alternative source to Ms. Applebaum. Nandt1 (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

January 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Aneurin Bevan. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Snowded TALK 17:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * This is an unwarranted allegation, as I discuss in greater detail at the Talk page for Aneurin Bevan. Nandt1 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)