User talk:NewEnglandYankee/Archive 1

Process Articles
im sorry for vandalizing your page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.9.111 (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi you removed my edit on list of oldest dogs, as I was trying to remove 19 and 20 which does not fit the list as it asks for dogs over 20 years old. The dogs who are 16 and 15 are definitely not over 20 and are not part of the 20 oldest dogs ever. Please advise. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.179.41.71 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I recently had a few posts removed and cited as spam. The posts cite real work, but must have been pulled due to wording. Could you provide an example of one re-written to I handle them correctly and unbiased? 100.33.146.212 (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for such a quick reply. So in order to avoid the language and citing problem since the work is applicable and relevant, could you re-word just this one as an example? The source is legit, and I could remove the documented and the book piece, but want to be sure that would solve the problem. Also, if it is print, is just referencing it as print and removing the link ok for the citation piece?

Enterprise ecosystems

Many technology and corporate executives also use the term "business ecosystem" to describe the management of an enterprise as an integrated network in which all business processes, and related attributes are interconnected and driving toward business success. The concept of treating an enterprise as an ecosystem was documented in Tristan Boutros and Tim Purdie's 2013 book, The Process Improvement Handbook: A Blueprint for Managing Change and Increasing Organizational Performance by McGraw-Hill [22]. They expand on Moore's original concept and focus it specifically on individual corporations and interpreting them as an ecosystem of interconnected components, or as a community of objects functioning together as a unit. It promotes managing and improving operations in a cross-functional and centralized manner with business process at the heart of this mindset. This approach considers all aspect of a business as one connected system including strategic goals, projects, policies, processes, procedures, systems, business rules, people, departments, measures, resources, infrastructure and so forth.

100.33.146.212 (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandal patrol
Hi, I'm Elara, and I'm vandalism patrol with you today. Varmits are active, ain't they? -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 17:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

blanking user talk page
I reported this problem to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ Somebody has been using a series of IP addresses to systematically blank user talk pages--he hit mine User talk:Rjensen a number of times as well as User talk:Hlj User talk:Kablammo and User talk:Luna Santin and probably others

What the targets all have in common is we strongly protested Stevewk who tried repeatedly to remove all the information about the Civil War from the Abraham Lincoln article. Stevewk was given a 3R suspension but may be using sockpuppets to hit editors.

Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria
should we warn the user with ? West Brom 4ever 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thus he may be using 70.110.174.121 151.197.233.65   70.110.155.238 70.110.174.121  etc.  Rjensen 23:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Flying Shark?
Can you give me a link to this user's contribs?-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 16:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Liger
In your edit summary, you wondered why so many people were vandalising the article. It was mentioned in Napoleon Dynamite, that's my theory. -- Zanimum 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Brooklyn Dodgers
Hi, NewEnglandYankee!

I've followed your work for a while and admire your outlook on life, hence why i have decided to come to you to pick your brain on something.

a short while back you made a minor contribution to the Brooklyn Dodgers article and so i assume you may have an opinion on the matter.

It concerns the 23 Feb edit of the article. Now, i have to say, i can't argue with what the user says on current wikipedia practice. However, i have for a while now been thinking about the whole franchise situation and that teams like the Minnessota Lakers or the Dodgers, which were very big teams even before their move to their current homes, deserve their own albeit brief articles, simply to highlight their achievements in their original homes - especially due to the fact that a) they were characteristically very different teams, and b) the articles for LA Lakers and LA Dodgers simply don't reflect the brief and concise info that, for example, the Brooklyn Dodgers article did at your last edit a few days ago

This point has been much discussed in the Talk:Los Angeles Dodgers article, i know, but i'd like someone else's opinion before i raise the issue again there and, more importantly, at the Sports Portal.

Thanks, and looking forward to your reply! BigSteve (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Irony
Why'd you revert my edit? That usage is, in fact, completely and utterly wrong. I'm not a vandal!

sometimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.149.78 (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thank you SO much for helping me see the light. <333 69.141.149.78 (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Alex Trebek
sorry, somehow my eyes saw wrong--  Rmzadeh  ►  17:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem; it happens to everyone. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

BMF
Thank you for finally trying to put a stop to this pyscho. If you look at the history for the article, I've had to undo him (as well as other people) a ridiculous number of times. I've left msg's on the talk pages of "Goodman" and "Strong" and to still no avail. Thanks again. jlcoving (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User "71.106.7.188" again vandalized the page. "Strong01" also continues to do so. Will you please admonish them? Strong01 went so far as to delete the ENTIRE page earlier. Thankfully "Cluebot" immediately corrected it. jlcoving (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Colin Sabine vandalism
You're right. The Spanish article doesn't mention the famous Mexican subway planner, and when you check the web you get some teenager with a Facebook account. Your deduction proves sound, sir.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Censorship
I just saw it, and I left my laptop on for about ten minutes or so, and my nephew edited it, not me. Peter Griffen Boy (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Titanium Dioxide
The 'nano' section that is increasingly being added to chemistry pages is no really useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.60.189 (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Roemer
If the semi-protection doesn't work, full protection may be needed. I don't know of anything that happened today to attract all this attention, do you?  Acroterion   (talk)   04:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a mystery to me. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Cathy Ferguson
Hello, I work for Cathy Ferguson, 2x Olympic Gold Medalist and CEO for Girl Scouts of Central California South. Her information has been incorrect on her birth date for years. I tried updating it about two years ago to bring her current but then someone deleted everything she had on the site previous to that as well.... her work with Girls Inc., American Red Cross, Disney and so on. How do I get her birth date correct (July 22, 1948) and the other information back as well as her current great work onto Wikipedia? The other option is for me to give you her email address so you can contact her. Let me know your thoughts.

Pattycraven (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Wendy Davis
The material I added was a synopsis of an article by Jay Root at Washington Post 11/6/2014. It is not the same material as previous line written 5 days later.
 * Then you need to provide a citation when you add it, at the very least. It's unlikely that such material will be accepted (without first establishing consensus) in any case, but without a cite you've got no chance at all. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Mary Lindell
Hi NewEnglandYankee, could you please have a look at my edits in Mary Lindell. Kattiel (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * An anonymous user repeatedly deletes the controversy paragraph. Kattiel (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just posted a warning at his talk page. Kattiel (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Control Rod - Look first at references and hidden comments added from the author long time before of the content with originator rights outside on new material or processes etc.
Unbelievable or not read because I am the author of more entries than said now long time before see history just changed in text style. kayuweboehm(at)yahoo.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.223.90 (talk) 16:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC) If you are deleting my copyright for materials and processes etc. but leaving the content and not inserting again you are out of real law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.223.90 (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You accidentally undid my edit
I didn't notice the Nandulism (bad pun - Nandu + vandalism) on the Celery article. I just went to check if celery was related to anything. I went down to "Cultural Depictions" and noticed a lack of Doctor Who. (The Fifth Doctor wears a celery on his lapel.) So when you reverted the Nandulism, my edit went with it. Here's the edit and the reversion for comparison: [] 24.239.100.217 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it was not accidental. I don't think the reference is significant or encyclopedic in nature. However, you're right in that I shouldn't have rolled your edit back; I should have left a valid edit summary. You may want to discuss on the article's talk page. I'll recuse myself from further action. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Glenboro
Please be respectful. Why did you take my father's name off of the Glenboro site? He was responsible for organizing the construction of Sarah The Camel as Mayor of Glenboro. It is worth noting because we in Glenboro respect our history and the people who contribute to it. Ozcan1981 (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Budd Hopkins
Elizabeth Loftus' claims of identifying subtle cues were not corroborated by subsequent research. Her work constituted "original research". "Original research" is not allowed to be used on Wikipedia, whatever its source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.166.64 (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the first place, you're wrong. Loftus's claims constitute published research. Original research is when you, Mr. 202.159.166.64, come by and make some claim without having a published source to back it up. In the second place, don't complain to me. I'm trying to explain to you the realities of how Wikipedia operates. If you want your claims taken seriously, go to the article's Talk page. If you want to be ignored, keep doing what you're doing. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * NewEnglandYankee is correct. The dilettantes that write Wikipedia may not perform original research. Every primary and secondary source that we use here is original research to some extent. If you have an issue with specific sources then address them in kind. The blogs, for example, can be allowable under WP:SELFSOURCE if it's providing simple details from the author which don't seem questionable. Casting aspersions isn't the way to win an argument here; make a case based on policy. If you don't know Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines you would be better off asking at WP:RSN then arguing with actual editors. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris, Thank you for your post. The only issues I have with this specific Wikipedia page is its blatant co-option by the "Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" (GSOW) movement headed by Susan Gerbic. I don't have any problems with any Wikipedia users I've encountered. My frustration lies only with the bizarre and contradictory rules regarding what kind of material can be posted. "Original research" is not allowed, yet "original research", of an unsupported and uncorroborated nature, is much of what is listed at this particular Wikipedia page to support biased, pseudoskeptical statements. Proof of the GSOW movement's co-option of this page is present in the edit history (user: Sgerbic) They even take credit for it at their blog (http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Budd%20Hopkins). There is no point arguing with any specific users, few are inclined to listen. I feel what is going on here is a great injustice to the neutrality espoused but not practiced by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.166.64 (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

A request...
I am just a humble anon with some minor wiki experience and I was reading through the page "Politics of North Korea" when I questioned how accurate some of the information was. There were basic grammar errors, it was very meandering and unclear....looking back at the edit history, you removed this particular section as it was essay-like, but it seems as though the same person added it right back after, then someone fixed some technical errors over it so it might have been missed. Thanks! 184.10.226.50 (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I fully agree that this content is meandering and unclear and just generally unsuitable. I've re-removed it on that basis. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Difficult
Wikipedia is very difficult for a new user. It seems it is only for geeks. There is hell lot of content on how to post article and what nature, but there is no summary. I think they need to "Give clear guidelines" on how to make the content clear of any commercial bias and how to put content in neutral manner, else it is going to be doomed as no one has the patience to take insults from people, who don't know anything about a particular topic and edit other people stuff

this talk system is beyond understanding of a simple new user, why dont they have a chat?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karansingh47 (talk • contribs)
 * See WP:TEAHOUSE for a chat. A (terse) intro is provided at the top of your own talk-page. Kleuske (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for being so rash but as im sure you can see through the history me and him/her have been rapid editing back to back in a little war i guess you could call it. I was one of the IP adresses too and made an account just to deal with it. I thought I caught it all and had a "fixed" copy of the code I was just posting after he would modify. I wasn't sure if there were real mods or editors out there, so next time ill leave stuff like that to the people like you. Thank you though. Sorry again

Harambeswill (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)harambeswill

gremlin
Why do you keep reverting my changes without explanation??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gremlin_(programming_language) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirdale (talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Because putting this

* 2009-11-05 That was the day Marko invented the traversal machine. He was standing on the edge of his toilet hanging a clock, the porcelain was wet, he slipped, hit his head on the sink, and when he came to he had a revelation! A vision! A picture in his head! A picture of a gremlin! This is what makes graph traversals possible. * 2009-11-07 Future Marko visits past Marko, shows him the picture he drew, and tells him that it works. Marko makes the first commit to TinkerPop Gremlin.
 * in an encyclopedia is not constructive. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's 100% historically accurate but OK. So then why revert the separate, stable release version number update? Wikirdale (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why should I clean up after you? I'll be more than happy if you make a constructive contribution; I'll even thank you for it. Please do resubmit your work without the jokey bits. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Knolling and OCD
No mistake. No troll. The page on Knolling ought to reference Obsessive-Compulsive disorder. Thank you.
 * Not unless you can cite it. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Impressed by your work
Remarkable vandal hunting. I am in shock you stopped me as soon as you did. I made a small edit (I planned to remove, for what little that's worth) to pull an elaborate prank on one of my friends, and it was gone within a few minutes. Props to you and your work, it's remarkable there is vandalism for the rest of us (I did correct one bit of vandalism in early March, why I joined) to find. Lben6759 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lben6759 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)