User talk:NottNott/Archives/2016/June

Thank you
Thank you very much for your help and constructive comments. Editor4Apopo (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

WHALE
Clubjustin Talkosphere  13:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely necessary - Nott Nott &#124;talk Reply with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 13:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Judaism and masturbation
Please explain to me why the viewpoint is less than neutral. It expresses an opinion, true. Is that incorrect? If I instead wrote, "Authority X says that . . ." and included the rest of what I said, would THAT be appropriate?

I would be more concerned with the untold masses of people who come here and destroy others' excellent work than I would with someone who dares to express an opinion. In actuality, it's not an opinion, it's FACT. I could go into more detail about why it's FACT, but I imagine you would have trouble with that also.

IMHO, this is why Wikipedia continues to degenerate. We worry about very nitpicking concerns, not about anything significant. Please let me share with you something I would consider "significant." In many cases, I have endeavored to correct a mathematics article by adding useful content. Unfortunately, many, MANY mathematicians think it is useful to fill the screen with what Professor Bailyn humorously called "alphabet soup"--lots and lots of Greek letters that look impressive but explain nothing. I feel it's far superior to offer the reader a CONCEPTUAL explanation of why something is or is not. But I do that, only to find that some joker replaced it with a "superior" entry that--you guessed it--explained nothing but was more richly festooned with Greek letters.

FYI, I see that you took no issue with the fact that one of my supporting references for a Judaic argument was in the New Testament!

2601:581:300:FB5:E964:9EA9:8720:43B1 (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, yes - that is why I reverted your edit. 'The very question of whether masturbation', 'constitutes "spilling seed in vain" must be carefully considered' and 'essential point is that G od' as a handful of changes made that highlight WP:NPOV issues. Because you feel the need to write in this way, and the way you address others on their talk page implies you have a WP:COI in writing this article. My religious views are irrelevant, but we need to avoid stating culture/people's views as fact in article prose - rather we must represent them as a given viewpoint, and then source that claim. Citing something from the New Testament is fine given that it represents the views of that culture.


 * If you continue to write about presumably your religion as objective fact rather than an opinion, you shouldn't resume editing. The Wikipedia community has long upheld WP:NPOV as a core content guideline for a reason for at least a decade now. If you have issues with this policy or the way Wikipedia upholds this, you would better serve yourself not editing. - Nott Nott &#124;talk Reply with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 13:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

SNET went out of business in 2006
32.218.152.198 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A WHOIS reveals it's still registered in their name. - Nott Nott &#124;talk Reply with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 14:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You obviously need a more reliable source because SNET is not my ISP. 32.218.152.198 (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know what a WHOIS is? Regardless, Frontier Communications has kept that name as their registrant for the shared IPs you are using. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently your IP has been registered as recently as June 2014 by SNET. Whether it's reliable or not, it's no big deal. Definitely not worth an edit war over. - Nott Nott &#124;talk Reply with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 14:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits to HopeMob.org
Hi,

You rejected edits to HopeMob.org because they appeared promotional, but in so doing you removed ALL information about how HopeMob has changed. It's an entirely new platform now, along with a new board and leadership, all of which was cited. If there is specific language you would like reworked, that's fine, but please help us be accurate in reporting what HopeMob is now. The information on Wikipedia is now 2 years outdated. []

Thank you,

Preston — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.94.40 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Most '@' signs in articles are Twitter promotion, but on closer observation the edit was definitely non-promotional so I apologise for this. I've renamed the article '@HopeMob' to be more up to date and tweaked your edit a bit as you can see . I hope this is okay with you and if you have any questions please let me know. - Nott Nott &#124;talk Notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello NottNott. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and content (CSD A3) moments after they are created. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for the notice - this definitely does resemble biting behaviour on my part which isn't right. I'll definitely be sure to allow a 10-15m waiting period before tagging A1s and A3s in the future. - Nott Nott &#124;talk 21:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Brendan Maclean
hey you took off the funbang1 EP from Brendan Maclean's wikipedia.

It's on iTunes as a pre-order so surely it's validated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.114.89 (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to add back in. I have no knowledge of the subject at all, but if something looks like it could be vandalism I usually revert it - with a name like that you might see why I did - Nott Nott &#124;talk 08:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The essay has been written...
...or at least started. See RfA inflation. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome work - I'll have to see what I can add to this. Thanks - Nott Nott &#124;talk 15:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi
You recently sent me a message regarding my edits of the page Convene.

I made these edits because the company that is currently mapped to the page, Learning Technology Partners, is no longer named Convene. Convene purchased rights to the name in 2010 from Learning Technology Partners.

Therefore, I am hoping that you can revert back to the edits I made yesterday.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me - rcheng@convene.com

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.117.194 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey there. Welcome to Wikipedia. Before I respond, it appears you have ties to a company or other organisation so you'll definitely want to read the WP:COI guideline before continuing to contribute.


 * I reverted your edit because it removed loads of content without reason. It also turned the article practically into a promotional redirect to your website - not good. If you were looking to rename the article, I have now requested a page move and this should go through very shortly. Hopefully this will resolve any issues you might have been having. If you have any more questions feel free to let me know on this talk page. Thanks. - Nott Nott &#124;talk 18:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - page moved. - Nott Nott &#124;talk 14:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

(unknown request)
Hello Kaungboymadmangyi (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey there, welcome to Wikipedia. What's your question? - Nott Nott &#124;talk 14:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)