User talk:NottNott/Archives/2016/May

Moda Gharib (photographer)
Greetings. I reverted your restoration of the content of this article--it is my understanding that if the creator blanks the article and no other editor has made any substantial contributions, it should be considered as an implicit request for deletion per WP:CSD and the user should not be warned for removing the previous speedy deletion tag. I have tagged the article accordingly. Thank you for your time. -- Finngall  talk  16:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting this - while I'm aware of the G7 criterion yet I still mistakenly reverted the edit and warned the user. Thanks for clearing up after this.  Nott Nott &#124;talk 16:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

ACC tool access request approved
NottNott, thank you for your interest in the account creation process. I have verified that you are identified to the Wikimedia Foundation and approved your request.

You may now access the interface here pending a tool root marking your account as identified in the tool database. Before you begin handling requests, please ensure you have read and understood the account creation guide and username policy to familiarise yourself with the process.

Please subscribe yourself to the private ACC mailing list following the instructions on that page. I also advise that you also join us on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and you can get real time advice on how to handle requests.

Please note failure to correctly assess requests will result in suspension of tool access. Account creation is not a race, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly. Releasing personally identifying information (such as IP and email addresses), whether intentionally or unintentionally, is treated very seriously and will generally result in immediate suspension.

Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day, and you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked as "Flagged user needed" on the interface. However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM/ACC.

Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! FastLizard4 (talk•contribs) 23:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello again! I noticed that you have handled your first few account requests, but it does not seem that you have submitted a subscription request for the ACC mailing list.  Subscription to the mailing list is mandatory for account creators, as it is where most important internal discussion occurs and where emails from prospective Wikipedia editors are sent.  If you don't subscribe soon, you may lose your access to ACC.  To subscribe, please carefully follow the directions at this page, and please feel free to let me know if you have any questions.  Thanks, and happy account creating!  -- FastLizard4  (talk•contribs) 02:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see - I've signed up. This'll be the second time I've mistakingly not read the qualifications section, the first not identifying myself on the noticeboard. Nevertheless, thanks for the heads-up. ~ Nott Nott &#124;talk 08:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries! I just confirmed your subscription, so you should be all set to go.  At the risk of sounding like I'm belaboring the point, do be very, very careful when handling account requests though - make sure you follow the guide carefully and read everything.  Some requests can be rather nuanced, and since we are basically front-line support for a lot of potential new editors, mistakes can have significant consequences - this is why we officially have a "zero tolerance" policy towards mistakes, though in practice we'll talk to you first before suspending your access or anything like that.  But yes, please be attentive and careful when handling requests, and please feel free to ask on the mailing list or in the IRC channel if you have any concerns or questions about a request or how to handle it.  Some requests can be sorted in 30 seconds, such as obvious UPOL violations, but others can take several minutes to do all the necessary checks - though you'll get better and faster the more requests you handle.  As always, feel free to let me know if you have any questions, though for general ACC-related stuff the mailing list and IRC are better venues and will get you a faster response.  Note that you don't yet have access to the IRC channel - I recommend you join it if you use IRC, but note that someone, probably me, will need to set you up with access with it before you can join (and until you're given access, you'll be redirected to an "unregistered" channel that may not be used to discuss requests and such, since it's an open channel and requests often contain private information).  See you around!  -- FastLizard4  (talk•contribs) 09:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem, thank you for the information. I'm not much of an IRC user - but if I need access in the future I'll be sure to let you know. I'll probably be more involved after my exam period, which ends mid-June. As an aside, some IPs showing up in the tool have no entries in the Local block log yet do have an active block appearing on both their talk page and the Active local blocks page. Such a user could have had the block applied two weeks ago. Of course if a user has been blocked in the past I wouldn't expect it on the active blocks page, but if a block is currently in place I'm confused as to why it would exclusively show up on the Active local blocks page. If anything, surely this would be a Wikimedia issue? Many thanks. ~ Nott Nott &#124;talk 10:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If I had to guess, it sounds like it's someone who is under a range block instead of a single-IP block. If you give me the request number(s), I can take a closer look and give you a more definitive answer.  -- FastLizard4  (talk•contribs) 19:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

[About unidentified page]
Hello,

Just wanted to inform all of u that I was interrupted while creating the page, the reason why am I creating it is to speak about a unic creation of this company in the field of rebreathers .. And please note that I don't work for this company, and this is not publicity, I just tried the rebreather of their production and in my opinion they should be mentioned on Wikipedia, because of its unic products..

Please note also that there is another page (old one) in Italian speaking about an old product of theirs ... Caimano mk2c

Please give me the chance to complete the page with photos and history then judge it urself.

Thank u very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.24.218.113 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey there. I actually have no idea what company you're talking about - your IP address that you've edited the page with is different to your current IP. I also make a large number of automated edits and can't keep track of them all. What is the page that you're talking about?  Nott Nott &#124;talk 14:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Award!

 * No worries, and thank you!  Nott Nott &#124;talk 14:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Demarcus Robinson
@NottNott Thanks so much for the words. I also thought it may have looked as an opinion because I worked for rivials covering college football and was most focused on opinion-based pieces. Also the information on cite was very helpful. Kepp an eye on me in the coming weeks if its not to much trouble and let me know if I need to do things different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NFLDraftRadio (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

NottNott,

I am new to Wiki (I did the Demarcus Robinson page edit), just open an account after, but I did the edit. I get what your saying and I was actually thinking about if it was put into the correct light, but decided to put it up because Wiki is policed by the people and I have complete faith in the people. That said I will to a re do of the info and any pointers would be great. Now let me start by saying Robinson's suspensions and benching and trouble at Florida are well documented, proof of stats, recruiting ranking, and all draft stats can be proven. Do I just need to cite ever specific incident good and bad? Because I'm not a fan or hater of him, but his page is very under written and I feel like the people can do better. Truly any thought or tips are more than welcome, and don't hold back; if I was off on anything in the first edit hit me with it! Wait to hear back, — Preceding unsigned comment added by NFLDraftRadio (talk • contribs) 13:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey there, welcome to Wikipedia! You've got a lot of enthusiasm and I'm sure you're capable of making some really high quality contributions, certainly to this article which is lacking. The main reason I reverted your edit is because it wasn't written from a WP:Neutral point of view - some of it was written like an opinion piece or an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia articles need to be impartial and neutral at all times - like a traditional encyclopedia would. You are however allowed to cover impartial views in the media within the article, just like the 'Reception' section you've likely seen in some articles. Just be sure to reference the article on the page.


 * In addition, extra care has to be taken towards biographical articles as per WP:BLP which stresses the importance of referencing facts and figures about the person just like you mentioned - anything about Robinson's personal life or career must be supported with an WP:inline citation. Try reading WP:Reliable sources and WP:citing sources for a general idea of this - don't go reading it all at once. And yeah, if an incident is particularly important to the article, certainly include it along with a reference.


 * I hope this is somewhat helpful, and apologies if I've inundated you with links. I've sent you some other links to your talk page which you may want to have a read of. Just remember to WP:Be bold and be sure to ask me or any other editor if you need some advice.  Nott Nott &#124;talk 14:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Ted Levine
Hello NottNott,

That section you restored violates WP:BLP for several reasons. It mentions non-notable people by their full names and is referenced to a gossip site, Radar Online. In no way does this trivial family dispute belong in Ted Levine's biography. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem - if it was just the Radar Online source I'd have left it as it is given its unreliability, but the JDnews source looked fairly reliable so I erred on the side of caution and restored it. Under your discretion it's probably left best removed however.  Nott Nott &#124;talk 17:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fully read the second source. Though it mentions other people named Levine, it never once mentions Ted Levine. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that, it's certainly better left removed.  Nott Nott &#124;talk 17:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding recent ACC closure of yours
Hello and welcome to WP:ACC. I recently created an account (having checked it with a checkuser) for the user whom you've previously declined an account (request [170236). I'm not sure why you declined it as Block target - appeal. But please leave a comment on your declines unless otherwise obvious. Hope you enjoy ACCing. Best regards—[[User:UY Scuti| UY Scuti ]] Talk 17:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey there, gravest of apologies for the error. While I can't see the original IP and what would have lead to that decision, I may have sent that appeal to an  - and if I had it was most certainly an error. I wouldn't question a checkuser's judgement but perhaps the IP was dynamic, with my request having been blocked for puppetry. I consult the procedure closely for nearly every request at the moment, trying not to make a mistake, but if I have I'll be sure to reconsider my action for future cases. The process feels overwhelming at first to say the least, but I'm learning. Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention.  Nott Nott &#124;talk 19:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, just came here to let you know that I've created 170276. Regards— UY Scuti Talk  14:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

ACC
ACC feedback;
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Please review my comments, as well as the CU comments. It seems you're having difficulties understanding anonblocks and the procedure to proceed with them, however judging from a recent request you might have figured it out. Please drop me a line if you have any questions regarding this, we do not want to create extra work for our CUs. ~ riley  ( talk  ) 00:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising these concerns. Every single one of these requests has been brought up in an email to me by FastLizard4 whom I've responded to in greater detail, although the fact you've raised concerns with exactly the same requests to a T as him speaks really well for the accountability of the ACC team. I've taken all the steps to learn from these mistakes and not to repeat them in the future. Please don't hesitate to contact me again in the future with any concerns. Thank you.  Nott Nott &#124;talk 09:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you've seen my closure of 170716, invalid characters are written out in the email template. ~ riley  ( talk  ) 17:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks.  Nott Nott &#124;talk 17:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, please make sure you do all the checks before deferring them to CU queue (for example, the username 170773 is taken). This is done in order to save time for checkusers and to cut-off unnecessary time delays in the request being processed. Also, 170806 is a Shared username, not immediately noticeable, but when you check the email domain, it is. Regards— UY Scuti Talk  16:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Edited --16:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I'll be sure to make all the checks before deferring in the future.  Nott Nott &#124;talk 16:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!
I just wanted to give a quick thank-you to for advising me on my Request for Adminship! :) I appreciate all criticism I get; as long as it is nothing too harsh---unless I deserve it. (Which I hope is not often Anyways, I gratefully thank you, NottNott, for helping a fellow Wikipedia contributor in need! :) Man epik (Epikman) (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries! I've sent you a list of starting links and policies that you should certainly look into to get started. If every editor with <100 edits on Wikipedia got the tools, there wouldn't be a Wikipedia left


 * Also, in good faith (not to sound nitpicky) but your signature could potentially confuse users looking to find you. If you want to change your username you can at WP:CHU - otherwise you'll be better off leaving your username as 'Epikman', the technical name of your account. Just a minor consideration  Nott Nott &#124;talk 20:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Consulting
Hello,

Since our last conversation in last November I trust your judgment.... So I want to consult you about something, but it's in Wikipedia Arabic, There's an article which has been sabotaged by pro-government administrators, when I've tried to fix their deliberately falsification in reference translation from English to Arabic, added new information with a UN reference, But they've reverted my fixes, refused to discuss the situation, edited my post on the talk page to mislead others about me and my credibility & when I objected, they have banned me for a while....

Like this source: They have translated it as "Egypt has put down & occupied the islands in 1967", although that source doesn't say so.... https://books.google.co.il/books?id=x4x18SyK4OQC&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=King+Faisal++Tiran&source=bl&ots=lIrxo7B66c&sig=GwWLrRTL-f6m5dK1wxlKZKyNRoY&hl=ar&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj24oLenvbKAhVID5oKHS1yAqoQ6AEIOzAF#v=onepage&q=King%20Faisal%20%20Tiran&f=false

So I was wondering if any help you could offer..?! --elbarck (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Eldo Abraham
I've removed the speedy tag you added to Eldo Abraham one minute after its creation, as it clearly asserts notability. OnionRing (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted, and apologies for the error. It's encouraged me to re-read Common A7 mistakes, so hopefully this won't happen again.  Nott Nott &#124;talk 18:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. I should read that doc too: thanks for pointing it out. OnionRing (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

About List of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend episodes
What are you talking about? This is way too confusing I can't even message you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B43:94F0:48A8:676D:EFB7:311A (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies. You might want to refrain from all-caps comments in the future as well as telling them they're 'trolling' in the article body. It may be seen as disruptive.  Nott Nott &#124;talk 20:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not do that edit!
Someone did that edit I need them blocked, I didn't do that edit!

-JaDangerz — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaDangerz (talk • contribs) 00:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:BROTHER. If the edit came from your account then whoever was behind the computer screen is irrelevant.  Nott Nott &#124;talk 11:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes on 'demagogue'
I am the one who changed the article on Demagogue. I will try to find the time to clean up this article which can currently be viewed as incorrect. A demagogue is not neccesarily evil. A pope can be a demagogue too. Hitler can be called a demagogue, and very rightiously so, but a demagogue is not per definition a bigot or a fascist.

If a pope says: If you abort your child you will go to hell (no citation ofcourse), then this is an appeal to the prejudice, emotion or fear of this person to change the behaviour of this person.

It's a very bad and dangerous thing to distort the meaning of this word as can be seen in the social context nowadays (especially in the USA). It can lead to people not feeling that they can speak their mind because they will immediately be called a bigot or fascist. The reason is that in this day and age 'political correctness' is used as a demagogic retoric to silence people who tend to stray from the consensus. People that experience this vote for a 'leader' who is not taken aback by this. This does not necessarily have to be dangerous but it is the wrong reason to vote for anyone.

It seems that in the current version demagogy is confused with fascism, which can be seen as a very aggressive and authoritative form of demagogy with no regard to democracy and often with the use of violence. Therefore I removed the following text:

"''Demagogues were a new kind of leader who emerged from the lower classes. Demagogues relentlessly advocated action, usually violent—immediately and without deliberation. Demagogues appealed directly to the emotions of the poor and uninformed, pursuing power, telling lies to stir up hysteria, exploiting crises to intensify popular support for their calls to immediate action and increased authority, and accusing moderate opponents of weakness or disloyalty to the nation. While all politicians in a democracy must make occasional small sacrifices of truth, subtlety, or long-term concerns to maintain popular support, demagogues do these things relentlessly and without self-restraint."

The above is so extreme that it falls out of the scope of demagogy. It's a mix of fascism and sociopathy. It is fascism that emerges from the lower classes. Demagogues do not advocate action, demagogues inspire the people to take action. Demagogues are speakers that play with the truth, as in: 'I have never seen you use a filthy heroin needle' while this person never even did drugs. This way he speaks the truth and makes the people think that this person does drugs. It can be very subtle that way, but also very destructive. A demagogue can exploit crises, and stir up hysteria etc. but to tell it like this is telling it like a demagogue would.

... occasional small sacrifices of truth, subtlety, or long-term concerns to maintain popular support ... That's demagogy; leading the people. The purpose all this is to make people agree with measures they never asked for and do not like. This accounts for the statement of Polybus: "The Greek historian Polybius thought that democracies are inevitably undone by demagogues. He said that every democracy eventually decays into 'a government of violence and the strong hand,' leading to 'tumultuous assemblies, massacres, banishments.'"

From this you can also infer that demagogy is a purely democratic principle.

I removed the line: "Throughout its history, the word demagogue has been used to disparage any leader thought to be manipulative, pernicious, or bigoted."

The reason is firstly it's relevance (it's not about character but the use of retoric) and secondly it's reference is about something else. The reference is about a resentment for democracy because it can easily be manipulated through demagogy (Elbridge Gerry).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.174.25.206 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey! What's your question? Thanks for getting in touch.  Nott Nott &#124;talk 20:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd possibly agree with this. You may wish to read about the policy WP:No original research as citations would be considered very important for an article covering examples of people in this way. I wouldn't call the current article incorrect but could use some work done on it. I'll send you an introductory list of links to better facilitate your editing now. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask  Nott Nott &#124;talk 20:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

77.174.25.206 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Can you help me with this: "... as citations would be considered very important for an article covering examples of people in this way ..." I do not exactly know what you are referring to, can you please include an quote from my text? I will do everything I can to clear this up.

"I wouldn't call the current article incorrect but could use some work done on it." May I say that some pieces of the current text do not belong here and some important pieces are left out. And these added pieces (that do not belong here) taint the leftover (incomplete) text. So yes I am very much convinced that the current text needs work done on it.

I am very motivated to help, please help me to understand what is exactly the issue and I will solve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.174.25.206 (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

77.174.25.206 (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC) I have edited the current page considerably yesterday after you (very rightfully) asked me to do this instead of replacing the whole content. But now I can't seem to find it anywhere. Is it under review or should I update it again?

On Malware analysis
This article was completely lagging information and i tried to format this and edit as per wiki tone. I do know how was it approved earlier since it has no proper information. Thanks for suggesting article for deletion.(Barath Rajendran (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC))
 * No worries! The article is really lacklustre, and I see few opportunities for development. You might want to briefly read WP:Deletion and enable WP:Twinkle if you haven't already so you can flag articles for deletion yourself if the need arises. Twinkle is a really useful gadget.  Nott Nott &#124;talk 11:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information(Barath Rajendran (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC))