User talk:NathanWubs

Welcome

Hello, NathanWubs, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Epeefleche (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

The Last Story

I've read the talk page behind that article. My opinion is left in that talk page. Although I can't write the story now, maybe there's still a way around it. If you can simplfy the story without being too stringent with every little detail, it would still work. I understand that the page requires web references and cites to avoid original research but that doesn't mean it's a must when it comes to the story, especially on a video game. Anyway, I can't help now since I'm taking a break. Maybe February would be a good time. For now, I would like you to think it over. That's all. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey NathanWubs. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 04:16, Monday, November 11, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Barack Obama

I would like your constructive opinion on how to demonstrate on the talk page for this article that a WP:POV tag is necessary for several sections that are currently being discussed. TBSchemer (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite simple, by gaining consensus from other Wikipedia editors, by providing WP:RS within the context of WP:N. The consensus at the moment from editors is that the article is WP:NPOV. So its up to you to change that instead of just tagging the article. I also suggest that you keep trying to follow WP:AGF instead of appearing combative with statements as " Simply, please refrain from WP:PERSONAL attacks. Don't throw around accusations of racism. " and "If any editors are interested in having a truly civil discussion about the POV problems with this article, please do so here, and refrain from personal attacks. WP:PERSONAL". This will only hinder into making the progress you desire.

~~Edit: I will abide though by Tarc saying there is no reason for consensus after there was no consensus after your first try to get consensus for the pov tags.~~ NathanWubs (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islam in Barbados, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bajan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your consensus on Obama is being stated there by someone.

Hello NathanWubs; Your consensus for section blanking at the "Obama" page for Legacy section blanking is being stated there, could you glance at this. FelixRosch (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Just noticed that the same user is again leaving templates on the president's page, did you see this? FelixRosch (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it. I have been keeping a bit on the back ground of things to see how things go. But it seems that he might be takening a step back and reflect on the things he has said and done. Which would be a good thing. Strike that, he just removed his personal attack. So I will keep looking for a while longer, while thinking a solution so that this editors sees he is just trying to push his own pov. NathanWubs (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. A small update. That user has now again reposted the Gallop poll once more on the Article page, in addition to his/her template, apparently without noting any difference between a scholarly poll of experts in the field as compared to regular Gallop polls, and without consensus first on Talk. FelixRosch (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if after a full week that no new users have responded to the template posted by that other User in the Evals subsection. It looks now as if that User has fully withdrawn the request to add the "new" poll information on the Edit History page on Obama also, and another user has just made an edit to address the NPOV template. Does this mean that anyone of us can now remove the NPOV template in the Evals subsection? FelixRosch (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

They sounded funny! Somchai Sun (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Supernerd11 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Belt wrestling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IBWA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation

Hi, just a friendly reminder read Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation, if you've not done so already. Your most recent edit [1] to Barack_Obama leads me to suggest that you follow the advice therein:

Do not edit-war;
Interact civilly with other editors;
Avoid making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article;
Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article;
Avoid repeatedly discussing other editors, discuss the article instead;
Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian;
We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people;
Don't get worked up when you get subjected to remedies such as a temporary block or ban. Take a break and come back refreshed.

Happy editing! JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy

Yes I can see why it might be considered vandalism, the fact that before he became a super villain he called himself Sammy. But it is a (referenced) fact. Dunno why you cannot find the article. I'm added further info from it at the moment. I'll post your comment to the talk page. Tommy Pinball (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice if you would have responded on your own talk page. Anyways, yes, please do so and it would also be nice if you added the reasons why you would like it to be included. I probably cannot access the source because I am from the Netherlands. Some American sites are fickle at which countries they let their stuff be accessed by. NathanWubs (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Galaxy

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I've re-removed Category:Science fiction video games from Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2. There's none/very little scientific content/innovations in those games (apart from the pseudo-spaceships) and just because they contain the aforementioned spacecraft and are set in space does not mean they automatically qualifies as science fiction. I didn't add back Category:Fantasy video games though, as none of the other Mario video game articles I checked have that category. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 9x9 Ko Fight picture

Hello, NathanWubs. You have new messages at Talk:Go (game).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mario Kart DS Article

It was really troubling finding references to the cheating online, but a lot of complaints were mostly on forums and I figure that is probably refutable here on Wikipedia, so the closest reference I could find of someone talking about the cheating online is in an article that was posted half a year ago about someone talking about it. The cheat codes were simply self-reference from my experiences, which I unfortunately have no proof of so if you want me to remove the cheat code talk I can shorten the paragraph to simply talk about the cheating in general. I put up the reference I found in the first line, and I can shorten the three lines that follow it to one line if that is what you want. And cheating isn't too common anymore ever since the eighth generation of video games, or at least anything other than Nintendo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medachod (talk • contribs) 22:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mario of Angry Birds RPG costumes

Hi. I let you know, Foreman Pig as Super Mario as reference something like RPG game. I know that. Bryancyriel (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The UPN Vandal

Frustrating, isn't he? Joshua has been here for several years. Discussion has repeatedly proven to be pointless. He seems to be the case WP:RBI was written for. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all too frustrating. After all its just reverting the same articles once every 1-3 weeks or when he is on vacation a bit longer then that. I just had to say my peace about it. As I do try to understand people the best way I can, even trolls and vandals. And of course to say my peace. NathanWubs (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse feedback

Hi Nathan, thanks for helping out at the teahouse. Please remember that we try to avoid using acronym links like "please read WP:COI". They are very convenient and I do this a lot myself, but at the teahouse the plan is (I'm told!) that we should avoid them because they are not very welcoming to newcomers. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to avoid it from now on, and explain things in a bit more detail when necessary. NathanWubs (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NDT

"Which maybe besides AGF cannot reflect on Zero at all" I've read this sentence a few times. I'm having a hard time making sense of it. Try me again? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might not have assumed the best of faiths towards the editor at the start. But that would not be up for me to decide. Of course that does not mean his COI issues are null and void. Also AGF can be thrown out of the window towards the editor because of his reactions that were given afterward. NathanWubs (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted once with the assumption the of AGF (maybe he skipped the talk page), citing removing of a picture and weight. Second time I went into his profile, got suspicious then found out he did writing for the source he was trying to reference (Linky). To me that is a blatant WP:COI to advance his own writings. Then it just went downhill from there. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aww I saw it a bit differently. Well good thing that I just removed that comment then entirely. I will pay a bit more attention to the neil article the next few days as after reading the link you gave. And then also the tweets of his and Sean I think we can expect some more people trying to shoehorn in the federalist pov. NathanWubs (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My perspective. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

good read, also Saber banner is cool. Oeh the banner changes, and you mention me as well. Now I feel special. Wonder also why your blog is not being attacked. I think it might be if they would attack your blog that they would not get the views they would want or something. NathanWubs (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno! I even mention that nobody's gone to comment on it yet... Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

Hi, Nathan. Did you restore the protection template (which actually won't show up on an unprotected page) at Intelligent design because you think the article ought to be semiprotected? I think I agree, and in fact it has often been under either semi or pending changes. I've semi'd it for another three months. For another time, if you notice problems from non-autoconfirmed users, the WP:RFPP board is the place. Thanks for your vigilance! (And for your thanks. :-)) Bishonen | talk 15:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I thought it was still semi-protected. And seeing the small streak of vandalism that is why I restored it to the version that I thought was the stable version. That is why I thanked you, as I had not paid enough attention to see that it was not protected anymore. That is why I thank you, when you removed it. I do think it should be indeed semi-protected again like you had done. So its all good. NathanWubs (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbacker

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 02:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)

A kitten for you!

When I am logging in a heading is appearing that "vote for the best image of the year " . I am able to view those images in various categories but I am not able to vote . I am clicking the vote icons below those images but nothing is happening .

Frost The World (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-topic - Comtending Wikipedia

Where do I post my "rant" to be considered by Wikipedia/Wikipedians? Or is everyone here intolerant of discussing the validity of using erroneous reasoning, in favor of "being authoritative" by means of mainstream consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyguy76767 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. Wikipedia isn't the place for this sort of thing. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zero thanks for responding so fast. Guess I could not finish my late night dinner before you responded. NathanWubs (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some Small Talk

I tend to leave some user talk pages on watch until I get bored of them. This guy just...didn't seem to completely understand things. And how was dinner? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dinner was pretty nice, it was a store bought pizza. The rest of the day was pretty good as well. Especially as I woke up to find out I got rollback rights. Which I did not expect at all. But of course I fully accept the honor of it. :) NathanWubs (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even ask and you got them? Gee. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I have asked? when I mostly have had no direct need for them? I probably got them as I do undo a lot of vandalism, etc. Before you know it I will be offered and admin position out of nowhere, hahaha. NathanWubs (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had to ask for reviewing rights before I got them, so I dunno. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might have to ask for those at one point. As there have been cases of course with some contested areas that had indeed erroneous edits made to them. Where pending changes and not reviewing rights stopped me from reverting it. NathanWubs (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stay too tight to some BLPs that it almost became a "Let me throw my hat at it." I figure they would be easier to get than rollback. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I did not even know that Rollback rights were that special. Then again after doing a search only about 5.5k people have it. So that is not a whole lot I guess. But why were you declined for rights in the first place?NathanWubs (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked for them. So I was never declined. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I understand now. So anything specific you have been working on wikipedia lately? NathanWubs (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just keeping eyes out on stuff. Moved across the country and just finally got my stuff last Friday so I haven't had time to edit really. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hasty Reverting

I believe you may not have carefully examined what was written - please do so next time. The FRC article did not cite those studies, and was merely used as an example of where a source making such criticism can be found. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The religious source with an agenda is not a reliable source that can be used, also its a primary source. You would need to find secondary sources that agree. If you were citing the study, that would be considering [WP:OR} Which is also not allowed 24.252.141.175 NathanWubs (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the post here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polyamory#Source_Reliability. You have greatly misunderstood what was written 24.252.141.175 (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children GAN

Hi, it's been 11 days since you reviewed Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children, saying you wanted to get a second opinion; are you still planning on concluding the review? --Pres N 19:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also have an interest in this, as the above user and I are getting a VII GT prepared. It has been over two weeks since the above message. Can you please provide an answer before the nomination dies for lack of resolution? --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]