User talk:Nn123645/2007/November

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Nn123645/2007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 04:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mint (money management)

A tag has been placed on Mint (money management), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Mint (money management). Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 04:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

How is adding archives and Table of contents vandalism? Please enlighten me. Benjiboi 14:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apoligize on that edit, I'm new to twinkle and clicked Vandlism by mistake. Nn123645 14:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Stepping on twinkle toes! No problems then, carry on.Benjiboi 14:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Schweizer 300

I archived the talk page, the discussions are over a half year old. Please read the edit summaries before you revert legitimate edits. --Born2flie 14:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old School

How is what I took off the Old School page vandalism? Quotes don't belong in Wikipedia and all of them were an unsourced mess. The other section I deleted was called similar films, of which there were no citations on why they were similar to Old School and it seemed like people just added them because they had Will Ferrell, Vince Vaughn or Luke Wilson in them. I've since added to the talk page of the film about this and added unsourced tags to the sections, however you need to be more careful calling edits vandalism when just blanket reverting. Phydend 15:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I apoligize for the revert. I was sitting in IRC and according to the bot there that was a major change and possible vandalism, so I have been getting a bit trigger happy with twinkle, which I just started using about an hour ago. I apoligize for the revert, please disregard my edit. I really think twinkle needs an "Are you sure" button on more of this stuff. =P Nn123645 15:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my userpage. Looks like I've made a couple of new friends this afternoon! ;-) Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 19:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Np, anytime :). Nn123645 20:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		In recognition of your excellent efforts in reverting vandalism on Wikipedia, and also in beating me to reverting the vandalism on Gilesbennett's userpage ;-), I present you with this barnstar. Happy editing and keep up the excellent work! :-) Lra drama 19:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

LEAVE ME ALONE, You are a WikiBULLY!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonerboy2007 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. Nn123645 21:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft - Make Love, Not Warcraft link

Hi! Just wondering why you described this edit as vandalism? The link isn't really needed in the "See Also" but it's rather out of order to describe is as "vandalism". And especially to then warn the editor that he faces being blocked for it! --Stormie 23:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see it was a valid wikipedia page, thought it was just some random text that was being added. I have withdrawn the warning on the talk page and placed an apology. Nn123645 00:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ;-) --Stormie 01:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Creationism

Hi,

I'm curious why you reverted ScienceApologists changes to the talk page - you may not be aware, that page attracts a lot of trolling and SA was attempting to prevent the Troll in question from being fed.

Thanks,

WLU 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to revert, please familiarize yourself with the talk page and comment there. To my mind, ScienceApologists move of the information was appropriate. WLU 01:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard my edit then. There was no edit summary and it looked like an attempt to blank the page. Nn123645 01:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was something like that, if you're not familiar with the Creationism and Evolution troll-traffic, it does indeed look bad. Thanks for the reply. WLU 01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Jmlk 1 7 01:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

Thanks for the revert. :) -- Satori Son 05:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Np, happy to help :) Nn123645 05:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to help

Can you explain to me why my comments on the Tilburg University lemma are spam? Someone added that they needed sources for information contained in the lemma, so I took the effort to find the official (so NOT advertising) annual report of the university and add references to it. Furthermore I added links to the different studies because my opinion is that that website is not very easy to navigate if one does not know Dutch. Next time do me a favour and contact me before reverting about an hour work... Brabo by nature

EDIT*

And don't give me any nonsensical answer as "but the source is from the university website itself so it is advertising". Just look at the perfect example of Cornell University which has, don't be shocked more than a 100 (?!) references linking to sources on their own website. And yes the lemma on Cornell is a 'good' lemma according to WiKipedia's own quality scale. Brabo by nature

Disregard my above edit. Links looked like spam to me at 1 AM when I was in IRC. I did not intend to revert your edit and apoligize for it. Nn123645 19:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I AM V-Dash

Look, someone is stalking my profile and editing it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by v-dash (talk • contribs)

Warn them and report them to WP:AIV. Getting into a heated debate with them isn't going to do any good.Nn123645 03:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're an admin. Can't you do something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Dash (talk • contribs) 03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, just someone who reverts vandalism. If you report it to AIV (I fixed your report) usually an admin will read it and block said abusing user within about 15 minutes.Nn123645 03:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'll work. Thanks. V-Dash V-Dash —Preceding comment was added at 03:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's decision on acceptable editing

On October 28, 2007, you reverted all the edits that I had made to my personal discussion page. I had chosen to blank the page because the author was rambling incoherently about a number of different subjects. The action of blanking the post on my personal discussion page is not vandelism. Wikipedia SPECIFICALLY addresses this in their page Wikipedia:Vandelism. Do not edit my discussion page. I do not need your assistance in this matter. If this continues, I will be contacting Wikipedia administration about your actions.

"Discussion page vandalism

Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. Note: The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page. Editors are granted considerable latitude over editing their own userspace pages (including talk pages), and blanking one's own user talk page is specifically not prohibited. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DivaNtrainin (talk • contribs)

Thought you blanked by accident. If you notice I cited WP:AGF in the edit summary. Personally I think it is rather unnecessary and a little bit harsh to threaten me with administrator intervention with a first warning. I do apologize for the revert, and will leave your page as you want it. Nn123645 19:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Npwatcher

Hi, it seems that you mistaken my design concept for the new NPW's homepage with the actual one :) I'm sorry, and I have now added a noticebox so that others won't have the same problem :) Can you please list you application again at WP:NPW/C? Another thing, may I ask you how did you came across my page? Searching for "Npwatcher" gives Martinp23's as the first result...

Happy editing, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, Thanks. Your page is listed in the catagory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_counter-vandalism_tools. Thanks for letting me know I posted in the wrong area. I apoligize for the mistake. Nn123645 02:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just being realistic

how was my edit to police brutatlity not neutral??? any body could plainly see that rodney king got what he deserved, and that the reaction of the black community to the trials in L.A. were nothing less than terrorist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.144.130 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 November 2007

Your edit was:

"rodney king attacked four polices officers after they pulled him over for driving under the influence, which is attempted murder ... I say beat the living hell out of him with the batons...what's brutal was King's neglect to safely operate a motor vehicle..if a white guy got "beat" like he did (even though it was deserved), nobody would care..it's like we have some obligation to take it easy on the struggling black man..cause, you know, rodney king was enslaved for 400 years, right?"

The viewpoints expressed there are pretty clearly not neutral. It appears as though you are trying to persuade the reader to follow that particular viewpoint. These viewpoints are much better suited for a talk page, not the main article page. Remember, wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you would like to get these ideas published a mediums such as a blog or a forum for discussing political topics would be much better suited for it. Nn123645 21:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i was just trying to make a point..good idea about the blog though i will look into that...thanks..you know you agree with me though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.144.130 (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Nn123654,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara❤Love 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Speedy deletion of Mohammad Khan

The attempted deletion of Mohammad Khan was vandalism. The page is a redirect and somebody already restored it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook??

You gave me advice on using Twinkle for vandal warning. But what is monobook??Gunnerdevil4 06:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook is the default style for wikipedia. If you go to the "my preferences" page you can change the style. As far as the monobook.js file, that allows you to add custom javascript mods to your monobook which you can do various things with. WP:TW explains how to install it. Nn123645 21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bukhori

You apparently misunderstood. What is happening is that User:LeeMulod along with his sockpuppets and numerous anonymous IP addresses, is insisting, against consensus -1, that the name of the Bukharan Jews and indeed of Bukhori, their semi-eponymous language, is "Bukharian". This has been hashed out at great length on Talk:Bukharan Jews. It has nothing to do with a content dispute. Tomer ^talk 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ahh, ok thanks. Makes sense. Didn't know that account was a sock puppet. Nn123645 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

A sockpuppet? What are you talking about? You are the one that is ignorant to a group of people. Yes the language is called Bukhori but there are also Bukharians who call the language Bukharian but the title should be Bukhori.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMulod333 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 November 2007

K, disregard my previous comment. I need to look into this further. To answer your question on what a sock puppet is, its a second wikipedia account owned by the same person without the person disclosing that the two accounts are related. Sockpuppets are not against wikipedia policy (from my understanding) unless they are used in a malicious way, like making people think there are two or more people responding one way instead of just one or using them to bypass 3RR or a block. Nn123645 (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many accounts LeeMulod uses, I know of at least LeeMulod (talk · contribs) and LeeMulod333 (talk · contribs) and have strong reason to believe that BukharianChick (talk · contribs) is either a sock or a meatpuppet. He also frequently edits anonymously, when it suits him, as 74.73.19.161 (talk · contribs), 74.73.19.171 (talk · contribs) and 68.173.149.101 (talk · contribs), as well as an unknown number of other IPs. At least once that I know of, he has used socks to evade blocks, and has edited dozens of times while blocked using anonymous IPs. Tomer ^talk 03:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any check user requests to correlate this? Nn123645 (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser inquiries are called for when a user denies that these anonymous IPs are them editing. LeeMulod has admitted that they are him. Tomer ^talk 03:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Has a page already been opened on this at WP:SSP? Nn123645 (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the relevant discussion begins here. Tomer ^talk 03:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admitt that I used LeeMulod but only because I wanted to apologize for what I wrote to you. Didn't I apologize? I admitt that it was a bit hostile. And as for BukharianChick, nope that wasn't me. I would know if it was me or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMulod333 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: RFC

Ugh. I was hoping to avoid this. I'll come up with a statement tho. It would have been better to have put it off a couple days. I am going to be pretty busy until probably pretty late on Wednesday evening. Tomer ^talk 06:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be able to really work on it until tomarrow. Based on the way things are going on Lee's talk page I think you guys need to move along with Dispute Resoultion, which is the reason I opened it. Nn123645 (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Penacoli page

Dude, what are you talking about? The Jerry Penacoli page is nothing but an advertisement for his website? "The Wilkdly Popular PM Magazine" its all opinion and speculation, complete with an ad at the bottom for his website.

Do something worth your weight around here, and if you are going to leave the article, at least put in Citation Needed tags, etc. then follow through to remove the content when the citations never come.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.28.78 (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should not try to solve this by blanking the page and adding comments such as "Jerry, it's quite pathetic if you ask me." to the main article page while removing the content is not acceptable. Discussion should go on the article's Talk page, NOT the main article page. I have tagged the articles with the appropiate templates. --Nn123645 (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo fixing

Hmmm... Typo-fixing other people's messages isn't a very good idea. See the relevant section of WP:TALK for guidance. Doing this on a high-profile board isn't wise either! Be careful how you set WP:AWB in future, lest people get upset! Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 16:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, k. I guess I'll change it to restrict AWB to the mainspace only. :). --Nn123645 (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - it's scary how powerful AWB can be. Happy typo-fixing! Bencherlite ^Talk 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Tempo

Hi, Are you sure it was a vandalism made by me? Please, verify. --F. Cosoleto (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, sorry about the warn. Apparently an anon corrected the infobox and images that were missed. The reason why it looked like vandalism was because of this diff. --Nn123645 (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]