User talk:NottNott/Archives/2015/November

Critical reception deleted from pages

Hi, my name is Paul Mavis. Apparently, several critical reception additions I made to pages were removed as "spam." I'm not sure why that would be. I write for an accredited review site (DVD Talk). I'm a published film historian (The Espionage Filmography, McFarland), as well as a ten year member of the Online Film Critics Society. Many of the pages I added to, had no other citations for critical reception. I was only trying to expand the articles. I don't see how that would be "spam," particularly on articles that have multiple other critic citations. Any help you could give me understanding these cuts would be helpful. Thanks!72.240.137.150 (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@72.240.137.150: To be honest, given the history of your site I'm surprised they're entirely removed as well - perhaps I should have questioned the IP editor more.

At the same time, check out WP:WEIGHT. If we look at an edit like SpongeBob, You're Fired!, a quote of that length would be too long for any source. I can understand that you'd want to get extra traffic to your site, and that's fine considering how potentially useful your site could be - but it's got to be more subtle. A review for the episode compilation wouldn't belong on a single episode review. On another edit like Thunderball, all you'd have to write is DVD Talk said that "Thunderball is the apex of the 'classic Bond' cycle of films.", and that's fine.

Your site is definitely WP:RELIABLE and is great for a reception section. But if you take a more prominent source like The Guardian, any time they're referenced in an article they'll only get a sentence max.

My suggestion to you would be to try revising your edits to a couple of movie pages, and tell me so that I can peer review it. Believe it or not, it's a tricky situation as most editors would agree your sources are valuable and improve a page, but we don't want to permanently scare you away by performing a mass revert like has just happened. If I can review a few edits after telling you this and they're fine, you're welcome to add your site to articles as you'll now know how to do it properly.

I do want to insist that if you have any questions please let me know and I'd be happy to answer them. And in general, nice site! I love how some of the reviews like this one even go into the technical details of the DVD you're watching. Thank you NottNott talk|contrib 10:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you! Mario1811111111111 (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

WakuWaku Japan logo change

Please modify WakuWaku Japan logo with matched size on that logo.

By Mario Segale

@Mario1811111111111: Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. Do you want me to increase the pixels/quality of the logo? Make the logo bigger on the page? NottNott talk|contrib 12:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Landau Forte Academy Tamworth Sixth Form, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamworth. 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) 10:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

New Suez Canal

Hello, First of all, I found the whole article as an official propaganda not a research article. I've merged two sections and removed "political motivated" edits.

Actually, you can revise the modifications I did with the previous one and you'd discover the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbarck (talk • contribs) 11:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Elbarck: You're going to have to explain what parts about the article were 'politically motivated; so that they can be altered to better fit in with WP:NPOV. Removing large swathes of purely useful and factual information like the 'Cost and Funding' section seems a bit unnecessary. NottNott talk|contrib 11:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually if you've checked you'd find that I've merged two sections (Benefits and risks) & (Cost and Funding) in a new section & was called "Benefits, Costs & Risks".... Because both sections had repeated information....

For example:

Under the old section "Cost and Funding"

The project reduces the availability of government revenues for other expenditures, as the Ministry of Finance guarantees the certificates and sets aside funds in a special account at the Central Bank to pay quarterly interest of E£1.9 billion.

Under the old section "Benefits and risks"

The chairman of the Suez Canal Authority, Vice-Admiral Mohab Mamish, announced that the revenues from the Suez Canal would jump from $5 billion to $12.5 billion annually.

In the overview you'd find this "The opening day was also declared a holiday in Egypt and some Islamic scholars compared the project to Muhammad’s digging of a trench, to defend Medina from attackers, during the Battle of the Trench."

Although the same source was putting that info as an introduction to the real facts which wasn't mentioned after that "Full stop" as it says (In economic terms, however, the expansion of the Suez Canal is a questionable endeavour at a time when the government is struggling to provide adequate services to its citizens. True, the channel is a significant source of revenue. Last year it pumped $5.5 billion into an economy weakened by years of turmoil. But both this sum and the number of ships transiting the canal have been flat since 2008.)

Please check my revision, If you found that I've deleted ONE fact, please tell me.... All I did is removing rhetoric speech and restricting to the facts for example:

I put this sentence with a better source from Washington-post: "Egyptian officials especially the chairman of the Suez Canal Authority, Vice-Admiral Mohab Mamish claimed that the $8.2 billion project, which expands capacity to 97 ships per day, will more than double annual revenues to some $13.5 billion by 2023. That, however, would require yearly growth of some 10%, a rosy projection given that in the entire period from 2000 to 2013 world seaborne shipping grew by just 37%, according to UNCTAD. A recent forecast from the IMF suggests that in the decade up to 2016 the annual rate of growth for global merchandise trade will have averaged 3.4%"

Instead of this old one: "The chairman of the Suez Canal Authority, Vice-Admiral Mohab Mamish, announced that the revenues from the Suez Canal would jump from $5 billion to $12.5 billion annually. However, according to the Egyptian trade expert Omar el-Shenety, the official estimate of traffic doubling in the first year of the canal's operation is somewhat exaggerated.[6] ::Higher traffic projections could be affected by a slump in global trade or by increased fees.[13] The traffic has not increased since 2008.[14]"

It has summarized a lot of the info which was published in the whole article.... elbarck (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Elbarck: formatted your text here for readability I might be missing something here, but what about paragraphs like:

Six new tunnels for cars and trains are also planned across the canal of 193.30 km length, there is only tunnel under the canal right now Ahmed Hamdi Tunnel, which connects Suez with the Sinai.

The project reduces the availability of government revenues for other expenditures, as the Ministry of Finance guarantees the certificates and sets aside funds in a special account at the Central Bank to pay quarterly interest of E£1.9 billion.

During a state visit to Russia, President el-Sisi said that he had agreed with his Russian counterpart President Vladimir Putin to establish a Russian industrial zone as part of the new project.

References

These are a few phrases for some reason I couldn't find in the new revision, and perhaps they should be considered for inclusion (or maybe I didn't read them in your latest revision, it's a big change!) Other than that, I'm by no means knowledgeable in the subject area, and a lot of the changes seem really positive. NottNott talk|contrib 12:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@NottNott: Yes, about the paragraph of new the tunnels, If you checked you'd find they're talking about tunnels all over the canal not under or related to the new short branch (It can't be done logically), which wasn't mentioned in the first place and since I did a lot of changes on the article before adding its height (The first editor tried to show that it's really a parallel canal not a very short branch of it) , But After some consideration in my last edit I found that they should be put at the article of Suez Canal not this article.... I actually was going to put that paragraph after editing (Future projects) to the Suez Canal article but I've got a notification about your revision here.

About the paragraph of the visit, I didn't think any diplomatic visit as a fact, especially the last international economic reports show a decline in everything.... They could agree to go to the moon, but did they really went to the moon..?!

Please revise all the edits I've done, and compare my edits to the original article which I thought it was a statement coming from a North Korean TV elbarck (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Elbarck: I'd say that your revision does condense the information heavily though. There's a lot of irrelevant detail in the old revision. At a glance I wouldn't say there's many WP:NPOV in the previous revision, just over-detail. Although, it did lean on pro-Egyptian news sources a bit too much. I think your revision should be fine given my lack of knowledge on the subject anyway - you might want to add in the future projects paragraph as you said to the Suez Canal article. I'll restore your edits. NottNott talk|contrib 21:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Critical reception deleted from pages-REVISED

H,i, I went ahead as you suggested (see below in original post) and revised three entries--Corky (film), Lolly-Madonnna XXX, and Soldier Blue--for your review. I've greatly reduced the length of the quotes as you suggested. Thanks again; I appreciated your original feedback and kind words. Paul Mavis

ORIGINAL POST Hi, my name is Paul Mavis. Apparently, several critical reception additions I made to pages were removed as "spam." I'm not sure why that would be. I write for an accredited review site (DVD Talk). I'm a published film historian (The Espionage Filmography, McFarland), as well as a ten year member of the Online Film Critics Society. Many of the pages I added to, had no other citations for critical reception. I was only trying to expand the articles. I don't see how that would be "spam," particularly on articles that have multiple other critic citations. Any help you could give me understanding these cuts would be helpful. Thanks!72.240.137.150 (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

   @72.240.137.150: To be honest, given the history of your site I'm surprised they're entirely removed as well - perhaps I should have questioned the IP editor more.

   At the same time, check out WP:WEIGHT. If we look at an edit like SpongeBob, You're Fired!, a quote of that length would be too long for any source. I can understand that you'd want to get extra traffic to your site, and that's fine considering how potentially useful your site could be - but it's got to be more subtle. A review for the episode compilation wouldn't belong on a single episode review. On another edit like Thunderball, all you'd have to write is DVD Talk said that "Thunderball is the apex of the 'classic Bond' cycle of films.", and that's fine.

   Your site is definitely WP:RELIABLE and is great for a reception section. But if you take a more prominent source like The Guardian, any time they're referenced in an article they'll only get a sentence max.

   My suggestion to you would be to try revising your edits to a couple of movie pages, and tell me so that I can peer review it. Believe it or not, it's a tricky situation as most editors would agree your sources are valuable and improve a page, but we don't want to permanently scare you away by performing a mass revert like has just happened. If I can review a few edits after telling you this and they're fine, you're welcome to add your site to articles as you'll now know how to do it properly.

   I do want to insist that if you have any questions please let me know and I'd be happy to answer them. And in general, nice site! I love how some of the reviews like this one even go into the technical details of the DVD you're watching. Thank you Face-smile.svg NottNott talk|contrib 10:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.137.150 (talk)  

Please pardon and delete my former edits

Hello, please pardon my edits on the Ken Whitman page. I was making changes in effort to help prevent others from being scammed as I was, but im new to wikipedia and was unaware of the rules of editing. Also, mistakenly wrote my business name in a talk discussion with you. Im new to this and wasnt aware our discussion was public, i though it was just between us. I do not wish to have my business name publicly displayed in that conversation. I took the time to read all the rules and will not make any unuseful edits in the interest of these rules. I along with many others were scammed, and I just wanted to prevent others from being scammed as well. Those were my intentions, they were not malicious, but im aware i cant edit like I was anymore. Please remove my edit history (most especially my business name) from public view and give me a clean start to using this site acording to the rules. Ive read that having an unwanted business name publicly displayed is a legitimate reason for having that discussion removed. Please help me with this and sorry for all the hassle. Thank you! NovaStar1984 (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@NovaStar1984: No problem. I'm going to request a WP:REVDELETE for any historical revisions of this talk page containing your identity - data protection is of course a serious issue. NottNott talk|contrib 21:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@NovaStar1984:  Done NottNott talk|contrib 17:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

please view my response on my talk pageKarmaloop334 (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Landau Forte Academy Tamworth Sixth Form, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:884:A54E:F6D5:C2AF (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your welcome, cookies and offer of support - much appreciated.

Thanks again

Sallarol (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sallarol: No problem! All the best. NottNott talk|contrib 16:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

John Harwood edit

Hi,

While I respect your opinion on the matter, I believe that my edit did not change the nature of the article.

The definition of Propaganda is: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."

Given the state of the American media, and the blatant bias of the recent CNBC debate, and close ties between Democrats and those in the media, I believe that the characterization of "propagandist" is an accurate one. Perhaps more accurate than journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jermainj (talk • contribs) 05:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jermainj: Of course I'm not for or against your viewpoint, but you must bear in mind Wikipedia's policies. Unless you can WP:SOURCE a number of reputable reliable sources that back up this claim, as it is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and could be potentially WP:LIBELOUS. I'd suggest you cite the claim he is a 'propagandist' in the lead section.

This may be rather shocking to a new editor, but I'm sure you've made these mistakes in good faith rather than with intent to damage the wiki. If you have any questions about this, please let me know on this talk page. Thank you. NottNott talk|contrib 13:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

Edits on Islamic Society of Boston page

Hello NottNott - Just wanted to mention that I'm editing a page you've been involved with in the last few days. You were reverting a section deletion by a user named Aam49516 that you judged was vandalism. I think the poor fellow was just a newbie but he should have communicated a bit more (he did add an edit summary to his second attempt at deletion which both you and JamesBWatson seem to have overlooked - but it would have been better for him to discuss it more). Anyway - before his edits, I had posted a question on the article's talk page asking whether we should delete the section in question because it was unbalanced both in terms of size relative to the rest of the article, and in POV. So, taking his actions as implying agreement with my concern -- and taking your actions as implying that you don't want the whole section deleted -- I've trimmed down the section. If you disagree with the edits I hope you'll discuss them on the article's talk page. Thanks. And best wishes in your fight against vandalism, which certainly is a real problem on Wikipedia! Megercliff (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Megercliff: Thanks for getting in touch, I hope I can explain the situation a bit more clearly. I never considered the edits as vandalism, but they're certainly under a WP:COI as he made a deliberate effort to remove sourced content for the article to further his own agenda against verifiable sources. The only attempt at justification the editor made that I could find was Islam has no ties to extremism which goes against the wealth of sources already referenced in the article. An attempt at justification isn't justification

A block is always a final resort, and most people editing in this way would have communicated more in order to sort something out, but as per WP:BLOCK, Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. Several efforts were already made to contact the editor which were completely ignored, so there's absolutely nothing else that can be done. If the editor wants to try again to make a good edit, he can try again in 24 hours.

After going through your revision it's much tidier, you're certainly right that it's better to follow a wikilink to find more info on a topic. I've got no objections. I hope I've explained the reasoning behind the block properly, and I'm sorry this post was so dry. If you've got any more questions however, feel free to ask. Thanks! Y NottNott talk|contrib 18:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@NottNott:Thanks for the further background. I actually agree the block was a good idea -- if it will get Aam49516 to calm down and read up on real editing. (It's certainly verifiable that Islam has links to extremism!) I didn't know that attempts were made to contact them, and you're totally right they should talk more. I appreciate your thoughts. Best wishes, Megercliff (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

41st British Columbia general election

Hi NottNott, I agree with your edit to the above article where you reverted the previous edit. However, I don't agree with the reason you gave; I would have pointed out that the OP rider was crystal ball and unnecessary. If it re-appears referenced to a reliable source, I would probably revert it. I also think your edit was not a minor edit and should not have been flagged by you as such, particularly given that it was a revert edit. Graemp (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Graemp: Thanks for getting in touch. Using an anti-vandalism tool like WP:Huggle means you can only give one reason to a revert - the edit violated WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFIABILITY. I could have reverted it under any one of those reasons, as long as it's gone it's fine. Also, check out WP:Minor edit - 'A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.' I hope that explains my edit summary - but feel free to ask any more questions if you feel necessary. NottNott talk|contrib 13:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have never used an anti-vandalism tool, so your insight on rigidity is interesting. I don't think I would have described the edit you reverted as vandalism, so perhaps that particular tool was not your best option. Minor edit policy does give editors a lot of subjective cover as your quote demonstrates, which is why I drew out the particular distinction of reverting. I hope that you will take on board the points I have made. Graemp (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Graemp: WP:HUGGLE pulls up a list of recent changes and filters them by likelihood that the edits aren't constructive. Not all edits reverted through the tool are WP:Vandalism - think of it as a swiss-army knife for fast reverts. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. NottNott talk|contrib 14:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

as this conversation demonstrates "could never be the subject of a dispute" does not apply. In this case you may be fortunate that the reverted edit won't come back sourced. Graemp (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Graemp: If it came back in it's current state but sourced, the edit would need a rewrite. The edit as presented shouldn't be the subject of a dispute at all, unless an editor wants to introduce unsourced statistics that goes against WP:NPOV. See WP:LAME. NottNott talk|contrib 11:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup. That is probably the sort of steer the editor should have got. Graemp (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)