User talk:NottNott/Archives/2016/September

Your message to me announcing censoring of my information on the unsupported allegation of info unbalanced

Is there a particular fact that I provided that you would like to take issue with? Would it not be appropriate for Wikipedia censors to name their issues as opposed to blanket censorship of facts that make the censor squirm for unrevealed reasons? The primary reason that I entered the edit was that the approved information provided was by Wikipedia was contrary to the findings made by the Courts in the Country in question. May I very politely suggest that the unbalanced part is not on this end of the net? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.2.31.10 (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@174.2.31.10: Hey there, welcome to Wikipedia. I reverted your edit because it wasn't written in a balanced way and could be read as speculative - the first part seems okay but 'there must be other reasons for the attack on the INTER TV station. , This is not to say that there are not special challengers for News Providers in Ukraine. etc. WP:Verifiability states that All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. - so I've removed it because there weren't sources for these statements. I hope you can see my reasons for a revert, and by citing more sources and adapting your writing style for balance it would definitely be a constructive edit. Feel free to message me if you have any questions. -NottNott|talk 02:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh common man!

Your site they are likely to read.

Let it be there so that they get the message - a few days or weeks. Then, be glad to remove it, no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.245.124 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@122.161.245.124: Hi there, welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion so I've reverted your edit. This is a collaborative encyclopedia project, not a means of communicating with a corporate entity - you must do that by yourself if you wish to voice your concerns. -NottNott|talk 17:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the greeting.

Thanks NottNott for the early greeting. I have put a bit of a story on my talk that hopefully explains the username. Lazybobsautorepairs (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lazybobsautorepairs: Hey, as you probably know by now I've left a message on your talk page. -NottNott|talk 18:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Your Warning about Alexis Texas

You get to know that Mr Pete is the former husband of the pornoghraphy actress Alexis Texas If I am wrong prove it Twixx31 17:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twixx31 (talk • contribs)

@Twixx31: You should provide a link here to back up your claim. If not, it cannot be verified and it shouldn't belong on Wikipedia. -NottNott|talk 17:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Twixx31: After a search it looks pretty clear that this is true. I'm struggling to find a reliable source to back this up, but this information for the time being should definitely be in the article. -NottNott|talk 17:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

NottNott Don't be a Stupid ! The Indians always do that by putting there names . That's is her real husband Mr Pete Or see the historical of the changes ! Twixx31 17:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twixx31 (talk • contribs)

@Twixx31: See my reply above - I think your claim is right. The information should be added to the article. -NottNott|talk 17:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

NottNott sorry for call you a stupid 😢 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twixx31 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Twixx31: No problem! Do you have a good link that could be added to the article to back up the claim? While a Google search makes it clear that it's true, a reliable source is still needed to add it to the article. -NottNott|talk 17:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)