User talk:Nczempin/Archive 1
 | 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
JonRB
Hi Nicolai. Re: The post you made on my talk page. I'll email you as suggested -- JonRB 19:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Golly, do I really want to be viewed as the guy who edits all the Waffen-SS pages??? Nczempin 12:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
JHunterJ
Completed this requested translation:
Abel, Inga (actress)
- Corresponding English-language article: Inga Abel
- Worth doing because: no article, English Article requested by Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave_famous_people/A/Aa
- Originally Requested by: Nczempin 21:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Status: In progress JHunterJ 21:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Other notes:
- Supported:
Airam
Airam is not an "insignificant company". It's one of the biggest manufacturers of electrical equipment, especially lightbulbs, in Finland. See [1]. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's automatically insignificant. JIP | Talk 09:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
prod?
Did you incorrectly notify me of the PROD of Tom Clancy's novel that has "checkmate" in the title? I had nothing to do with that article, but I have worked on the chess article checkmate. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Flip-screen
Hi there. Could you be a little more specific about where you think the OR is over at flip-screen? The article could do with more referencing for sure, but are there statements that you don't think can be supported? You could mark them up specifically with a {{fact}} tag, or put something on the talkpage. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 15:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- OR doesn't automatically imply incorrectness. If I had found anything glaringly wrong, I would have removed it, changed it or marked with {{fact}} or with something else. There are cases where just the {{citations needed}} tag is needed, and there are cases where additionally or instead, OR tags are required. I considered this to be the case, from the general tone of the article. I can also be more specific if you want, but tagging was the only thing for which I had time. -- Nczempin (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Nutting/Pinball
They licensed the technology, which was turned in to Spirit of '76. The original pinball machine they did it with was one called Flicker that Bally gave them to retrofit with the new tech. You can read more about it here (a copy of an article from GameRoom magazine). BTW, good job on the rewriting/reformatting process. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- that's quite a bit of info in there (that perhaps we can use on one of the other related pages?), although there's at least one mistake (Dave Nutting and Computer Space). The question is how much of that really needs to go in the Gun Fight article. I only put in the bit about the pinball after you piqued my curiosity on the video arcade vs. arcade first mP. It doesn't seem clear what the "it" refers to, is it Dave Nutting Associates, Midway, or what? -- Nczempin (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- I had mainly given you the link to the article for your own records and interest, and yes I'm aware of the Computer Space error - the two companies often get confused because of the two brothers. I just clarified it a bit more on the page, I thought the abbreviated "Nutting" you had mentioned was Dave Nutting Associates and not simply Dave's last name. The company would be who actually licensed it, not Dave himself. And the original statement that had been there (about building Spirit of '76) was incorrect, they had simply licensed their microprocessor driven technology to them which was then turned in to Spirit of '76. Really, all the article needs is a one liner that they had previously done a similar process (converting from an older tech to mP driven) with pinball, which resulted in a commercial release via Spirit of '76. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Much clearer and more correct. The sentence has become a little long; I take the blame for that. Your pdf was very useful for me to understand what you wanted to clarify, because I had thought that DN the person had also done the So76, but it looks he had delegated the task (haven't read the full article yet). Should we move this discussion to the article talk page (both what we already discussed and whatever may follow)? -- Nczempin (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- I had mainly given you the link to the article for your own records and interest, and yes I'm aware of the Computer Space error - the two companies often get confused because of the two brothers. I just clarified it a bit more on the page, I thought the abbreviated "Nutting" you had mentioned was Dave Nutting Associates and not simply Dave's last name. The company would be who actually licensed it, not Dave himself. And the original statement that had been there (about building Spirit of '76) was incorrect, they had simply licensed their microprocessor driven technology to them which was then turned in to Spirit of '76. Really, all the article needs is a one liner that they had previously done a similar process (converting from an older tech to mP driven) with pinball, which resulted in a commercial release via Spirit of '76. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Dean Close School
Well, maybe OK to keep the drama section for a bit as long as you or others are willing to do some work on it soon, but it really is very sloppily written for an encyclopedia, looks like a puff-piece, and I do think that schools and academic institutions wikipedia entries should have higher standards and set an example to us mere mortals by insisting on using proper references. I don't like using those big warning boxes, by the way, I think they are really ugly! Cheers! Excalibur (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there are lots of sloppy articles in Wikipedia, and the way they are usually dealt with is that they are tagged. The boxes are really ugly, and that is part of their purpose. Another part is to point out the problem to possible editors, especially inexperienced ones (which probably dominate on this particular page). Removing is usually reserved for possible copyright violations, and even then the guideline is to remove them from the article and include them in the talk page so that it is easier to fix them. Kudos for asking for high standards, but remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. And as for "fix it soon", just have a look at the articles that are tagged for lacking references, and check how long some of them have been around. If you want the article to improve sooner, your best bet is probably to Be Bold. One way would be to edit with a smaller knife. For example, the tag on "well known for high quality" has been around for a while. That sentence could arguably be removed right now; it is POV and unreferenced. And the rest of the section sounds like it was taken straight from the DCS web page; possible plagiarism and/or Copyvio. I care enough about the page to remove the most blatant cases (like recently some bits about Hockey), but I guess for some of the others I consider my time more well-spent on other articles. YMMV -- Nczempin (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the boxes are becoming a kind of editorial bullying, like "I can put up a bigger box than you, thereby proving my Alpha Male status!" you know. But mainly I just think they mess up the project and intimidate newbies. Surely it cant be that difficult to come up with some evidence for these particular assertions, it's just laziness, isnt it? So a deletion is the best possible short, sharp shock, IMHO. And whilst I accept there are different ways of dealing with such delinquencies, I think deletion usually gets faster results! Excalibur (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your view on the boxes seems to be a minority view in Wikipedia. I for one find them very useful; they don't proclaim alpha male any differently (i. e. IMHO not at all) than just deleting content). Why do you think they mess up the project and intimidate newbies? I don't know how difficult to come up with references, but those who put them up in the first place either didn't have any or didn't think of adding them (most likely WP's editing standards were much lower then). Deletion only gets faster deletion results, but the aim should be to improve the encyclopaedia, for which deletion cannot be the primary goal. BTW you may have noticed that I made some changes, perhaps it is more satisfactory to you now. I actually added two boxes, the primary reason being that I wasn't immediately able to fix the issues myself. I think improving yourself > pointing out issues >> deleting. The only reason your delete got a quick response was that I happened to have the page on my watchlist; you may have noticed that the article has a very low edit frequency. The page has a long way to go; it is currently considered "Start" class. Perhaps you can build on my minimal efforts, for example by responding to one of the boxes I put up? What would have been your alternative suggestion to my putting up the notice that I consider the article to be overlinked? -- Nczempin (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea what "sell out status" is, just for starters: I cant find any reference to it on Google except for a couple of low-key acts claiming to have it, which is worrying. I also don't mind being in a minority of editors who loathe these boxes, we are nothing if not a diverse community! And the word "recent" has no meaning: alongside each production we need a year, otherwise these will just become fossilised favourites: anyway it really makes no difference in the long run which plays were produced, this belongs in the school magazine, not a mighty global encyclopedia, well unless they were truly distinguished. Wikipedia is not a school annual report/brag! It is only moderately more interesting or notable than what they served for lunch in the canteen last Thursday Excalibur (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're perfectly right on these issues. "recent" (along with "currently") is a common problem on Wikipedia. "sell out status" is just bad language style. Let's see if anything is left after these issues have been fixed. You did notice that I cut the first sentence, I hope. The biggest problem I see is that you delete it now, and then in [insert arbitrary duration here] some DCS pupil will copy something from the school website, and we start all over again. That is really one of the reasons it is better to get it fixed. And with citations, it is a little problematic. I certainly don't have any except access to their web page. So I'd rather point out that they're missing and give those (perhaps teachers or administrators at DCS?) a chance to provide some better references. And: you DO KNOW that the boxes don't appear on e. g. printout versions, right? For me the boxes are just saying: "There are some SERIOUS problems with this article. Please help fix them if you can." If you just delete, the article will most likely languish eternally in its current state (or even revert to a worse one). -- Nczempin (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am too remote from the issues to care very much these days, and in some ways, the insiders are too close to be objective. Ownership is the problem here: there is actually a lot to be said for stubs. A stub isn't an admission of defeat, rather it is an acceptance of mediocre or provincial achievement in the greater scale of things. DCS might be best accepting and embracing that modesty, as so far at least, it has failed to rattle the planet's foundations. Nothing wrong with that either, but just as DCS isnt likely to rattle the cages of academia, it ain't a real mover nor even a shaker in the field of Drama. Well, not in fiction anyway, the real-life events have been much more fun! Excalibur (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the main problem is that news articles or presentation pages were simply copied verbatim from the DCS web page. Talking about DCS drama on the DCS page doesn't require it to be mover or shaker in the field of drama. Creating a separate page "Drama at Dean Close School" would require that. I can't quite follow what you're saying about stubs. The article is one notch above Stub quality; I don't see what admission of defeat of provincial achievement has to do with it. It is a school, what did you expect? Have you taken a look at the article recently? I took out more from the drama section and added another tag. I hope your issues have been addressed (although the ones I wasn't able to fix myself I addressed with cleanup tags), and perhaps one day someone closer to the school can expand the section (and others) with neutral facts. Incidentally, my affiliation with DCS is that I went there 25 years ago. I only watch the page to prevent the blatant vandalism and the misguided copying-and-pasting from the school's web site. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am too remote from the issues to care very much these days, and in some ways, the insiders are too close to be objective. Ownership is the problem here: there is actually a lot to be said for stubs. A stub isn't an admission of defeat, rather it is an acceptance of mediocre or provincial achievement in the greater scale of things. DCS might be best accepting and embracing that modesty, as so far at least, it has failed to rattle the planet's foundations. Nothing wrong with that either, but just as DCS isnt likely to rattle the cages of academia, it ain't a real mover nor even a shaker in the field of Drama. Well, not in fiction anyway, the real-life events have been much more fun! Excalibur (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're perfectly right on these issues. "recent" (along with "currently") is a common problem on Wikipedia. "sell out status" is just bad language style. Let's see if anything is left after these issues have been fixed. You did notice that I cut the first sentence, I hope. The biggest problem I see is that you delete it now, and then in [insert arbitrary duration here] some DCS pupil will copy something from the school website, and we start all over again. That is really one of the reasons it is better to get it fixed. And with citations, it is a little problematic. I certainly don't have any except access to their web page. So I'd rather point out that they're missing and give those (perhaps teachers or administrators at DCS?) a chance to provide some better references. And: you DO KNOW that the boxes don't appear on e. g. printout versions, right? For me the boxes are just saying: "There are some SERIOUS problems with this article. Please help fix them if you can." If you just delete, the article will most likely languish eternally in its current state (or even revert to a worse one). -- Nczempin (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea what "sell out status" is, just for starters: I cant find any reference to it on Google except for a couple of low-key acts claiming to have it, which is worrying. I also don't mind being in a minority of editors who loathe these boxes, we are nothing if not a diverse community! And the word "recent" has no meaning: alongside each production we need a year, otherwise these will just become fossilised favourites: anyway it really makes no difference in the long run which plays were produced, this belongs in the school magazine, not a mighty global encyclopedia, well unless they were truly distinguished. Wikipedia is not a school annual report/brag! It is only moderately more interesting or notable than what they served for lunch in the canteen last Thursday Excalibur (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your view on the boxes seems to be a minority view in Wikipedia. I for one find them very useful; they don't proclaim alpha male any differently (i. e. IMHO not at all) than just deleting content). Why do you think they mess up the project and intimidate newbies? I don't know how difficult to come up with references, but those who put them up in the first place either didn't have any or didn't think of adding them (most likely WP's editing standards were much lower then). Deletion only gets faster deletion results, but the aim should be to improve the encyclopaedia, for which deletion cannot be the primary goal. BTW you may have noticed that I made some changes, perhaps it is more satisfactory to you now. I actually added two boxes, the primary reason being that I wasn't immediately able to fix the issues myself. I think improving yourself > pointing out issues >> deleting. The only reason your delete got a quick response was that I happened to have the page on my watchlist; you may have noticed that the article has a very low edit frequency. The page has a long way to go; it is currently considered "Start" class. Perhaps you can build on my minimal efforts, for example by responding to one of the boxes I put up? What would have been your alternative suggestion to my putting up the notice that I consider the article to be overlinked? -- Nczempin (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikiproject electronics
Programme is not a "highly unusual spelling variation" as you state in your edit summary. It is the normal spelling of the word in British English. Although admittedly, it is more often spelt "program" for the computer meaning even in Britain. I would advise caution changing spelling styles, this can be controversial on Wikipedia. Unless there is a good reason to change, WP:ENGVAR mandates that editors continue to use the spelling system that the article was originally written in.
- I am only referring to the spelling in terms of computer software. In this meaning it is unusual to spell it this way, even in Britain; not by all means "the normal spelling" (which you just said yourself; did I accidentally change something that did not refer to a computer program?). It is not an issue of Britain vs. U. S., but an issue of anachronistic vs. current use; I use British spelling almost exclusively, and I have received large parts of my programming education in the U. K. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- [2]: "UK: programme is used in all cases except for computer code, in which case program is generally used. Older sources may use programme for computer code." [3]: "(Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science) Computing a variant spelling of program" [4]: "Spell this word program when referring to computers or computing, and also in American English. Use programme for other senses such as 'television programme' or 'a programme of events'." [5]: "program or ( sometimes ) programme (ˈprəʊɡræm)". Those were just the top hits from Mr. Google. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Aiv
Sorry about [6], must have slipped on my watchlist just before i left my computer then came back to see your contribs screen and realised what had happened and that it had already been undone--Jac16888Talk 00:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- np. Nczempin (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I (who reverted that) actually did not doubt it was something like that :-), and asked to explain just in case I missed something. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Where can I put my message
Where can I put my message --74.143.232.22 (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I could try to help if you told be what exactly you're trying to achieve with that message. -- Nczempin (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Portal 2
IT SURE ADDS!! And besides, Portal is a prequel to Portal 2, that's why it is called Portal 2. *Tounge out* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.17.116.224 (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Prequel: "A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting." Other than that, it is not clear how a random quote from the first game adds value to the article in an encyclopedic way. "tongue out" is not very friendly, but I will take it as a light-hearted joke. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
*tounge out again* 194.17.116.224 (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Portal 2 2
- HRMHRM* Danskjävel! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.17.116.224 (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Riemerschmid
Thanks for removing the stub class. I had meant to do so but simply forgot. As for the hook, I'll wait for the author's opinion, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Pneumatic Institution
Hello! Your submission of Pneumatic Institution at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I removed all but one tag from the article, because you must have gotten all that information in the second half of the paragraph from somewhere. The other "example needed" and "why?" tags really aren't necessary for a start-up article. Please provide the reference and we'll wrap up this nomination. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Kommissar Hjuler shall become deleted?
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Someone has posted his personal information on User talk:SuggestBot. It seems to be the IP of a user who is involved in the deletion discussion on the page about him. Looks a little helpless, but for now I think the important part is that the phone number etc. is gone (not for self-promotion reasons, but because the user was not aware what he was doing, thinking that he was sending an email to a suggestion hotline or something like that).
I will delete the message, and I think an admin should purge it from the history. And then perhaps someone can help the guy (explaining policies etc.), I don't have time right now. -- Nczempin (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I didn't delete, I just made the phone numbers and emails unreadable; if you think they should go, please purge from the history. If you think they should stay, feel free to revert my making them unreadable. -- Nczempin (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- The protocol in this situation is to request Oversight, which hides the material even from administrators. Simple redaction can be used in the interim, but should use an innocuous edit summary, i.e., one that doesn't suggest that personal information was revealed. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- oh, that was stupid of me, sorry -- Nczempin (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry, it happens to the best of us. It was quickly oversighted, so probably no harm done :) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- did it here too -- Nczempin (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I filed another request and left the user a message. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- He does have an account: User:Kommissar Hjuler, but doesn't seem to be aware of the effects of logging in vs. not. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I filed another request and left the user a message. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- oh, that was stupid of me, sorry -- Nczempin (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- The protocol in this situation is to request Oversight, which hides the material even from administrators. Simple redaction can be used in the interim, but should use an innocuous edit summary, i.e., one that doesn't suggest that personal information was revealed. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Helpless is the correct term, haha, up to now, I am still not sure, how to talk to other users, if I can still edit an talk and leave a message like here at any talk sides. I am new at wikipedia. You are really helpful, and I just read here, at your comments, you have few time at the moment, so great that you took the time for the help. I am not really in fear by now, that the Notability will be a problem for the article on me or mama baer, I found a lot of other artciles here with same references, that are not discussed. I see the problem with my own involvement and just shortened the text to less text than it was, before I started editing it. My english is not "that" good, so I always have to look up some terms, and I always have to look up the shortenings used here. One question I have is, am I allowed to wrtite more articles during this discussion? Or in a way the question, is it "better" to me, not to write more articles. I just wrote an article on Philipp Graffham, an artist I collaborate with by mail. I expect him to be notable here, for I see lot of articles on artists that I expect to be as notable as him, but to this article just came the same banner, question of notability, the article is just my opinion, I will see, what the discussion brings. At the moment I would love to write articles on Keith A. Buchholz and The New Blockaders. The New Blockaders are not mentioned here, a fact I do n ot understand, this is a major band of industrial music. I am proud to have been working with them, that for sure, I cannot really say, if they are better know as Mama Baer and I today in music/art, they are much longer present, so I expect them to be better known, also Keith A. Buchholz. He is one of the main figures in fluxus today, and there is no article on him. If I see the really long article on Cecil Touchon, it astonishes me, that Keith is not mentioned. I would love to write on him and select info, but due to the banner at Philipp Grafhams article I think, there will be such a banner asking for notification as well then. As fluxus artist, Keith mainly works with blogs, the platform OPEN FLUXUS should be allowed for references, haha. I am now in contact with cecil Touchon, we will work together by mail, he saw my film at Chicago Fluxfest, the two curated, possibly they will show the film at New York as well. He invited me for an exhibition of collages in 2012, the world wide web is really a paradise for good contacts... So back to main question, is it better not writing new articles for me at the moment? Shall I wait, until discussion closes? Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate your thoughts on the AfD, I withdrew the nom as it seemed that there was sufficient notability established but I felt and continue to feel that the subject needs to refrain from editing the article. It seems that despite your considerable assistance he simply is not understanding what is required by the project and what an AfD is all about. It is making me seriously consider withdrawing my withdrawal and letting the AfD run its course. Paste Let’s have a chat. 08:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I strongly feel that the two issues are unrelated, and I will strongly support any measures to assure COI compliance. In fact, I will ask him to stay completely off the article for at least two weeks, and then we can ease him into "safe" editing via requests on the talk page. But I'm also open for your own suggestions. -- Nczempin (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, and fortunately Kommissar Hjuler now appears to be stepping back.Paste Let’s have a chat. 20:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I will not edit the articles on Mama Baer and me again for the next two weeks, and possibly never again if it is best for the article, if someone else can present those references needed, it might be better. And possibly the references are good enough. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hjuler comment
Hello, you stated in a comment, that I can email to you and your email is at tool box, but I did not find it. I am no good User. Possibly you can email me, mine is at website. I am not really used to the way of talking here, I always edit the passages, not sure, if this is correct. Quite a mess with my article. I expected it to be more subjective, when I first read it. I do not know the first editor. I think, it was Daniel Spicer, possibly I meet him, when we are at Cafe Oto in London on Friday.
I do not know, what is best yt, and I am astonished, that only The Wire is acceptable refrence, so possibly it is best to shorten the article to the info referable to by The Wire.
I expected it to be good idea to have lots of info at wikipedia, in a way, it is better for me and Mama BAer to be mentioned in one reliable sentence instead of being taken away completely.
You also stated at one comment, that an article can become set back (all my edits away), possibly this works.
I think the article I wrote for Graffham will be deleted, if Iread, that only The Wire is reliable. At the newspapers is only said, that Graffham works as artist.
Notability and References sometimes differ.
Someone else will better write articles on Keith A. Buchholz and and the New Blockaders, I think.
Possibly we can talk via email.
KHJ Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm concerned to see that User:Mamabaer has now appeared, this despite the fact that Kommissar Hjuler has already mentioned that she does not speak English. It seems reasonable to assume then that it Kommissar Hjuler and not his wife who is writing under this account? Any thoughts? Paste Let’s have a chat. 06:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's his Wikimedia account, used for uploading the pictures. I will let him know that it may be a good idea to globalize the one account and get rid of the other one. -- Nczempin (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for all your assistance on this. Paste Let’s have a chat. 13:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's his Wikimedia account, used for uploading the pictures. I will let him know that it may be a good idea to globalize the one account and get rid of the other one. -- Nczempin (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Pneumatic Institution
 | On 18 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pneumatic Institution, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that James Watt asked Sir Joseph Banks PRS to support the Pneumatic Institution, where willing subjects, including its laboratory superintendent, a young Humphry Davy, were given laughing gas? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
DW review
I left some commentary I could use for some structural changes for the reception. Before I go and add any of the famitsu stuff from Magicbox (if it exists), I'd like like some feedback there as it pertains to how to structure the article and some phrasing issues.陣内Jinnai 23:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Very busy right now, perhaps later this week. -- Nczempin (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an odd case - I have declined your speedy because it isn't, in fact, a copyvio: the supposed source is headed "SEMINAR REPORT 2009-2011", but the relevant text was already in our article in this version in December 2006. It seems "Jessy K" copied Wikipedia (without acknowledgement), not the other way around. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, right, forgot to check that, sorry. It didn't occur to me that this may be an old article; I'd have thought more people would have cleaned it up; it has a lot of issues. Nczempin (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
IPAc-en
Hello. Template:IPAc-en is not a Received Pronunciation template, but a dialect-neutral one. You should've investigated it more deeply. Also, there's not one American pronunciation, but at least four: [ˈkʰɔːɫ əv ˈdjuːti], [ˈkʰɔːɫ əv ˈduːti], [ˈkʰɑːɫ əv ˈdjuːti] and [ˈkʰɑːɫ əv ˈduːti]. But one thing that you (and others) seem to be right about, is that sometimes I'm putting the phonetic transcriptions where they're quite superfluous. I'll look into it, thanks. --Matthiaspl (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- "I came here for the most part to add IPA transcription to the articles". Please just make sure to choose more carefully those articles that deserve your efforts in this regard. And please consider what you were trying to achieve by the comment "That's your opinion and nothing else". You may perhaps be very experienced on the Polish Wikipedia, but here in the English one such a comment by a user that's been here some two weeks does not exactly help that user's credibility. Nczempin (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I've never really worked there. --Matthiaspl (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Sholay
I only checked the inter wiki link, not a reference. BTW, is it really preferable to have that ndash script rather than the actual ndash itself, which is accessible from Special characters -> Symbols on the edit menu? Those look very distracting to me. BollyJeff | talk 17:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, you're right. Not sure where I got the idea about the reference. As to the ndash, I used an automatic script and trust it to know what it's doing: User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js/Description#Features; if the script introduces anything that's wrong, feel free to correct it in the article and notify the script author. Nczempin (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Notice also that I did not add an ndash script, but 21x non-breaking space and 1x mdash (the symbol). Nczempin (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Invitation to WikiProject Electrical engineering
|
Hi fellow editor, |
Veryverser
Hello, Nczempin! Thanks for your assistance in dealing with Veryverser. I first encountered him back in April on the Lizzie Borden talk page[8], and he has reinserted the same tripe 6 different times since: [9] (on the article itself), [10], [11], [12], [13] (with a rude message to me), [14]. He's done the same thing at Thomas Edison, attempting to have his rant there up for over a year ([15], [16]). In digging through his edits, one sees that he is a nice guy at all , and is quite deservedly blocked. He really should be banned, but I've been removing his garbage as if here were. He's obviously proud of himself, which is why he always signs his name. If you happen to see him again, please don't hesitate letting me know, as I am quite tired of his antics and want to put an end to them. Thanks again! Doc talk 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism by Milliedeering7078
Hi. I've seen that you've given Milliedeering7078 a warning about vandalism. I don't think that it was really vandalism, though. He/she was just trying to help. I know that what he/she put was unencyclopedic, but that doesn't mean that it was vandalism. Remember to assume good faith. :) Hadger 21:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying she didn't try to include herself in a Wikipedia article (and that she thought this would be acceptable, perhaps just a test edit)? And she ignored the message by Cluebot, which was telling her to reconsider what she was doing, and continued doing what she was doing? I'm also curious as to why you chose to talk to me, but not to the editor who placed a vandalism Twinkle on her page a minute before me? Nczempin (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi im milliedeering7078 i didn't see any message at all i was only doing a test edit too. I don't want to be a famous person at all please forgive me im only editing now to reply to you sorry for every thing. milliedeering7078. 17:28 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Steam "As Of"
I moved this discussion to talk:Steam (software). Nczempin (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you be specific on the rule that made you revert the whole discussion to old, irrelevant information? Why did you feel the need to spam my talk page with a belated welcome when my account was registered six years ago? I have archived the section as best I could as per the rule Refactoring for Relevance, since it is no longer credible for improving the article. And ALSO I did put my signature with the four tildes, do you have anything else to nitpick? Umma Kynes 05:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Welcoming someone, even if it is belated, is usually considered to be a friendly gesture. Once you talk to me in a more constructive / friendlier / less aggressive manner than "do you have anything else to nitpick" or calling my welcome "spam", I will go back to WP:AGF and answer your questions, assuming they are not rhetorical. -- Nczempin (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Golden Sun: Dark Dawn
Hi! Thanks for the welcome message. You tagged a {{in universe}} for Golden Sun: Dark Dawn, but I don't now how to improve that. As you see, it isn't so easy to obtain a B- or higher class, so I just decided to improve it to C-. And I'm hoping you'll give me some advice. --123456789qwertacct (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- The tag is independent of the class; there are plenty of B articles that have the tag. I can't give you any specific advice on how to move from in-universe to a more preferred style, but I would just look at the guidelines as well as a few good and/or featured articles that contain plot elements and follow their lead style-wise. Nczempin (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests
Hi, saw your note at the assessment page for Kratos (God of War). I have responded and there is now a nomination at the talk page. JDC808 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't wanna sound like I'm rushing you or anything, but could you possibly review this A-Class candidate? I know it needs two reviewers to pass and one reviewer has voiced their support. Now just waiting for someone else to review it. No rush and only if you have time. Thanks. JDC808 (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Question
I just have a question that doesn't regard the above assessment. On the quality scale, it says that "Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class." However, on the assessment request page, if we want to nominate an article for A-Class, it says "Please note that articles must be GA-class before nomination." This seems contradicting, unless I'm missing something. Doesn't an article with "Good article status" mean it's "GA-Class"? If that is the case, then which of the two noted above is wrong? JDC808 (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have an official answer of course, but I would personally err towards the side of getting an article to GA first. Nczempin (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
James Clerk Maxwell... clearly German
Of course, that's what it should be. Please change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.237.7 (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sarcastic comments like these do not convince anyone who is trying to assume good faith when looking at the posts you've made so far. Nczempin (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You are a self-righteous fool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.237.7 (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what gives you this impression, but clearly you have a lot to learn about contributing constructively to Wikipedia. Nczempin (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You show your self-righteousness through the self-referential loop within your patronising statement above. How dare you patronise me! Who do you think you are? Listen, Maxwell was without doubt British, subset Scottish. 92.20.237.7 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm only trying to help, as it is obvious to any experienced editor that you are not (an experienced editor). Nczempin (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Your comment on my edit to Jon Christopher Davis
A rather poor comment. It is not 'recentism' , it is quite durable. But what do you know and who are you to judge? Interesting that you are hunting down my edits. Suggests a surfeit of enthusiasm on your part.
Your comment: '(used proper reference format. Not sure if this piece of trivia is really notable enough for inclusion. Reeks of recentism. (edited with ProveIt)) (undo)
92.20.237.7 (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- My "enthusiasm" lies with improvement of Wikipedia pages. When I see that someone (especially an anonymous editor) has made edits that are potentially nonconstructive (even if due to lack of WP:COMPETENCE rather than malicious intent), I, like many other Wikipedia editors, reserve the right to "hunt down" that person's edits to check how serious the problem is, if any. And when such problematic edits are made I may make changes. Perhaps now you could spend the time and learn how a reference is cited correctly on Wikipedia, rather than find more ways to argue with me. Nczempin (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
RE: Pro Evolution Soccer
Hi, I sincerely apologize for my unacceptable behavior. At that very moment I was angry and that resulted in my edit summary being written that way. I assure you this is not something that is going to be repeated. JuventiniFan (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Apology accepted, although I think you should not apologize to me, but to the person who moved the page, since you were essentially addressing him. Check the article's history to find out the name. Nczempin (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Isidor Isaac Rabi
I am searching for an editor to do the Good Article Review on Isidor Isaac Rabi. It has been waiting since mid June and I would like it to be reviewed before I have to leave the country. If you have the time to review, it would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism to videogame articles by Belgian IPs
Hi. I see you and some other editors have been struggling with vandalism to our videogame articles from multiple Belgian IPs:
- 178.119.63.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 178.117.164.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 178.117.164.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Please feel free to ask any administrator to block any new accounts at the first sign of more vandalism; make sure they know the history of these other accounts so they don't worry about the new account or IP first having had multiple warnings. If it's the same person, they've had all the warnings and blocks they need to know our rules. Also, if they know this history, an administrator will likely block any new account for a longer period.
Thanks for watching out for our content! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. The Synopsis section has been rewritten, can I remove the {{in-universe}} now?--123456789qwertacct (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- You can remove tags whenever you feel they have been properly handled; you don't need to ask the editor who added the tag. -- Nczempin (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Lazy Bast*rd.
Instead of removing 'good faith' edits, why don't you rephrase them yourself? Pure laziness and a counter-productive attitude way to do things. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Before we take this discussion any further, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with a few of the principles of Wikipedia, starting with WP:CIVILITY. Then, note that by simply re-adding the content I removed (because it doesn't conform to other principles of Wikipedia, which I mentioned in the edit summary), you are projecting the impression that you want to start an edit war. If your behaviour indicates an unwillingness to behave according to the five pillars, you are risking your IP address getting blocked. -- Nczempin (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- This doesn't address the question I proposed, and your attempts to smear me as a belligerent are unfounded , unnecessary and rather pathetic. Can you clarify why you have time to revert edits and threaten others with suspension (!) but cannot address the issue at hand, i.e. why can you not be bothered to add to the article instead of taking information away from it? It is surely easier to click a button and remove an edit another has made in good faith - yes - and also has the presumed benefit of tickling your ego a little, but it doesn't help the community at large. Pray tell? Perhaps I too should join in with this wilful self-delusion that removing helpful edits is someone benefiting others 86.151.246.175 (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- How I spend my time is none of your concern. If I merely revert something that doesn't befit the article there is no reason to start a discussion on my motivation or my priorities. You don't seem to be capable or willing to fix the problems I pointed out (and incapable to follow or understand Wikipedia guidelines), so if no-one else will fix them, eventually I may do it myself. Note that just because you put a question mark at the end, it doesn't mean "why don't you..." is a real question (i. e. not merely a rhetorical question, which you even decided to answer yourself); don't assume you are somehow entitled to an answer. And, boy, you are taking one little revert awfully personally. I guess that that one post is a large part of your overall contributions to Wikipedia so far (as far as anyone can tell, since you're either hiding behind an IP address or don't even know how to get a username). Oh, unlike you, I did not call you names or judged you in any way (unlike what you did to me); I merely pointed out to you what the possible consequences of some of your actions may be, since you seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing. -- Nczempin (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- So the conclusion we can draw is that you cannot be bothered to edit articles correctly, but you are happy to entirely remove an edit made by someone else that is (by your own admission) accurate and make in good faith. You are too lazy to rewrite that small sentence to fit your own narrow self-appointed regulations but are happy to idle away the day arguing the toss with me here - what a worthwhile contributor you are. At least we have it in writing now for all to see. By the by, I didn't request a clarification on your (presumably rather dull and pathetic) life outside of Wikipedia, it is not my concern in the slightest (most can easily draw conclusions from the way you've handled yourself in this episode) - but a word to the wise, if you are going to attempt (and fail) to patronise someone's lack of understanding of "rhetoric" then it's certainly advisable that you first have a grasp of the basic concepts yourself. Get back on your "high horse" in your own little kingdom where your contributions to Wikipedia are clearly vastly overstated and don't reflect reality, since that's what makes your pathetic life feel more wholesome and complete. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please elaborate; what you're saying is fascinating. -- Nczempin (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, that moment when you realise you're way out of your depth. Take this as confirmation that you have no interest in answering my questions and are acting on dubious self-interest only. Another 15 year old self-appointed-expert-on-nothing Wikipedian. Good luck with your edits, how fulfilling your life must be. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- You didn't ask any genuine questions. You did make a lot of assumptions, such as my age. Your hit rate is very low, unfortunately. BTW what is the ratio of constructive posts vs. talking about other Wikipedia editors in your history so far? -- Nczempin (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- OMG, I am so out of my depth. I concede. Your depth > my depth. Can you leave me alone now? -- Nczempin (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, that demon amongst men, the IP address user who won't sign in or sign up, a common phobia here on Wikipedia and the bane of so many Wikipedians existence. How tragic! Your hangups over my lack-of-username are immaterial though, so I'll assume you genuinely did miss my question earlier (maybe you were sifting through other edits and reverting them unnecessarily?!?) Hmm, whatever. Let's start over. I will ask the question again, let's sit down .... let's take it nice....and....slowly this time. Here's the question: "In what way is it beneficial to the Wikipedia community to remove a "good faith" edit entirely? If you have the time to do that, and have the time to write a description about why you removed it, then surely you have the time to correct the original edit?" If there is a reasoned response to this, I would be most gracious if you can provide it. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- In what way is it beneficial to the Wikipedia for you to keep posting on my talk page? It's an obvious rhetorical question (one to which the asker does not expect an answer), loaded with strawman assumptions, one (actually a bunch of them) that I genuinely decided to treat the way it (they) should be treated. If you decide to post as an IP although you are an experienced user, that makes your behaviour even more pointless. Now kindly just leave me alone. Surely you have the time to correct _your_ original edit? -- Nczempin (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you knew the first thing about WP:CIVILITY you would not call someone lazy, let alone a "bast*rd" (and then somehow expect a serious answer???). Stop trolling me. -- Nczempin (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a rhetorical question: "Instead of removing 'good faith' edits, why don't you rephrase them yourself?" , your attempts to dismiss it are telling. It is a shame you could not answer it Nczempin. I see from your Talk page that there are others who you have treated in the same self-righteous, condescending and unhelpful manner. I will refer your edits to a moderator or admin user who can investigate further. 212.105.160.222 (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please refer my edits to "a moderator or admin user" as quickly as possible. Shall I point you to the right places, in case you don't know where to file complaints about other editors? For clarification, are you the same user as 86.151.246.175? -- Nczempin (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- No. Your obnoxious attitude is unhelpful though. 212.105.160.222 (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please refer my edits to "a moderator or admin user" as quickly as possible. Shall I point you to the right places, in case you don't know where to file complaints about other editors? For clarification, are you the same user as 86.151.246.175? -- Nczempin (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a rhetorical question: "Instead of removing 'good faith' edits, why don't you rephrase them yourself?" , your attempts to dismiss it are telling. It is a shame you could not answer it Nczempin. I see from your Talk page that there are others who you have treated in the same self-righteous, condescending and unhelpful manner. I will refer your edits to a moderator or admin user who can investigate further. 212.105.160.222 (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, that demon amongst men, the IP address user who won't sign in or sign up, a common phobia here on Wikipedia and the bane of so many Wikipedians existence. How tragic! Your hangups over my lack-of-username are immaterial though, so I'll assume you genuinely did miss my question earlier (maybe you were sifting through other edits and reverting them unnecessarily?!?) Hmm, whatever. Let's start over. I will ask the question again, let's sit down .... let's take it nice....and....slowly this time. Here's the question: "In what way is it beneficial to the Wikipedia community to remove a "good faith" edit entirely? If you have the time to do that, and have the time to write a description about why you removed it, then surely you have the time to correct the original edit?" If there is a reasoned response to this, I would be most gracious if you can provide it. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, that moment when you realise you're way out of your depth. Take this as confirmation that you have no interest in answering my questions and are acting on dubious self-interest only. Another 15 year old self-appointed-expert-on-nothing Wikipedian. Good luck with your edits, how fulfilling your life must be. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please elaborate; what you're saying is fascinating. -- Nczempin (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- So the conclusion we can draw is that you cannot be bothered to edit articles correctly, but you are happy to entirely remove an edit made by someone else that is (by your own admission) accurate and make in good faith. You are too lazy to rewrite that small sentence to fit your own narrow self-appointed regulations but are happy to idle away the day arguing the toss with me here - what a worthwhile contributor you are. At least we have it in writing now for all to see. By the by, I didn't request a clarification on your (presumably rather dull and pathetic) life outside of Wikipedia, it is not my concern in the slightest (most can easily draw conclusions from the way you've handled yourself in this episode) - but a word to the wise, if you are going to attempt (and fail) to patronise someone's lack of understanding of "rhetoric" then it's certainly advisable that you first have a grasp of the basic concepts yourself. Get back on your "high horse" in your own little kingdom where your contributions to Wikipedia are clearly vastly overstated and don't reflect reality, since that's what makes your pathetic life feel more wholesome and complete. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- How I spend my time is none of your concern. If I merely revert something that doesn't befit the article there is no reason to start a discussion on my motivation or my priorities. You don't seem to be capable or willing to fix the problems I pointed out (and incapable to follow or understand Wikipedia guidelines), so if no-one else will fix them, eventually I may do it myself. Note that just because you put a question mark at the end, it doesn't mean "why don't you..." is a real question (i. e. not merely a rhetorical question, which you even decided to answer yourself); don't assume you are somehow entitled to an answer. And, boy, you are taking one little revert awfully personally. I guess that that one post is a large part of your overall contributions to Wikipedia so far (as far as anyone can tell, since you're either hiding behind an IP address or don't even know how to get a username). Oh, unlike you, I did not call you names or judged you in any way (unlike what you did to me); I merely pointed out to you what the possible consequences of some of your actions may be, since you seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing. -- Nczempin (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- This doesn't address the question I proposed, and your attempts to smear me as a belligerent are unfounded , unnecessary and rather pathetic. Can you clarify why you have time to revert edits and threaten others with suspension (!) but cannot address the issue at hand, i.e. why can you not be bothered to add to the article instead of taking information away from it? It is surely easier to click a button and remove an edit another has made in good faith - yes - and also has the presumed benefit of tickling your ego a little, but it doesn't help the community at large. Pray tell? Perhaps I too should join in with this wilful self-delusion that removing helpful edits is someone benefiting others 86.151.246.175 (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Basterds
- comment Thanks both of you, for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, as entertaining as it may be for uninvolved editors, this dispute doesn't seem very substantive or useful. You, yourself, can be civil, even if the other guy doesn't seem to want to be.
- 86.151.246.175: Even WP:Good faith edits can be problematic, and sometimes need to be reverted. I'm not too concerned by the WP:CRYSTAL issue, but you posted it without a source citation, which on a biography of a living person needs to be immediately fixed or removed. Some editors principally add content, some editors principally revert. Some editors do some of each. All of these are essential to the Wikipedia ecosystem. Being reverted isn't very much fun. I'm sorry it happened to you, but it will probably happen again some day. It happens to everyone. Try again, after fixing the problems people have suggested, or use the Talk page to discuss why it is correct as given (or why there is no need for a citation). Laziness is a problem, but you can't solve it by forcing other people to work. You can sometimes help by demonstrating unlazy behavior yourself. Good luck, and thanks!
- Nczempin: No need to defend yourself, but biting the "trolls" isn't polite either. You aren't obligated to help editors in distress, but mocking them (while fun!) doesn't build encyclopedias. And IPs are human too. Thanks to you as well. --Robert Keiden (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Robert. If you point out where I was biting, I'll try and not do it again. Do you mean my calling him a "troll"? At that point it was my only remaining explanation. I tried to be helpful to a purported newcomer despite him calling me names, he interpreted it as being condescending. Once he had implied that he was not a newcomer, I could only conclude that he was trying to troll me. Or did you mean the "please send an admin as soon as possible" comment? I do not mock anyone on Wikipedia "for fun"; I try to help newcomers in particular; normally they are glad that someone is trying to help them. Here I really don't know what happened; I made a (IMHO) harmless revert, and the guy won't leave me alone. So, please let me know what I could/should have done differently, so I avoid it next time. Thanks. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Robert, I disagree and I think you are twisting Wikipedia policy, possibly accidentally. An edit that adds something to the article (i.e is accurate and relevant) is a good thing, reverting that entire edit because of a grammar/punctuation issue and removing it entirely is counter-productive and is a very bad thing. I understand Wikipedia is having problems attracting new editors. This situation gives a reason why, ie. it sends out the perception that Wikipedia is a cliquey, closed secret society with obscure "anything goes" rules and regulations. The editor would have been better advised to, instead of reverting the edit slavishly and making snarky comments, improving the edit further. After all, if s/he was able to identify something wrong with the edit, s/he presumably has the ability to improve it. Nothing is gained by removing accurate content from an article altogether simply due to punctuation/grammar issues, to claim otherwise is ludicrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.105.160.222 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- We have no shortage of new users who think that because Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" that they can do whatever they like. We do have a shortage of new editors who are willing to embrace the five pillars, or even any of the guidelines that the community of editors haved created over the years, such as WP:CIVILITY. This particular "new user" seems to be unwilling to even read those guidelines, and instead insists on me explaining why I chose not to fix his one edit myself and instead I reverted. Since apparently nothing I say will change his attitude towards editing or reading the guidelines, please take any further discussions to the articles' talk pages and off my personal talk page: I have noted your concerns, 212.105.160.222, and I have nothing further to discuss with you. Feel free to answer (if you feel that you must) on your own talk page; I will consider any further edit from you on my talk page in the next seven days to be disruptive. -- Nczempin (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I did embrace the 'five pillars' and made an edit that I considered (and still do consider) added something to the article that was lacking. There was no mention of the upcoming film. The fact you reverted the edit because the case/tense was wrong and found this easier than just correcting it, says a lot about your own editorial skills. I note you are German so perhaps your pigheaded attitude is to be expected however on an English Wikipedia you come across as self-righteous. I am sorry that you would rather censor your critics than engage them in a conversation, can you think of any others in your history who have done the same I wonder? And by the way, the "Basterd" reference seemed to have cause offence, you completely missed that reference but I'm glad at least Robert figured it out. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) IP is here for fun and games. We don't add a "citation needed" tag when introducing something here.[17] The burden is on you. Stop bothering these people. Doc talk 08:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I do apologise. Another edit made in goodwill that has been frowned upon because I am using an IP Address. Yes, "fun and games" the definition of which is surely interacting with a bunch of condescending know it alls. A fine example of Wikipedians right here. No wonder the ship is sinking? 86.151.246.175 (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your motivations are clear. You go away now. Doc talk 09:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, caught red handed. My motivations are obviously to ruin Wikipedia one edit at a time, by adding a [citation needed] tag where it doesn't need to be placed (yet?). That, and adding new content in some sort of mixed future/present tense. You have rumbled me. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- WP:BURDEN. Don't add stuff you can't back up. To add unreferenced content with the tag - clearly disruptive. Find another IP and go elsewhere. Doc talk 09:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Mmm, or could it be because I don't know how to link to an reference/URL correctly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadhurst , http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/8090896.Jeff_Beck__insures_fingers_for_millions__after_accident_at_Sussex_home/ There are plenty of references from verifiable / reliable sources. All it takes is a little bit of research on Google sweetie. But if it's easier to be dismissive and assume an IP user is only ever going to be a vandal, then that's fine, you're the one depriving others though, not me. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- You just linked it. You'd rather put a citation needed template than a sloppy url link? When you introduced the content and had an actual source to confirm it? I'm not "anti-IP", though your assumption that I am is somewhat telling... Doc talk 09:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Are you a bit special? As I said, I don't know how to place a URL into an edit. Wikipedia doesn't support shorttags. Since you know how it's done - given your condescending tone you must know the ins and outs of everything, anywhere - why don't you add the reference URL? After all, you know how to revert someone's edit who was just trying to help the community, so the onus should be on you to improve the content rather than revert it, if Wikipedia is for the 'greater good'. Comprende? We seem to have gone full circle now, back to the same point I was raising with Nziembobosos or whatever it's name is, but aren't any closer to finding the answer? 86.151.246.175 (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please take this discussion off my talk page, for example to User talk:86.151.246.175, where it most likely belongs. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, sure. I'll confess I had hoped that you might have reconsidered your position overnight, but sadly not. A shame. I will continue editing Wikipedia as I have been before, you will presumably fervently revert all my edits as it's easier than editing any mistakes I might make, but that is the way it will have to be. Adieu, mon amour! 86.151.246.175 (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Are you a bit special? As I said, I don't know how to place a URL into an edit. Wikipedia doesn't support shorttags. Since you know how it's done - given your condescending tone you must know the ins and outs of everything, anywhere - why don't you add the reference URL? After all, you know how to revert someone's edit who was just trying to help the community, so the onus should be on you to improve the content rather than revert it, if Wikipedia is for the 'greater good'. Comprende? We seem to have gone full circle now, back to the same point I was raising with Nziembobosos or whatever it's name is, but aren't any closer to finding the answer? 86.151.246.175 (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- You just linked it. You'd rather put a citation needed template than a sloppy url link? When you introduced the content and had an actual source to confirm it? I'm not "anti-IP", though your assumption that I am is somewhat telling... Doc talk 09:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Mmm, or could it be because I don't know how to link to an reference/URL correctly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadhurst , http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/8090896.Jeff_Beck__insures_fingers_for_millions__after_accident_at_Sussex_home/ There are plenty of references from verifiable / reliable sources. All it takes is a little bit of research on Google sweetie. But if it's easier to be dismissive and assume an IP user is only ever going to be a vandal, then that's fine, you're the one depriving others though, not me. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- WP:BURDEN. Don't add stuff you can't back up. To add unreferenced content with the tag - clearly disruptive. Find another IP and go elsewhere. Doc talk 09:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, caught red handed. My motivations are obviously to ruin Wikipedia one edit at a time, by adding a [citation needed] tag where it doesn't need to be placed (yet?). That, and adding new content in some sort of mixed future/present tense. You have rumbled me. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your motivations are clear. You go away now. Doc talk 09:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I do apologise. Another edit made in goodwill that has been frowned upon because I am using an IP Address. Yes, "fun and games" the definition of which is surely interacting with a bunch of condescending know it alls. A fine example of Wikipedians right here. No wonder the ship is sinking? 86.151.246.175 (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) IP is here for fun and games. We don't add a "citation needed" tag when introducing something here.[17] The burden is on you. Stop bothering these people. Doc talk 08:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I did embrace the 'five pillars' and made an edit that I considered (and still do consider) added something to the article that was lacking. There was no mention of the upcoming film. The fact you reverted the edit because the case/tense was wrong and found this easier than just correcting it, says a lot about your own editorial skills. I note you are German so perhaps your pigheaded attitude is to be expected however on an English Wikipedia you come across as self-righteous. I am sorry that you would rather censor your critics than engage them in a conversation, can you think of any others in your history who have done the same I wonder? And by the way, the "Basterd" reference seemed to have cause offence, you completely missed that reference but I'm glad at least Robert figured it out. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- We have no shortage of new users who think that because Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" that they can do whatever they like. We do have a shortage of new editors who are willing to embrace the five pillars, or even any of the guidelines that the community of editors haved created over the years, such as WP:CIVILITY. This particular "new user" seems to be unwilling to even read those guidelines, and instead insists on me explaining why I chose not to fix his one edit myself and instead I reverted. Since apparently nothing I say will change his attitude towards editing or reading the guidelines, please take any further discussions to the articles' talk pages and off my personal talk page: I have noted your concerns, 212.105.160.222, and I have nothing further to discuss with you. Feel free to answer (if you feel that you must) on your own talk page; I will consider any further edit from you on my talk page in the next seven days to be disruptive. -- Nczempin (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Robert, I disagree and I think you are twisting Wikipedia policy, possibly accidentally. An edit that adds something to the article (i.e is accurate and relevant) is a good thing, reverting that entire edit because of a grammar/punctuation issue and removing it entirely is counter-productive and is a very bad thing. I understand Wikipedia is having problems attracting new editors. This situation gives a reason why, ie. it sends out the perception that Wikipedia is a cliquey, closed secret society with obscure "anything goes" rules and regulations. The editor would have been better advised to, instead of reverting the edit slavishly and making snarky comments, improving the edit further. After all, if s/he was able to identify something wrong with the edit, s/he presumably has the ability to improve it. Nothing is gained by removing accurate content from an article altogether simply due to punctuation/grammar issues, to claim otherwise is ludicrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.105.160.222 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)