User talk:NottNott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk
  • If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Whisperback|your username|Topic section}} on my talk.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Whisperback|NottNott|Topic section}} on your talk.


Always up for a chat about completely anything project related. I'm friendly!

vn-∞ This user page has been
vandalized many, many times.

Permanent Revision Delete Request Section[edit]

Rev delete needed: [1] and [2]

Yes check.svg Done. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


I see you have reverted the edirs I made on this page, citing AGF. Since the user in question had created this page before, I do not see that in is reasonable to assume 'good faith': the man is clearly a vain timewaster.TheLongTone (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, posted the above before I read the post on my talk page, which is why I am not replying there. My opinion stands: I have no time whatsoever for nudniks who write Wikipedia articles about themselves.TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@TheLongTone: Slandering someone who might not know Wikipedia policy makes the community look bad. Don't pretend as if you were perfect when you started out editing, because nobody was. Instead, try to point newcomers to the policies so that they can learn, and potentially contribute on their own someday. See WP:DBTN. Thanks. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 15:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Although since the page was deleted, I can't see the edit history to see if he was continuing to write his autobiography after people had told him not to. If he was doing something that he knows is against policy, I have no qualms about him getting a block. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 15:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Slandering my eye. Look at the man's talk page. And af for being uncivil, if I wish to be rude I am capable of doing so. Telling this nudnik that nobody is interested in his mates is a statement of fact. Get real.TheLongTone (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@TheLongTone: I used the word slandering wrongly. It doesn't change the reality that being rude to him would solve the problem either, and if you wanted to state the fact that nobody is interested in his friends you could link him WP:NOTABILITY rather than making a personal attack. I don't think this discussion will go anywhere, but feel free to reply. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 14:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
You are right. I freely admit to being snippy sometimes, but sometimes the milk of human kindnesss runs thin. I certainly wouldn't speak like that to a first-time article recreated afd nominee,& I do sometimes make constructive talk page comments. Water under the bridge.
@TheLongTone: No problem at all, of course every editor needs to learn at some point. Glad to know that you're willing to, and I'm glad to have learnt what the definition of 'slandering' is :p ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Rick Santorum[edit]

Wiki page: Rick Santorum

The article I added to the page may have seem stilted to one opinion, however it merely stated what is. My opinion was not in it. It discussed his "Ideal Family" and how it has been viewed. If you still have a copy of the article section, edit it as needed to change the Tone to neutral, but it doesn't change the issue in and of itself. Leaving this information out of his page will direct a particular view of Mr. Rick Santorum that would be in error.

Did you check the sources? That is where part of the information came from. What he inferred is as important as what he said plainly.

Hey there, thanks for getting in touch. I reverted your edit for two reasons, the first being clear at the time before reverting the edit - it is unfortunately a WP:NPOV problem. Phrases such as 'a person can reasonably infer' and the rhetorical question 'should Compulsory Sterilization be enforced?' make for pretty reading in my honest opinion, but they don't appear neutral so it's understandable on that front why.
Secondly, most of the sources you have added don't directly link to Rick Santorum, which means the article begins to begin a discussion about compulsory sterilisation rather than a concise rundown of Rick Santorum himself. Please edit Castration (best guess at what you mean) as I'm sure you could contribute to that article very well with the sources you've accrued.
Finally, thanks for asking yet again. If you have any questions please let me know. Cheers. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 17:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Rajiv Jain[edit]

Hello, I am just adding right stuff and i know about him. I am not doing any thing wrong overthere. Please have a look. Let me edit first and than u remove it, if you dont like it. Manikadsouza (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I've lost track of the revisions, but thanks for messaging me. I reverted your edit because the vast majority of people who remove content without providing a WP:EDITSUMMARY are pretty much here to delete content for no apparent reason and vandalise the wiki. Of course you're the exception here, as you've cited your additions to the article well. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from, and best wishes on editing the article. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 17:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate. Thanks Indeed Manikadsouza (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

matt serra[edit]

everything i edited was correct, please switch it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slothdestroyer1 (talkcontribs) 17:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Leila Aria[edit]

September 30th, 2015 2:40 PM EST

Hi NottNott,

Thanks for the welcome, and for the tips. I will check them out.

A definitively friendly question: What do you mean when you say "I don't have to write out warnings"? I'm confused.

Leila Aria (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Leila Aria

@Leila Aria:For example, you could put painstaking effort into telling another user that he should have verified something using a source, writing the whole message by hand... or just use a Uw-unsourced1 template.
So, writing:
{{uw-unsourced1}} ~~~~ onto a page produces:
Information icon Hello, I'm NottNott. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 18:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
See this page for a more detailed overview on how to do this.
Finally, writing ~~~~ will produce a signature that is personalised to you along with a datestamp, so you don't have to write the date and time at the beginning of each post you make. We aren't writing letters! Feel free to ask me any questions at any time, and most established editors would be happy to help you out anyway. Welcome to the wiki! ~ NottNott talk|contrib 18:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


Dear User:NottNott, I do not understand hy you are treating me so rudely. The statue IS a pretty funny statue, and it happens to be one of the only reasons why anyone ever comes to Daggett. The town used to have this huge iron mine there, but it's economy dried up after the iron deposit was exhausted. This is all our little town has, aside from 1 stoplight, a few farms, a school, a gas station, and a sports bar. How would you feel if you loved the place you grew up in, but had nothing to show people? Besides, all I wanted to do was post a picture, not write a whole damn article about it! Look, it's special, not only to me, but to the people of this small Michigan town. This is not your page!! But it's not my page either; it's Daggett's page, and tonight, I write this message on your talk page from our city council meeting telling you that all members, including myself, have voted. The town of Daggett, Michigan has voted for the Naughty Cow Statue to represent us on Wikipedia, giving the world something to smile at when they think of our town. -User:Bnnnperdue Bnnnperdue (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)9/30/2015

@Bnnnperdue:I just fail to realistically see how it has any encyclopedic value, and most people would just be trying to insert a picture like that to troll. Looking at your contributions however, it's clear that you're a genuine editor. Is it this picture by any chance? ~ NottNott talk|contrib 16:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Bnnnperdue (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2015 (UCT)9/30/2015

@NottNott:Yes, that is the picture. I know it seems silly, but the "Naughty Cow" has done a lot for Daggett. We have people passing through ever since the statue was put up in 2006. It has put us on the map, giving us more and more businesses and a greater economic standing. Thank you for understanding, and I appreciate you're help. -Bnnnperdue
@Bnnnperdue: I can see reasons for it's inclusion, certainly. I do strongly feel that the low quality images out there will lower the quality of the article, and it may be seen as a joke rather than a legitimate addition. Perhaps, just maybe you could take a high quality picture of it yourself (a modern smartphone would do) and upload it to the commons? Then I'd see it being fine with an inclusion - otherwise the quality would severely contrast against the other two high quality pictures. Let me know what you think. (oh, and you don't have to use an 're' template if you're replying to that person's talk page! :) ) ~ NottNott talk|contrib 21:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Chris Alexander[edit]

In regards to my edit. Chris no longer works for fangoria and has a new job writing for a horror news site, so the reason I changed the page was because not only was I updating the information but alot of the citations talk about Chris getting the editing job at Fangoria from 5 years ago. Its seems kinda pointless to have a citation that reads "Meet Fangoria's new editor" from 5 years ago when he has since resigned from the company. Alot of what is written there is old news and needs to be updated which is exactly what I did.Ninjarobotsamurai (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ninjarobotsamurai:Most new accounts deleting a ton of sources are vandalising, which you're clearly not doing. I've reverted your edit because no matter when the source was made, it can justify content in the article which if anything needs more content rather than less. When something happened and keeping an article 'up to date' isn't what's important, what's important is whether something is notable enough to be included in the article. If you have any questions feel free to ask, thanks. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 17:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Jay Nady page[edit]

I see you have reversed the additions to the Jay Nady wikipedia page. That page is a stub and needs more information about a man as great as Jay Nady. I work as one of his 500+ employees and my own testimony should be a good source for this information. I don't have any news articles to site, so what other things can i site(cite?) in order to get my changes unchanged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Good question, and thanks for asking. I'm terribly sorry, but if you can't find any independent reliable sources to reference, it's in breach of WP:NOR, especially a problem under WP:BLP. Otherwise, it's not really suitable for inclusion.
I'm truly sorry to turn a genuine, positive-minded question from a new Wikipedian into a deletion discussion, but I'm only doing it for the benefit of the wiki, as I want to see as many high quality and WP:VERIFIABLE articles produced as possible. If you can find a number of independent sources backing up the information in the article, please list them either here or visit WP:CITE and place them in the article. Otherwise I'll have to tag the article under WP:CSD. I'll do that in a day if sources aren't added.
This can't portray the community in a good light for a first time editor, especially working for the man. I promise to answer any questions you might have. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 18:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm very new to wiki-editing, but love the website and want to be able to contribute. As for being new: I'm not sure if this is the best way to respond to your response, maybe i need to read up on how the editing/communication work on here. When I read the page on Jay Nady, it looked like there were several pieces of information written about him without articles attached to each statement. I'm also not sure how to attach articles to a wikipedia page, so any pointers you have for a noob would be appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@ out editing the wiki is pretty fun, as you get to learn a lot in a short period of time. The first thing I'd say is that if you're planning on editing in the longer term, you should check out WP:ACCOUNT - it lists all of the benefits you get with making one.
I've posted a collection of links on your user talk page. These list many central policies that all content should ideally follow - one of them being citing sources. Another reason for making an account being you can use WP:ProveIt, a powerful tool for citing sources with ease instead of having to remember complicated code. Feel free to ask me for any help with doing this. Hope you find your way around. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 08:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Geocaching reversion[edit]

Hi there. I noticed you made this reversion earlier today, and warned the person who made the previous edit that it looked like they were vandalizing the article. I don't think that's the case; it looks like a good faith attempt to improve the article by removing a possibly facetious backronym. —Torchiest talkedits 17:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Torchiest:That's pretty hilarious really. 99.9% of all edits containing 'swag' are pretty much vandalism. What a funny revert. I'll restore his change :) ~ NottNott talk|contrib 18:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
See his talk for my response to the edit itself. Thanks for alerting me to this in the first place. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 18:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove Mushtaq Omar Uddin Wikipedia page[edit]

The information displayed is a violation of privacy and defamatory. This page has not be authorised by Mushtaq Omar Uddin which would like to have this page remove as of immediate.

See WP:NOTCENSORED. Unfortunately, there is little chance that the page will be removed because someone does not like it; plenty of articles on Wikipedia are like that. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 19:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

How do I vandalise without no bots/admins destroying me![edit]

so ppl are like "WOAH!" thats right! "THEY WILL LOSEE" --drelo (youtube) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibelad2 (talkcontribs) 19:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove Mushtaq Omar Uddin Wikipedia page[edit]

This a second message asking you to remove Mushtaq Omar Uddin page. The information displayed is a violation of privacy and defamatory. This page has not be authorised by Mushtaq Omar Uddin which would like to have this page remove as of immediate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrak15 (talkcontribs) 19:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Amrak15:See WP:NOTCENSORED. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove Mushtaq Omar Uddin Wikipedia page[edit]

Removed PROD. Can you direct the user to OTRS? Drmies (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Jerry "Flux" Douglas[edit]

I don't know who dubbed Jerrie as "Flux" although there is at least one live recording of a tune called Fireball Mail when Rickie Skaggs urges Mr. Douglas to kick it off by saying, "Flux, git it!"

You will notice a couple of his albums reference the word Flux. e.g. Fluxology and Fluxedo. Don't know if that's enough to prove my point, but that's all I can offer.

Thanks for your time.

(----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@'ve readded and revised your edit, with a citation. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 10:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Khowar language[edit]

hi, yes, you made a mistake see properly your edit revert to my version thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisardrosh (talkcontribs) 14:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nisardrosh:You'll have to explain why you've added '@nisardrosh' to the lead section of the article. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 15:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Gaffney Page[edit]

NottNott: I noticed you recently reverted changes to a bio on Frank Gaffney by what appeared to be a SPA. I agreed with these changes although I understand why you reverted them.

This page has POV issues and massive revisions without Talk Page comments. Here are difs to these reverts: [dif 1] [dif2] [dif 3] [dif4]

I noticed on your page that you do a lot of counter-vandalism. I was wondering if you could look over the above reverts.

I've been involved in an edit war with another editor over changes I tried to make to this piece to add balance. My changes were documented on the talk page. I think this is a big deal since it is a BLP. This individual may be controversial but that doesn't mean his bio shouldn't be fair.

FYI, writing to you will probably lead to more charges against me by the other editor who has accused me of sock puppetry, COI, SPA, meat puppets, and WP:duck as well as postings of complaints to conspiracy theories and BLP discussion boards. I say this to head off any more groundless charges.

Anyway, given your background, your opinion on whether this piece was vandalized or inappropriately reverted without comments per the above difs would be welcome. Zeke1999 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zeke1999:Thanks for asking. I'm assuming good faith from both editors.
After around a ten minute read session of the diffs above, unfortunate to say in your case I have to strongly side with LavaBaron's revisions. I can see why he would accuse you of both a COI and SPA as well, but clearly you wouldn't be contacting me if you were purposefully trying to damage articles. Here's a collection of revised sentences I feel have NPOV issues:
  • "Gaffney is a highly polarizing figure because of his strong positions against radical Islam and the July 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran." (second sentence is already taking a stance against the subject matter, especially with 'highly')
  • "[...]have caused him to be reviled by the Left" (reviled is such a strong word for the lead section of a BLP!)
  • "The Center, which was recently renamed "Secure Freedom," pursues research on U.S. defense, homeland security, the Middle East, Latin America, securing American infrastructure[...]" (too much detail for a BLP in my opinion)
  • "Criticism of Gaffney from the Left" (using the words 'left' or 'right' in the title of a section is really not a good sign)
  • "Among the conspiracy theories Gaffney has promoted include:" -> "Critics of Gaffney claim he has promoted conspiracy theories such as:" (he either said them or he hasn't, whether critics say he has or not is irrelevant surely)
I make all of these observations just so I can strongly justify my opinion, not to beat your changes into the ground. The changes made seem to remove far more balance than improve it. In addition I fail to see how any experienced editor or even casual reader would identify these changes with anything but more biased. I don't need to know any detailed facts or details about the subject to even begin to question the validity of this article. I believe my opinion is clear.
In light of this, assuming you are more than a SPA who has come here to improve the encyclopedia I'm beyond willing to answer any questions you have about editing articles on here fairly and without bias, as well as any other questions you may want to ask. Feel free to talk with me any time.
Hope you're okay with my judgement. Best wishes! ~ NottNott talk|contrib 18:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Great input and good call, NottNott! LavaBaron (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

NottNott, We may not agree but thanks for looking at this. (FYI: Lavabaron posted a "canvassing" warning on my page after I queried you about this.) I'm backing out of this. Time to move on. Hopefully other editors and admins will take this up. Again, thanks for your time!Zeke1999 (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

India Germany relations article[edit]

Hi, the article (Germany–India relations) has been updated to reflect the 100s of sources that I have read in order to compile the text in good faith. The sources are EXCLUSIVELY from international mainstream media. So, IF you have a POV concern, then please indicate where and what you want exactly done (with a suggestion) instead of erasing everything which tantamounts to a 'disruptive deletion'. I will continue updating the article, but take care to watch the TALK page o as to address the concerns that you write therein and which you can explicity ask me to modify). THanks. 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)~

I appreciate your restoring the article to the updated state. I have spent atleast 40 hours to read the hundreds of articles from main-stream media and go through trade statistics, government policy documents, university publications so as to compile text for the article which is founded on facts instead of paid-advertisement type journalistic material. If there is any manner in which the article can be improved, then please do contribute/advise either directly or through the talk page. 20:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
@ Sincerest apologies. A ridiculously influential editor citing sources all over the place does not deserve such treatment. Like really, YOU are a brilliant editor. We need more people like you here! :)
In WP:Huggle (a vandalism removal program), if an editor makes say three edits in a row, one edit before the first edit that IP makes and the final revision that the IP editor has made are displayed in a diff. Shifting around massive paragraphs of text, mass-moving sources are huge red lights which can get a quick snap-revert judgement. In your case, this was happening all over the place, and reading just one word ('incessantly') got me to the snap-judgement WP:NPOV revert. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
Out of my at minimum 2500 article mainspace reverts, this has to be the worst accidental revert for me - you're an undeniably great contributor. The worst thing anyone could do by this point is scare you away. If at any point you need any help, please ask for help either from me or by placing a {{help me}} tag on your user talk. Thank you. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the rapidity with which you reverted the article once I hailed you with my concerns. Thanks & all the best!
Thanks for your offer of help. You never know I might just require it someday (esp with 'admin-level system tasks' since I am more of a 'text-level content contributor'). (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@ I think it's probably you who needs more thanking than me - contributing that much content isn't too easy. I've posted an extensive list of links regarding Wikipedia policy on your talk page, to be read at your leisure if you're interested. With drive and the right direction, you'll make a great regular contributor if that's what you're aiming for.
I'm going to reiterate that you make an account as per my post on your userpage once more. Whether you're going to make one more edit or hundred more, giving a name to your contributing history will help you immensely. You can do it in the top-right corner of any page. Thank you once again, and you're always welcome to ask any questions. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting the edits[edit]

When you make accusation of someone not being neutral in his edits on Wikipedia page you should provide proper arguments and historycal facts that support your judgment and your deleting of my edits. Instead what you do is keeping the parts that you like to be known to public society and panicaly deleting, hiding and erasing all the history facts that makes you feel very unconfortable. All my edits can be easaly checked on Wikipedia links that I provided in the edited text. If you have problem with that than you are in seriouse confict of interests here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@ haven't provided a single WP:CITATION to substantiate claims made in your revision, which goes against WP:VERIFIABILITY. Phrases like 'were cruelly', 'blood sheding' and 'the age of black hand[...]' all appear to go against WP:NPOV - this form of prose isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. With respect to the fact English isn't likely your first language, the additions made aren't particularly well written. For all of these reasons, your changes are being continually reverted. Please understand that this is well-founded policy, so the change of your edits being committed are unlikely. I'd recommend you stop restoring your revision. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

My English is better than yours thats for sure. The statements such as: "cruelly murdered" and ""blood shedding" are offical statements of European newspappers of that time in which these happenings took place. In fact some English and French daily news were even more hard on words when they reported about those crimes and murderings. In fact the first page of Paris newspapers in 1903 was covered with CAPSLOCK title: "May Night Vandalism In Belgrade" or "Cruell terorists act in Sarajevo". If you have problem with that go to the history libary of Paris/Berlin/London and digg out the examples of newspapers of that time. Or you will call whole Europe as non-neutral aswell, just as you gave yourself a right to call me. So get your facts your English and most of all your History knowledge fit the truth because at the moment you are embarrassing yourself and you are a disgrace to the Wikipedia comunity. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@ haven't cited any references to these claims, and with the prose you have written I don't need to know anything related to the subject to revert your change - you would be more effective at making your changes with agreement and WP:CONSENSUS to revise your changes. See WP:Edit warring. Two other editors have reverted your changes as well, have you stopped to consider that you might be wrong in your changes to the article? ~ NottNott talk|contrib 22:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

RE: The Stone Roses[edit]

this addition constituted original research as it synthesized viewpoints from multiple sources to support a statement none of those sources explicitly make, i.e. "On the other hand, some have seen The Stone Roses as heavily overrated". It is acceptable to summarize the third paragraph of "Reception and legacy" in the lead, which is a summary of the article's main aspects, because SYNTH is not summary, but it is unacceptable to clutter multiple citations like in that addition. So it has been reverted. I'd appreciate some support with the pesky IP who keeps restoring it. Dan56 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted it back to the revision before the edit war. Any new changes regarding the content that's been edit-warred over should be discussed at the talk page first, where there is already a section started. Dan56 (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dan56: I'm heading to the talk page it seems, it's not just an IP editor anymore. Let's try and reach a consensus on the article's talk page, but if any warring continues it'll be taken to WP:AIV instead. Sorry for the long response time. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 21:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there was a previous RfC regarding a near exact version of the synthesis by what is likely the same person who added it back recently, and consensus there found for good reason it should be removed. Dan56 (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dan56: Thank you for the context. I'll be keeping an eye on the talk page for now, I don't know what to suggest that hasn't already been said. Let's see where this goes. For reference, I have no knowledge of the subject matter or article history. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 21:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

How does Counter-Vandalism work?[edit]

Good evening nottnott.

I don't have any questions about my contribution to Mr. Addazio's page, cause I was clearly being sarcastic/an asshole.

I was more wondering about the mechanisims within Wikipedia's review process. Why did my comment get flagged? Why did you respond so politely? Do people look out for users that are clearly manipulating their own pages? I probably spent a couple minutes typing this to a wiki bot or something but I'm geniuinly curious. Email address is Thanks. User talk:2601:182:c000:14d6:59c9:e240:4ad7:996e (signed by NottNott for reply template usage)

3RR at Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

WP:3RR is a BRIGHT LINE. The anon did leave an edit summary explaining the edit. Be careful, this behavior (known from personal experience) leads to blocks. Cheers Jim1138 23:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I'm aware of this - I was reverting his edit foolishly over and over again as he had not responded to any warnings or elaborated further in the edit summary. I was expecting him to make a move explaining the edit rather than investigating it myself. I've learnt my lesson - hopefully anyone could see my reverts were in good faith. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 23:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Fager[edit]

Dr. Fager is the best horse of all time and he has defied the laws of physics. It is proven many books. For example if you have read the book about Dr. Fager written by Steve Haskin. If you would allow me to make edits I would be very appreciative. I have one question, who are you? Do you know that the press has hidden the story of Dr. Fager and have covered it up with the story of Secretariot. In advanced thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saratogawiki (talkcontribs) 23:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


If only wikipedia, and so called "progressives" (degenerates) like yourself acted so swiftly to protect other religions from criticism in the same way you seem to stonewall anything less than ultra positive about the peaceful, loving, "gonna destroy the UK as a whole because of icecream" religion of peace that is's quite sad.

See WP:NPOV. I reverted your change due to Wikipedia policy, and nothing to do with my personal opinions. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 09:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

negative vandalism[edit]

(Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.)

I'd like it a lot better if my edits weren't maliciously undone! I'd like it a lot better if it was written in html rather than wiki-language.

I hate things being incorrect - but sometimes it's hopeless trying to change them.

and I have an account - just don't use it ;) seems I was saying the same thing 3 years ago!

@ I'm not responsible for reverting any of your edits as far as I'm aware. I didn't send you a welcome message in bad faith. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 16:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Animal buttock[edit]

Not sure what happened there - apologies! samtar (msg) 18:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: Haha! It happens to everyone. Have a good evening :) ~ NottNott talk|contrib 18:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my page. I was gone so I didn't see it until now! Adog104 (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104

@Adog104: No problem! Cluebot would have likely got it otherwise :) ~ NottNott talk|contrib 21:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)