User talk:Noyster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
08:58 Tuesday 23 May 2017 - - - - WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE

Please click "New section" above to leave any new message, and please sign your message (just type ~~~~).

If you leave a message here, I will reply here unless you ask me to reply elsewhere, to make discussions easier to read.
If you reply to a message here, please indent (start the line with ":") and sign your message.
If you are discussing any particular page, please provide a link to it - it makes life easier for me and anyone else seeing this page.

Thanks. Noyster


Hello!!! I am SAM191. I am sorry about the inconvenience with the pony express... I did not know I was not supposed to say that Johnny Fry was the first one to do this... Thank you ... Oh and I made another edit to Johnny Fry page... About even though he was 120 pounds, he was every inch a man. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAM191 (talkcontribs) 17:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello SAM191, I'm sorry but the edit to Johnny Fry has had to go as well. Not that we have anything against Fry, but you are continuing to insert what appears to be your own opinion into articles. Since you have had several warnings about this, you now need to stop doing it and learn more about how to edit Wikipedia correctly. For instance, you could go through the Tutorial or try the The Wikipedia Adventure. More meaty reading about adding references is here. I hope you will continue continue contributing here, but if you wish to do this you are going to have to put the time in to learn how to do the job properly, because at present we busy editors are spending our time repeatedly telling you the same thing: Noyster (talk), 19:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't always see your messages until after I have edited a few times... I am sorry that you had to keep warning me... I can never figure out to get on some of the pages on Wikipedia ... Can you show me how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAM191 (talkcontribs) 00:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC) <medal image removed> Thank you for being patient SAM191 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

SAM191 I'm not sure what you want to know, can you ask something more specific? I'll try to help if I can, or you could post a question at the Teahouse where they specialize in helping new editors – that way you don't have to wait for a particular person to be at the computer. Whichever you choose, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~: Noyster (talk), 20:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A more specific question is that I can't figure out why Wikipedia does not like the information I have given ... SAM191 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC):SAM191

SAM191 I've tried to explain: we are looking for factual information that is well supported by references to reliable published sources. Not the personal opinions of editors. "Wikipedia", which is just a bunch of volunteer editors, doesn't have its own view on Johnny Fry or his deeds or qualities. Our one concern is to make sure that anything put into articles can be checked for accuracy. Now I'm not fond of repeating myself, so would you please try to read and understand the pages I have already linked for you before you come here again: Noyster (talk), 18:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Mathias Hollstein[edit]

Hello Noyster! I politely ask you to reach a decision regarding my user page as soon as possible, since I do not like to see the page in this state (ugly MfD banner visible). In case you and/or another admin opt for (permanent) deletion I will move the content over to (bio mandatory there) or some different Wiki and contribute to their work in the field of intelligence. In case you decide otherwise I politely ask you to protect my user page (Fully Protected or Protected by Office) and delete the deletion discussion. Thanks for your assistance in advance! Mathias Hollstein (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Mathias Hollstein Thank you for your message. Let me explain that entries at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion normally remain open for discussion for a period of seven days. I am sorry but I cannot myself close the discussion of your user page there, as I am not myself a Wikipedia administrator and in any case other editors may wish to add their views.
In the meantime if you should decide to request the deletion of your own user page, you may do this by adding {{db-user}} to the top of the page. As regards protection of the page, you could make a request here, but such a request might be refused on the grounds that by our protection policy "pages in userspace should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected", and your user page shows no history of vandalism or abuse. I hope this clarifies the situation.
One final thought: I'm not familiar with Citizendium, but our article about it tells us that unlike Wikipedia, contributions there must be made under their authors' real names. If you do wish to edit Wikipedia without linking your edits to your name, I'm sure your contributions will be very welcome; but in that case I can see no place for a user page, which has the function as explained here of "organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia, and facilitating interaction and sharing between users". With regards: Noyster (talk), 20:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Noyster. However I'd like to continue the discussion threat on the „Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mathias Hollstein“ page. :-)
Mathias Hollstein (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello Noyster, the seven day-period regarding the deletion of my user page is nearly over. I'd therefore politely ask you to vote for or against the deletion on the discussion page. Thanks in advance!
Mathias_Hollstein, as it was I who nominated the page for discussion a separate !vote from me would be superfluous. You and others have noted in the discussion that you have made edits to Wikipedia since the discussion opened, and I have no doubt that the closing administrator will take due account of this fact: Noyster (talk), 23:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mark Levin[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mark Levin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Harris Bolton[edit]

Dear friend really i need your help because i'm new here and i feel little confused ,can you visit my website and guide me if you don't mind Harris Bolton (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Harris Bolton Welcome and thanks for the barnstars, but all the help you need is available here on Wikipedia. Try our Introduction page or Help:Getting started, which both contain plenty of links to specific guidance. If you have a particular question a good place to ask is the Teahouse, which is set up to help new editors such as yourself. While appreciating the efforts you made on your draft article Draft:History of Egypt, I have to point out that we already have a well-written and well-referenced article, History of Egypt. Why not try some smaller edits to improve existing articles until you become more familiar with how Wikipedia works? You will find some suggestions here. Oh, and don't be tempted to put your own opinions and thoughts into Wikipedia, as this is classed as "original research". Regards: Noyster (talk), 09:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
<barnstar removed>Thank you for your kindness Noyster and your beautiful words that you send me it's really good words and i'm really appreciate you ,and i'll follow your instruction s and i'll write with my own thoughts and with help of Wikipedia sites for help . Thank you friend i wish that we can co-operate together . God blesses my friend . Harris Bolton (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I wrote an article about God i wish that you may read it if you don't mind my friend . But someone send me message threaten me that they maybe blocking me from editing and i don't why ? Harris Bolton (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I do not see how I can help you further Harris Bolton. I and others have given you plenty of well-meant advice, and looking through everything you have tried to post here I have to say that Wikipedia just isn't the place for you. I recommend you leave this site alone for now and find other outlets for your thoughts, interesting as they may be. So good-bye and good luck: Noyster (talk), 08:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gran Hermano Spain (season 8), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Brother (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Noyster. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#BACKLOG.
Message added 23:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Not sure why this link has been sent to me, as I have never sought the "patroller" user right and only did a modest amount of new page patrolling before that right was introduced. It's not unproblematic to exhort volunteers to do more of anything, still less to ask them implicitly to stop whatever they are doing, apply for a new hat and move over to something else: Noyster (talk), 21:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erik Prince[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erik Prince. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Noyster,[edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

Thank you for that very positive message on my talk page. In response, here's a kitten! Thanks,

Dinglebat500 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

1st serious edit (addition) while signed in, what you think?[edit]

Noticed you were most recent non-anon user to edit the "inner core" article. so.... see my addition to the "composition" section of it: Is it alright? It is my first submission as a serious contributor. Tell me what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinsearach (talkcontribs) 08:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia Sinsearach, and thank you for consulting me. I happen to have Inner core on my watchlist as it attracts more than the average rate of vandalism from, presumably, schoolkids.
Your contribution certainly looks like a constructive expansion of the basis for believing the inner core has that composition. You may want to look again at the final sentence ("explies"? "have (or can mine) mined"?). The more important point I would make though is about citing sources. You will see that most other statements in that article have a marker against them referring to an entry to the list of published works in the References section. We're probably hotter on this than we were in 2005. Students everywhere are being told "don't believe anything on Wikipedia, anyone can put stuff there; but you may use it to help you track back to more reliable sources". So it would be all the better if you could add one or more references (helpsheet) showing where your argument has been made in published works on the subject. Don't hesitate to contact me again if I can help. I'll put a "welcome" on your own talk page linking to all sorts of help and guidance: Noyster (talk), 09:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I hope Im responding to this right. Ok 1st: "explies" yes, as opposed to "IMplies" just as analogous to "IMplicit vs EXplicit". 2nd yes the grammar made me furl my brow at how I ended up having to word "have (or can mine) mined" lest i put a multiple of HOURS into just this small addition to that article, though i have now reworded it for the better.
Regarding citations: I do not remember where I heard/read of the possibility of that conjecture and so thought the reasoning would stand alone of its own self-evidence as a nearly ideal sequitur(s) of a logic-chain. Indeed I have no citation. I think I might though look for one. Thanks for reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinsearach (talkcontribs) 09:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Sinsearach (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
CITATIONS: done, and few other small fixes. is this signing correct? --> Sinsearach (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for making these further improvements. You see, on Wikipedia a chain of reasoning – however watertight it may appear – if not accompanied by citations supporting the reasoning as well as the underlying premises, is liable to be dismissed as "original research" or "synthesis". Those of us accustomed to writing for other media need to adjust our approach here. (The signature is fine): Noyster (talk), 11:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I see, and I read that page and understand the "what" of it very well now, but was curious for the "why" of it and indeed that page seems to have none... any ideas?Sinsearach (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Why, you ask Sinsearach? That's something we don't often stop to ponder while improving, deleting and discussing Wikipedia content!

Our core content policies of neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research are built upon a few founding principles and from there have evolved to fit the unique nature of Wikipedia, as an open-access world encyclopedia. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and although other editors are likely to scrutinise what gets added, Wikipedia doesn't employ teams of professional fact-checkers and expert reviewers on every conceivable subject. Instead we essentially ride on the backs of enterprises that do employ such people: the publishers of "reliable sources" such as books and the better quality journals and news outlets. Thus, if anyone has an opinion, a theory, a logical argument, or even an empirical discovery they made in their own laboratory, none of these should go into Wikipedia unless already published in a "reliable source" and referenced to that source. This gives us the assurance that anything in Wikipedia has at least been examined and passed for publication by an enterprise with a reputation to defend. We don't of course simply copy from these sources as that would be a breach of Copyright. Our editing task is to summarise and collate information from a wide range of sources on a topic and hopefully make it accessible to as wide a readership as we can.

I'd add that just as with our articles, our policies are not static: they have evolved by collaborative editing. Any editor may propose a change and if they gain consensus for their proposal, the change is implemented. It should be admitted, however, that by now there is a great deal of inertia to overcome.

If Wikipedia as a concept intrigues you, some solid reading may be found starting from here: Noyster (talk), 09:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

ah yes "why ask why" because as any intellectual(no bravado), scholarly mind if you will, I necessarily always desire to posses the most complete understanding possible, to full "depth", of any facts/proceses/systems that interest me and also so I may then easily substantiate these policies should I ever be challenged in any way regarding them.Sinsearach (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Noyster, it is I again.[edit]

I found myself considering what article I might create from "scratch" here that could help in any significant way, even if only to a minority of Wikipedia users/readers and so I imagined this: "wiki/Etymologies of scientific terms" for the understanding of how they (hundreds+ of terms) have been created and interrelated/intertwined and developed through history and came to be precisely what they are now in English (or even other tongues). Do you yourself see that this article I propose (to gather info for/write) would now, or ever, be of any substantive use on WP or elsewhere? p.s Is there any way to actually PM here on WP? Sinsearach (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Sinsearach. It seems an interesting and ambitious proposal you have. It could be a big article! We have, for instance, this article on the etymology of the one word "chemistry", or this list article for the chemical elements. You might consider narrowing the topic to one scientific field, checking always for existing related articles. For guidance on how to go about creating a new article, no doubt you have found WP:Your first article; another useful page is WP:Writing better articles. We've already discussed "original research" as something to avoid here.
On communication, many of us prefer to keep our Wikipedia-related "conversations" on-Wiki, unless there is a real need for confidentiality – more likely to apply when admins are deliberating some disciplinary action. For most discussions, "user talk pages" like this one are here to be used and there should be no problem over continuing to make reasonable use of them: Noyster (talk), 19:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
ok yes indeed just earlier created my first article but just a redirect when i forget the exact phrase and typed in "absolute cold" so thus ---> "absolute zero" and then OK I will pick a specific field, and it shall be particle physics or high energy particle physics but.... I wonder if it is enough to only cite/reference Wiktionary from whence most of my etymologies will flow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinsearach (talkcontribs) 20:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't honestly think so: as we always tell people "Wikipedia is not a reliable source", I imagine the same applies to Wiktionary and other "sister projects", compiled in a similar way from anonymous contributions. It wouldn't be too hard surely to cite published standard dictionaries that provide etymologies, as has been done in the chemistry articles I linked just above?: Noyster (talk), 09:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erik Prince[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erik Prince. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

In response,[edit]

Noyster - Yes, this is very helpful. I hope I'm even responding in the correct way to your message. This is all very new to me and I'm just learning how to navigate in Wikipedia

I appreciate your feedback and will review the article further before submitting. I think Norwegian Wool definitely needs a Wikipedia entry but review it to make sure it's not too promotional. Thanks! MJC6437 (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

What does it mean?[edit]

What does it mean when I get a message that says the following when I try to save a page edit on a live page? "Error saving data to server: Empty server response." MJC6437 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Noël Coward[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noël Coward. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)