User talk:NottNott/Archives/2015/June

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, NottNott, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

On Little Eye (band)

Hey. The sources cited in the little ey page are not credible. Some just lifted from the bands webstite page itself. Please read the comments I left with my edits. There is too much in this page to be honest for what it is and needs to be cut dramatically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdcdb2659 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've quickly scraped through the article and removed some of the extraneous detail you mentioned. I didn't remove too much information, and changed the wording of the article to be more balanced is all. Have a look and see what you think - and if your intention is of staying around on the wiki then by all means recognise that this is the process of learning :) Hope all is well. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☻) 14:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

necromancy

The concept of necromancy is totally non-existent in the Norse culture, but reliable sources?--151.46.162.51 (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There were several sources related to necromancy on the article - and a search turns up related results. How are those sources not reliable? ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 21:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

On Wicked

Hello, I made a tiny change to this page - "sicked" updated to "sicced", which is slightly more accurate in that context. "Sicked" isn't wrong, strictly speaking, but it does look like the kind of typo that could be made by someone who has heard a word but never seen it written down. So, my point stands. "Sicced" is a better fit for that sentence, as it is completely grammatically accurate, and looks less like a possible error. Thanks!

No problem! You'd know better than me. Cheers! ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 12:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

On Timbaland

Hey.

You recently undid my edit calling Timbaland a Transphobic Garbage Lord. Thought it would interest you to know that he's a complete tool who has been misgendering and mis-naming Caitlyn Jenner recently. Ergo, I request that you redo my edit, as while it may not be constructive, it is accurate.

Regards,

Me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.128.58 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey dude. Look, I'm 100% for LGBT rights, many friends of mine fit into the spectrum and they're some highly endearing friends of mine. Emotions aside, I reverted your edit because it is completely against WP:BLP, as well as based on a personal opinion which is in no ways encyclopaedic. I'm passionate for LGBT rights as much as I am passionate for the integrity of the wiki, and as such I reverted your edit. It's completely fine to create a section on the article and write what you believe in a balanced way with proper sources cited. All the best. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 15:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Nah, you can eat my entire ass with that "Ally" bullshit bruh. IDGAF what spectrums your "friends" sit on, the dude is transphobic as fuck, and that's a goddamn fact. I even added in a source, proper citation and all. And I'm gonna keep doing it until one of you losers bans me TBH.

I did assume good faith, ah well have fun :) ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 15:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your edit on Edexcel

Hi! Thanks for your comment with regard to the article Edexcel. I've made a comment with regard to the edit at the article's talk page. I'd appreciate if you could have a look and respond there. Thanks! — Andrew Y _talk 18:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Edexcel maths paper

Hi, it seems that you spontaneously decided to remove a section regarding the recent Maths paper that caused controversy and shifted attention onto the educational system.

Your reasoning was unjust, so the page has been restored. I have no interest in an edit war, which is why I informed you first.

Often editors of Wikipedia overestimate their own self-importance, and hopefully this wasn't the case for you. Edfilmsuk (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. Firstly, [[1]] is the ONLY revision I have ever done. 92.23.28.134 engaged in the edit war, so please know that I have no such interest! Secondly I did notice that you have placed a lot of time and effort into your edit, and I can respect that. You were trying to improve the article, but at the same time we must be concious of the Wiki's policies into editing articles - such as adding copious detail to an event that is not notable in the long term. I'm not overestimating my self-importance by citing policies such as WP:NTEMP, which specifically states that "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability". The many attempts to remove the section and the several opinions stated on the talk page appeared like enough consensus to me so if anything I like to think I was just being bold, but I admit that my revert without a true consensus was unjust and I apologise. I still believe opinion should shift toward removing the section for the above reasons. Thank you. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello NottNott, you sent me a warning for edit warring when I actually did just revert edits to the version you had created. I don't understand why you gave me a warning when I actually restored your edit version where others would undo and change it. I would be glad if you could get in touch with me about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.28.134 (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey there dude, thanks for getting in touch. Seriously, I completely agree with you that the section should be removed if you'd check what I've left above and on the talk page. Even though you wouldn't know though, it's a bit of a hard rule that reverting an edit to a page more than 3 times is a big no-no. I'm really into warning users about problematic edits, so that's why I did so, but I'm sure you were just acting in the best interests of the article. Sorry about that dude, but let's now try instead to reach consensus on the article's talk page. Cheers. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

My Edits on Ramayana and Jaggi Vasudev

Dear NottNott - Can you please let me know why my edits were not accepted. They did not contain anything abusive. Also I would like to know that if I created a page later on on a different topic altogether, how would I know that it is not being tampered with / Vandalised? Are you able to shed some light please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.163.176 (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks,

P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.163.176 (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. Firstly, I haven't touched Ramayana or Jaggi Vasudev, so you'll have to check in with whoever reverted those. Although your change to Ramayana is similar to Sheldon Pollock admittedly. I reverted your change to Sheldon Pollock as per WP:BLP because you didn't cite a source backing up your claim - and it seemed opinionated and non-conforming with WP:MOS. It's part of learning about how the wiki works, so don't worry :)

As for creating a page on a topic, on Wikipedia anyone can edit a page - it's a policy, even IP editors such as yourself. This helps with expanding on the content you would have already made. As for vandalism, there's a team of crackpot anti-vandalism specialists (such as myself) who use tools that enable them to revert vandalism at a very fast pace, such as WP:Huggle or WP:STiki. They patrol the recent changes in a backlog, so if someone vandalised your page it's likely it would be reverted.

I hope I answered your questions, if you have any other issues please let me know. See you around the wiki. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 11:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

• The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
• Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

On Vendor Lock-In

Information.svg Hello. I noticed that you made an edit that introduces praise or promotional language to the Vendor lock-in article. On Wikipedia, we adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV) and avoid promotional language or puffery. Please read the NPOV policy page, as well as this page of language to avoid to better understand how to expand this article in a style suitable to an encyclopedia. If you have questions, please see the Help Desk page. Thank you! ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 16:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.145.172 (talk)

You say I use language of praise, no, it is a quote from a memo cited in the article. It is clearly explained in the text as a quote from a Microsoft executive and in no way promotes, glorifies or otherwise seeks to improve the reader's opinion of them.

I have no clue how or why you would think that

In discussing vendor lock in by Microsoft, the paragraph as it is has no context, it didn't even read correctly in the English language. I edited the document and quoted the memo cited for two reasons;

1. To add context and explanation of how a significant vendor had approached the lock-in idea and sought to develop it 2. The cited memo can not be accessed by the link given in the text except by reading through a legal document containing over 1000 pages, making it barely accessible.

Please reconsider your edit-revert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.145.172 (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Terribly sorry about that - I didn't take the time to read through your change properly. I've restored your edit. Thanks. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 15:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)