User talk:Noyster/Archive 5
 | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Untitled
Sorry you have a problem with "free speech". Unfortunately most libs are very thin skinned, especially when it comes to such sensitive topics as race. They(you) can dish it out but have a lot of trouble on the "incoming"! Especially when it comes to the TRUTH. OUCH!!!Derrickmcdreamy60 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrick,mcdreamy (talk • contribs) 12:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Derrick, before you do any more on Wikipedia please take another look at some of the guidance you have been sent, and try to understand that Wikipedia is not a forum to air personal opinions whatever they may be: Noyster (talk), 12:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
My edit of Analytical Engine
Hi, I'm not sure I get the reason why my edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Engine#In_popular_culture was rejected. The phrase "One such engine even develops sentient thought due to a recursive algorithmic loop" is, to the best of my knowledge, wrong, since "sentient" is an adjective. It should either be "becomes sentient" or "develops sentience" (my edit). For the sake of honesty, English is not my native language, but the difference seems pretty clear to me. Fndari (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Fndari. "Sentient thought" is an expression frequently encountered. The adjective "sentient" qualifies the noun "thought", as in "deep thought". We could think deeply about what exactly is meant by "sentient thought". I would take it to mean "thought, as performed by a sentient being". However, "sentience thought" is two nouns together, and I can assure you that it would not be considered normal English usage. Thank you for your interest and I look forward to your further contributions: Noyster (talk), 11:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Reply
I wanted to reply to your message to me concerning my edit action of the article crash nitro kart.I'm sorry, I didn't know you had to add citations and I didn't know how. I just saw the sequel on YouTube and the App Store and saw that nothing was on the article about it so I added it. How do I create citations? Reply on my talk page please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohmysasuke (talk • contribs) 18:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:PERM Request
Your Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser registration request has completed. Please be sure to edit carefully. — xaosflux Talk 01:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Question about getting the "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification" tag removed
Hi, I have been working on updating the page "Theo Colborn," and have included many more citations. This page has an alert box stating "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification," How do I go about getting the alert box at the top of the page removed?
Thank you, Jrrochester (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Greetings Jrrochester and thank you for your contributions to the article on Theo Colborn. I see another editor has now removed the template message or "tag" about needing additional citations, as its wording is no longer applicable due to the recent death of Theo Colborn. It is open to any editor to remove such tags when they consider they have dealt with the problem. Equally, any editor may add tags to an article when they perceive a problem. In either case, they should be prepared to defend their action if challenged. More about tagging can be found at this page. Let me stress though that it is always valuable work to improve the referencing of any Wikipedia article, thus your efforts are much appreciated: Noyster (talk), 09:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Avalon is Sicily
The more ancient tales of Arthurian characters speak of the fairy Morgan who lived Etna ... the main feature of Avalon and to be the residence of the fairy Morgan ... and stories following the same geographical area and ethnic speaking of Sicily as avalon. The sources (sicily):Stephen of Rouen (ca.1169) draco normannicus (standard of the normans);Floriant et Florete (ca.1250);Guillem Torroella (1360-70) the Faula;Gervase of Tilbury (ca.1210) otia imperialia;Caesar of Heisterbach (approx) dialogus miracolorum;Stephen of Bourbon (1261) like Caesar;Cat Lupet (pseudonym of an Italian poet XIII approx);Wolfram von Eschenbach (ca. 1210) Parzifal;Le Chevalier du papegau (approx XIV);Jaufre (ca.1180) Arthurian romance langue d'oc;La Bataille Loquifer (ca1170);Roger of Hoveden (ca.1191) deeds henrici II (legacy excalibour);Jean de Preis or d'Outremeuse (ca.1400) (mediterranean avalon). (a) The island belongs to Morgan le Fay( connection with Morgan le Fay; main feature) and in the sources is often spoken of Mount Etna indicated as Aetna, and Arabic Gibel or MontGibel. The Sicily is really Avalon and all these texts are available online (look for them on google). (you named Earl of Great Britain and Sicily ;D)--King Arthur resurrected (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please see Talk:Avalon, where the replies to your similar post are still present although the post itself was removed. Please note that if you are the person who has been blocked, you are not supposed to open new accounts or to edit any page apart from your own talk page: Noyster (talk), 16:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Eric Ambler novels
Many thanks, Noyster I will certainly reread the guidance. I am striving to eliminate all subjectivity in order to make these articles as factual as possible. I am also reading articles about other novels to see how other people have introduced more referencing, but this is proving a challenge since there isn't much written directly about Ambler's novels; they're not famous enough. Astrofella (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Astrofella:If this were so then we could have to conclude that the books were not "Notable" enough to have their own articles, by the tests outlined here. This would be a disappointing outcome, for an author even I have heard of: perhaps the people at WP:WikiProject Literature could help find sources: Noyster (talk), 16:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Pk
Hi noyster. Thanks for guiding me how wikipedia works. This editor red pen of doom is spreading false propaganda and his own point of view which is quite disappointing and laughable. He needs to be cautioned because he's a comparatively old user. Expecting a reply as a new user. Regards. 2.49.19.192 (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- @2.49.19.192: Thank you for your enquiry. None of us should be spreading "our own point of view" in Wikipedia articles. The reason why I and Red Pen of Doom were reverting contributions was that, to all appearances, they were merely the opinions of the editors themselves. Some of the edits from your IP address were deleting sourced content or adding nonsense characters, so it is obvious that they would be reverted. Your later edits did quote references for the opinions given and this is what is needed, thus those edits have been retained and I hope you will continue to make constructive contributions in that manner: Noyster (talk), 22:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
excuse me
i have as homework from my university to translate the source to greek for wikipedia..did i make any mistake for the translation?
- This is the English-language wikipedia. Sorry, we do not accept content in other languages, even for a short period. Perhaps you meant to post your translation on the Greek-language version: Noyster (talk), 10:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion with Mahendra Niraula
|
|---|
Post from Mahendra NiraulaHi, noyster I am sorry for that mistakes I made here on" abudhabi mall" but I wanna say you that I was about to add some changes or additional info on which all details were not completed & I removed by mistakes " see also" sometimes something happens, its normal but I couldn't understand how properly the editings are being made & I think the editings made by other language speaking person are biased& not given any proper space to do anything new for Wikipedia & only the native English speakes are able to make any kind of editings for English Wikipedia but you have given comments on to make good standard of English well, that's true it actually needs to make formally changes any articles not only on Wikipedia but also in any other formal articles.I think for nepalese people like me, the access to English Wikipedia is rare according to your frank vision quoted on this take page to you.I am so sorry for being a Nepalese citizen & I curse to the nation for not able to offer English language properly for only me but the approaches of English is limited to only sophisticated guy in my thought.But, what is meant by simple English Wikipedia if you say, my standard of English is not good enough then why does the Wikipedia looks for simple English for wiki articles? Well, I may make further developmenteEnglish in later days, but I think any kind of articles would be in need of reverting stage in your senses when there is not good standard of English for just Nepalese people am I right?Noyster you are native speaker of English therefore you are quite excellent at English, but whatever on the articles is seen mistakes these are needed to make corrections I see that, and on the one hand, I am weak at English whereas on next hand iam quite biased in English Wikipedia, but I was about to offer few contributions for wikipedia but I am quite afraid of ever being reverting by you therefore I once more wanna say, I need your constant helps in developing the English Wikipedia like other Wikipedia. Hmm! I am just entered here in English wikipedia but in nepali Wikipedia I am about to habituated already.A articles " gastric problem was changed by me few days ago, but even that was revereted or deleted by some one else. If the the articles are required further editions or more changes these are done in accordance with the rules & regulations of wikipedia where eiditings are free to add but what to do if these eiditings are reverted & removed immediately. There is no point in offering new articles for English Wikipedia while the article are ignored or completely removed by showing silly reasons. Anyway, I feel good good, even being reverted all articles because I will have habit of writing & will achieve suggests but no all the time these are becoming mistakes this might be just pretending.OK, Noyster, if I make further mistakes like this on other editing then you can give me more consultations to go simultaneously in Wikipedia by offering true articles as much as proof are found.I hope, you don't get me wrong for this long reply though you don't feel any bore to reply& you be thinking me just nonsense guy but I am not like that it may be because of not well understanding in English that iam lagged behind in comment strongly but unfortunately, I couldn't do that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahendra Niraula (talk • contribs) 02:27 am, 25 December 2014)
|
Disambiguation link notification for December 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Multan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjabi. 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) 09:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations
|
The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
|
|
|
Congratulations, Noyster! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC) |
Reverting edit to Vsauce page
The edit you reverted - made by Xtina fighter2 - seems to have been well sourced and correct. I'm wondering why you reverted the edit. Crossark (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please take a look at the warning on the user's talk page - has done nothing but add these spam links to numerous articles: Noyster (talk), 09:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- That may be so, but this case does not seem to fit that rap sheet. The information was cited, the citation checked out, and the content seems to be both a valuable addition to the article and encyclopaedic. It wasn't a spam link this time, so the edit shouldn't have been reverted. Crossark (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is also important to note that the information seemed to have been placed in the proper section. Xtina fighter2 made a proper contribution to the article, if a little sloppy on the copyediting side. Crossark (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- The only difference I can see in this case was that the addition was made in text form rather than in a table. OK, "unencyclopedic" would be a better description than "spam links". All the reverted additions gave a ref to the Screenchart website, so yes, they could be checked at that level. The objection is that this particular award lacks the status to be worthy of mention in a WP article, as indicated by the fact that there is no article about the award itself, as there is for the Streamy and Webby awards. I'm not seeing independent sources on which such an article could be based, either. If you disagree, maybe the people at this WikiProject could give a further opinion. Also note that the user continued when on a final warning and their "What did I do wrong?" query had been answered: Noyster (talk), 10:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I was unaware that Wikipedia discriminated between the legitimacy of awards based on whether or not they have their own article in the encyclopedia. I've seen various other citations to sources that don't have such articles that have been accepted, but I am a relatively new user, and I may not be fully aware of the guidelines for awards. I've submitted a request to the WikiProject you provided for a review by the appropriate authorities. I think it's best that we allow them to carry out that review in peace.
- The only difference I can see in this case was that the addition was made in text form rather than in a table. OK, "unencyclopedic" would be a better description than "spam links". All the reverted additions gave a ref to the Screenchart website, so yes, they could be checked at that level. The objection is that this particular award lacks the status to be worthy of mention in a WP article, as indicated by the fact that there is no article about the award itself, as there is for the Streamy and Webby awards. I'm not seeing independent sources on which such an article could be based, either. If you disagree, maybe the people at this WikiProject could give a further opinion. Also note that the user continued when on a final warning and their "What did I do wrong?" query had been answered: Noyster (talk), 10:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is also important to note that the information seemed to have been placed in the proper section. Xtina fighter2 made a proper contribution to the article, if a little sloppy on the copyediting side. Crossark (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- That may be so, but this case does not seem to fit that rap sheet. The information was cited, the citation checked out, and the content seems to be both a valuable addition to the article and encyclopaedic. It wasn't a spam link this time, so the edit shouldn't have been reverted. Crossark (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)