User talk:Nsevs/Archive 2

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

AHM (magazine)

The article I'm recreating is updated, the magazine has a website (which is Atlantic Hurricane Magazine Website) and I have enough references to back up my topic and this time its not a hoax. Whenaxis (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This should be on the Talk:AHM (magazine) page, not here, but I'll move it for you.--Nsevs • Talk 12:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: friendly remember to subst

, will do in future. Thanks for bringing to my attention! S3000 ☎ 12:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tags on Mike Watt (writer)

Hi there. The reason I tagged this page with cleanup tags is because it doesn't meet the standards of quality in the Manual of Style on Wikipedia. Please don't remove these tags without explaining why or making the improvements. Some of these items have been addressed with your edits and mine, but there still are some things to work on. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Nsevs

Very much appreciated, thank you. Over the next day or two, I'll work on cleaning this up. Apparently, the person who suggested it be deleted is someone who has attacked my subject in the past. It's annoying, but what can really be done about it. I like Wiki very much and think it's an incredible tool. Admittedly, maybe I picked a minor subject to write about, but Watt's done good in his industry and he's someone I know a little more about than other folks, so I thought I'd hone my skills with his bio. I'll study the Wiki guidelines and see if I can get it to correspond to what you require. Again, thanks for your time. ArchieHall (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

I'm not going to even attempt to address any of this badly-spelled and grammatically terrible diatribe. I will not attempt to prove who I am or who I am not. The allegations are ridiculous.

I will merely point to one thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Poyoyloar&action=history

Poyoyloar created his account on April 6 and has spent all of his time focussed on the entries I created for Amy Lynn Best and Mike Watt. If Wikipedia judges these entries in violation of their standards, I stand by that decision. I won't address this individual any further. I think his own obsession with the subjects speaks volumes of his own character. Again, beyond this, I will not be burdening the Wiki moderators with what could easily slide into a juvenile flame war. I simply wanted to bring this evidence to attention. Thank you for your time and consideration.ArchieHall (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that this has escalated very quickly and very unnecessarily, with some disregard for Wikipedia principles like assuming good faith and staying civil, and I have expressed these concerns to Poyoyloar. Consider this my expression of those same concerns to you (per [1] and [2]). His concerns about sockpuppetry, vaild or not, deserve to be addressed, and since he is a new user, he may not have understood the process correctly. I applaud your decision to not address him any further, but please know that there are dispute resolution processes at your disposal should the need for them arise.

I do hope, though, that this doesn't turn you off from Wikipedia for good. If you can edit the articles to address the concerns raised (which is basically a lack of reliable third-party references), I encourage you to do so. The goal is not to persecute or alienate subjects (although it may seem that way at times) but we do enforce a fairly high standard for biographies of living people and notability to avoid legal problems and conflicts of interest. Please let me know if you have any other questions or need more assistance. --Nsevs • Talk 13:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Very much appreciated, Nsevs. If and when this blows over, I will take steps to either update or rewrite the two entries (and I have others as well that I'd be interested in writing, but I'd rather resolve these first). I apologize if any of my actions caused undue grief for you or any of the Wikipedia moderators. You have all been more than fair to me in this situation. My only concern now is that should I update my entries and add the additional ones I have planned that they too will come under this person's ire and the entire situation will repeat. This is the only negative I have taken away from my Wikipedia experience. My feelings regarding the site and its moderators remain extremely positive. ArchieHall (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about "ire" on the part of anyone. That can be dealt with as it happens. If you feel like editing, do it. Take a look at Your first article for tips if you want. --Nsevs • Talk 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I will, thanks!ArchieHall (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no animosity toward MikeWatt/ArchieHall. And I truly hope that I am wrong about all of this. However, I am not new to these parts. For the last year I edit under my work IP address. However, because this matter was brought to my attention, I decided it was best to create an account to properly log these concerns.

And, if you take a gander at the manipulative efforts of ArchieHall/Mike, your patience would run thin as well.

So before you both get ahead of yourselves, I would like to remind ArchieHall/Mike to please be aware of the following:

(1) Nsevs is a decent enough guy and an editor, but he is not an admin. So don't place too much stock in what either of us have to say. In the end, an admin(s) will decide the case here.

(2) What is material here is that, that I Nsevs:

"...we do enforce a fairly high standard for biographies of living people and notability to avoid legal problems and conflicts of interest..."

"concerns about sockpuppetry, vaild or not, deserve to be addressed,"

And to be clear, good faith withstanding, the client has launched into paranoid diatribe about people out to get him. That just makes the case that he really IS Mike Watt, which means he's creating wiki pages about him and his wife, which speaks for itself.Poyoyloar (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to remind you that adminship is no big deal. Admins don't have any special decision-making rights, nor do their opinions hold more weight than any other editor. They do have the tools necessary to implement blocks and other protective measures, often necessary in cases like this one. If you have an objection to a specific thing I've said, then I'll be glad to entertain it. In the meantime, let's all go back to our normal wiki lives and let this issue work itself out through the appropriate processes. We can deal with further abuse when/if necessary. --Nsevs • Talk 18:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NO, it's no hard feelings. And I wasn't telling YOU that adminship is a big deal. The problem is that the sockpuppeteer is putting alot of weight into what you told him, not realizing that you are NOT an admin. He is implying that you are. So that was for his benefit.

But we are friends here. :) I'm just doing my part to protect wiki from this sorta thing.Poyoyloar (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

--Obviously you are being manipulated by a sockpuppet account holder, archiehall. Account created moment of dispute flare up, all contributions shared, coincidence can't explain away intent. While he blames friendship with other account holder as cause, still implies form of sockpuppetry, conspiring to help eachother.Tromatical (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's starting to sound like I'm getting manipulated by two sets of sockpuppets. Be careful, both of you, Tromatical and Poyoyloar. You are both brand-new users who are speaking like you are old hand at Wikipolicy and both have very new accounts showing very similar editing patterns and very similar reasoning. I'm sick of this finger-pointing taking place on my user talk page. Let this run its course, and we can all get back to work. --Nsevs • Talk 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Response

Responding to your other concern,

http:// b l o g. m y s p a c e.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=12633280&blogID=377911809

Of course he still wants us to think he's 2 different people, so he lays it on thick. But he's just covering his tracks.

But of particular interest is the following quote from MikeWatt/ArchieHall's blog, whereby he all but confirms that he is soliciting meatpuppetry from this friends.

The title of the blog is: HELP NEEDED

"This week, [an editor] has been lobbying to get my and Amy's Wikipedia entries removed... As of five minutes ago, it's still up there. However, if everyone could do me the favor and check in on it every now and then and make sure MK isn't vandalizing it or destroying it further. If you want to, feel free to re-edit, add, subtract, I don't care..."

Clearly, an intent to game wiki.

And I agree, enough is enough. This is my last thought on the matter. We should let everything run it's course.Poyoyloar (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is idiocy. If whether or not I have a Wikipedia entry is all that Poyoyloar/Tromatical/whoever has to worry about, delete it. This person is a sockpuppet, that person is. I'm Archie and Dwaltzwriter. They're me. Whatever. I guess I just sit in a room and create new personas all day.

Poyoyloar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Poyoyloar Tromatical: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tromatical&diff=prev&oldid=201114279

Both guys creating their entries with "Sup"?

But the other people are sockpuppets.

Fine, I cast my vote to the Wikipedia Powers That Be - Delete my entries and Amy Lynn Best's and we can all go on with our lives. Presumably. Except that Poyoylar/Tromatical/whoever will find someone else to harass. Quite frankly, I don't have the time for this. MikeWatt (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks

The above diatribe sounds like a personal attack to moi. >> Also, please defer from threats of legal action. Those type of discussions should be done, privately, w/ administrative support, not on talk pages. Happy editing!Fearedhallmonitor (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that was borderline, at best, especially compared to the behavior those two users he named above have engaged in, for which they were duly warned, but if you consider it as such, then so be it. I have added a note to User talk:MikeWatt referencing this edit. As far as the "legal threats," I made no such threat. I absolutely agree it should be handled privately which is why I encouraged MikeWatts to engage the OTRS system if necessary. Thanks for the clarification. --Nsevs • Talk 16:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Warning

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

Please 'hold' your thx if you R going to resort to attacks. >> where do you get off accusing me of anything?? >> please assume good faith. >> An anon editor contacted me, asked if moi would weigh in on a dispute. >> that's hardly anything more than it is, which is my offer to help resolve a quarrel.

U should know that behavior of other editors does not justify bad behavior from that editor, which you are investing in a defense, w/ a non-neutral stance. As far as I am concerned, all the editors on your page appear to be engaging in unfair practices. You are picking sides, you must observe neutrality at all times. The behavior of all the editors in question are 'questionable.' You should remove yourself from this quarrel completely since the authenticity of all the editors you are dealing w/ is doubtful. For all you know, you may conversing w/imposters posing as real life figures to gain your sympathy. Use common sense where appropriate.Fearedhallmonitor (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well then, I've contacted WP:ANI to hopefully provide some closure more quickly. You should direct any future concerns about this there, or to the pending sockpuppet cases. --Nsevs • Talk 18:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

polymersomes

um, i edited polymersome a little, and i think i can take a tag off, can i? or should i add more? please respond, Huzzahuzza (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better, but still not there yet. Cleanup tags are not a big deal or a scarlet letter, they're mostly meant to attract other editors to pages that still need attention. There are still not enough links from outside, the lead section still needs a better introduction to those with a non-science background, and the references are incomplete. I can have a better look at it later, but I don't have a moment right now. Your edits look good though, so keep up the fine work. --Nsevs • Talk 14:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete mitch blacher

Mitch Blacher is an emmy award winning journalist for the ABC affiliate in New Mexico - KOAT. He is incredibly well respected in New Mexico, and has a strong record of breaking significant stories of public waste and corruption in Albuquerque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker122 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So it seems, but to avoid this in the future, please make sure to put this information in the article, and cite it to reliable sources.--Nsevs • Talk 06:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Brianne Schaffer

Orient macksburg high school is the best school ever i used to go there last year until i got in trouble with the police and got sent to sioux city iowa to a boys and girls home. :( anyways yeah i dont no what else to say beside that because this place sucks and i want to go back to my school:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.154.88 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Nsevs! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Nsevs,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nsevs. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Hood Up Day

A tag has been placed on Hood Up Day requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Nsevs • Talk 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear ~~Friendly~~ Twinkle, thanks for warning me about an article I was deleting. Love, Nsevs • Talk 16:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

BVG MVE

STOP IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexEstChristus33AD (talk • contribs) 04:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@RexEstChristus33AD: Not only are you writing nonsense in an encyclopedia, you're breaking all kinds of links in the article. Please stop. And if you are also controlling Moemaniac, you should know that abusing multiple accounts is frowned upon. Thanks, Nsevs • Talk 04:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop talking NERD RexEstChristus33AD (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

what multiple accts???? RexEstChristus33AD (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Just making sure you're aware of the multiple accounts policy I referenced above. If it doesn't apply to you, I'm sorry for the confusion. Nsevs • Talk 16:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Custom signature fix needed

Please update your custom signature as shown here. The <font>...</font> tag is obsolete. Link: Special:Preferences. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, haven't looked at it 10+ years. Nsevs • Talk 18:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

With any luck, the current version should last for another ten! – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Your a goat

U454632523 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Hello Nsevs. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Staffing Future. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), patent nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. BangJan1999 19:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)