User talk:Nasnema

Archives

Craig Hignett/Chris Freestone

The facts placed on these pages were legitimately sourced with words from the men themselves. Please revert this edit, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.207.165 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have never heard of Borussia Munchinclungeback and neither has Wiki. Also see WP:Twitter. Nasnema Chat 20:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Hignett and Chris Freestone have, surely that's more pertinent. Or do I have to make a page for Munchinclungeback as well before its acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.207.165 (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

I didn't add any external links to Elmo's World, just replaced the content. Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you warn a user! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yandledoodle (talk • contribs) 22:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so the gayest something is OK without any sources? Just go to bed. Nasnema Chat 22:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yandledoodle, I quite agree; this admin/moderator is abusive of his/her powers and is unfit to use them. Nobody dares to make an edit on Wikipedia these days for fear of making a spelling mistake and having a fire-breathing admin swoop upon them. God damn these Americans. 86.178.99.160 (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Maloud

An article that you have been involved in editing, Maloud , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tindy1986 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my interest is only antivandalism here. Nasnema Chat 06:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Hello Nasnema! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. Nasnema Chat 05:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humourously

I noticed your edit. You might want to check a dictionary: "humourously" is not an ENGVAR issue but a spelling mistake. --John (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my mishtake. Sorry. Nasnema Chat 06:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thank you for caring about spelling. --John (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

I don't know why it happened. Huggle is not supposed to just blank pages but just revert the target user. In this case it reverted the reverter and more. I think it is becoming more unstable with every release. Nasnema Chat 11:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Nasnema! 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

Armlock

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the word in edit summaries (such as "reverting vandalism"), and be very careful about posting vandalism warning templates on users' talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See also Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal".

89.100.150.198 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You never learn do you, Nasnema? What part of this do you not get? PumpkinSky talk 19:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're a twisted individual Pumpkin. Nasnema Chat 09:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, you are.PumpkinSky talk 12:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bugs Moran

Nasnema,

On this edit to Bugs Moran:

you said: "He was certainly not French - evidence points to Irish/Polish mix"

You believe everything you read on the Internet?

A quick check of this census sheet shows that his father, Jules Adelard Cunin, was born in France and that his mother, Diana nee Gabeil, was born in Canada. They were married 16 Nov 1889 in Ramsey County, Minnesota, in 1881 Jules is living in St-James Ward, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, in 1871 Marié Diana Gobeil was living in Hérbertville, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Canada. A search of the last names Cunin and Gabeil shows that they are both of French ethnicity and Catholic.

Why do people take the word of some website, which was thrown up to make $$$$ money, by selling ads, and then use that website as a source? You want to buy some Florida swamp land?

When are people going to start doing some credible checking? Is this a product of our deteriorating school systems or the failing of ignorant parents passing this down to their children?

It took me longer to type this note to you than it did to do a quick search and find that he was of French origin (about three minutes), and not of Irish and Polish decent. Why can't people take five minutes to check things?

Do you get a kick-back from websites like these as a source? Were can I sign up for that?

Have I got a stock tip for you...

> Best O Fortuna (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Nasnema's edits. Most are mindless reverts and bogus warnings.PumpkinSky talk 12:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that web page is only a welcome page and tells you nothing. Another page on the same site says he spoke French fluently. PumpkinSky talk 12:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was 18 months ago. If you've got new evidence then just present it with no need to check with me. It's okay, be bold as they say. Nasnema Chat 14:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC). Pumpkin, you've got a screw loose somewhere. Nasnema Chat 14:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that would be you. Man up to what you did, face the error of your ways, and I'll take you off my watchlist. PumpkinSky talk 14:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to watch what I do then carry on. Nasnema Chat 14:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just what I thought, you think you're perfect and have no integrity to admit the error of your ways. I do not let people who abuse me get away with it.PumpkinSky talk 14:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the insight into why you're bothering to watch me. I'm leaving this forum to revert some more vandal/dubious edits. Nasnema Chat 14:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That you conveniently forgot doesn't surprise me one bit.PumpkinSky talk 14:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky, just to set the record straight: When Nasnema made his edit, he used this URL as his reference: https://www.gambino.com/bio/bugsmoran.htm Then, on 10 November 2010 - 174.88.16.109 (talk · contribs) changed the URL to https://www.bugsmoran.net. Nasnema then came along and reverted the ethnicity here but failed to noticed that the URL had been changed. Nasnema has "fixed" the ethnicity:

Seven times over a year and a half.

1) Anybody who doesn't remember that is either senile or lying to somebody.

2) Now, if you had just spent that time correcting it right the first time, you would not have had to revert it six more times. Nasnema, I ask you, implore you, to do a few minutes research, and not just some fly-by-night website, when adding/correcting facts. If you continue to do this kind of hap-hazard editing, I am going to conclude that you are purposely trying to vandalize articles, but do it in a clever way. Hiding behind your grammar corrections and vandalism patrolling/correcting, but secretly trying to introduce false information into Wikipedia to purposely damage the credibility of the articles you edit, and Wikipedia as a whole. It takes only a few minutes to verify and or find a credible source in most cases, then only a few minutes more to double check that reference with a secondary source. If user/contributors/editors would have done (and continue) to do so from the beginning, Wikipedia would not be a good joke on late-night TV that it is now. So, you can decide what kind of contributor you want to be; one who checks and finds a) Verifiable, b) Reliable, c) Sources, one who sticks to their knitting (apparently yours is grammar correction) and leaves citing this kind of material to people who care, or one who stealth vandalizes articles. What kind of editor do you want to be? I would rather do fewer quality edits than be a sloppy-Sally and leave other editors wondering what my agenda really is. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're unbalanced. Nasnema Chat 23:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solopress

Hi Nasnema,

I've removed the speedy tag you placed on this page, as I don't think it fits the criteria of WP:G11; it would not need a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. It may not meet the notability criteria, and I have no objection if you want to PROD it or take it to AfD. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 11:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

okay, granted it was borderline. I'll keep an eye on its progress. Nasnema Chat 11:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see it didn't last long. Nasnema Chat 10:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it was on the wrong side of that borderline after all. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I acknowledge I sometimes need to be pointed in the right direction. Nasnema Chat 10:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi, may I ask why you used rollback on this edit? Rollback should only be used for edits where no explanation is necessary (usually for obvious vandalism), and this seems to be a case where an informative edit summary might have been more useful as the editor may not be aware of our policies. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I forgot to put the reason being unsourced WP:OR. Nasnema Chat 05:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask you not to use rollback for edits like that in future (unless you have the piece of javascript imstalled that allows you to add an edit summary beyond the default) and to instead use the undo button or another method that allows you to provide an informative edit summary? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Jo Spears

You reported that the edit on Billie Jo Spears's age was vandalism. As her oldest son I think I should know when my mother was born and how old she was. She was born in 1938, not 1937 and was 73 years old......Tim Pierce....Nederland Texas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.211.74 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are who you say you are and the just created user Timothy L. Pierce, you have my sympathy. However, for five years it appears that the wrong year has been on this site unchallenged in all that time. No wonder that half the world think 1937, such as this link and this and this and this. However, I acknowledge that other important sites say 1938, like this. The date given is still referenced by the Billboard book of top forty hits (which date does it say?). If any agent, family member, etc. knew that Wikipedia was wrong, why no attempt to change the date for so long and make sure all the press knew the correct date and in time for all the obits to appear? So you can see why someone like me may revert an edit believing vandalism, even if the IP belongs to Beaumont, when you make a change like this out of the blue, with no alternative reliable references supplied. Have you an incontrovertible source so we know the 1938 crowd aren't wrong? We may need to take this to the article's talk page. Nasnema Chat 19:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. This is just a courtesy notice that a past incident in which you have been involved with a returning/blocked user that is now being discussed on WP:AN in this thread. You don't really have to say anything there. The other editor's behavior is the main issue. My message here is just a heads-up. Thank you. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. My issue with PS was the stalking aspect: creepy. Nasnema Chat 08:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Feedback

Hi I am a student at Clemson University and am writing an article on Costa Rica's biodiversity and was wondering if you would be willing to give me some feedback on what I have so far. I noticed that you contributed to the biodiversity page and thought you would be an excellent source for feedback.

Jkohles422 (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed to that page? I do not recall. The only interest I would have would be to revert obvious vandalism to any page. Nasnema Chat 08:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for the vandalism revert on my user page! :-) --bonadea contributions talk 10:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Nasnema Chat 10:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leon (film

Please check Maïwenn, she appeard in that film as the blonde girl in the opening scene, that's not any kind of vandalism. 87.188.223.155 (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but please include a summary and cite a source so that vandal fighters don't squash your edits. Nasnema Chat 19:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take a look at the source? what's going on here? 87.188.223.155 (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inventions and discoveries of India

Hi Nasnema! How are you doing? I just wanted to ask you.... How long does it take to reach a consensus on wikipedia? There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that zero and the number system did indeed originate in India! Can you revert the edit you made? You undid my edit. My edit gives readers a more accurate description of India's formidable historical achievements.

99.231.172.215 (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GTC Edit

Hi, I'm doing some reaserch on a company in order to expand an article and began by contributing correct information to a table on the company's past acquisitions. I'm not sure why you reverted the contribution but, I undid your revision. Because a contributor does not want a user name does not automatically make them a vandel. I communicate on the talk pages I contribute to and use published sources for information I contribute. The information I contributed on this last page comes from the book written about the company cited in the article. I appreciate that you contribute by patroling for vandelism and I see from your talk page here you have your hands full with some other problems but you don't want to over Hall Monitor the situation. This was clearly not vandalism, Thank You. 108.120.189.17 (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Much appreciated. ... discospinster _talk 16:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Nasnema Chat 17:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Warning

I think you posted a warning on my talk page by Mistake, Pls Remove it Bentogoa (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did, didn't I? It was caused by Huggle and a simultaneous revert getting screwed. Nasnema Chat 18:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion at 2012 Olympic Marathon Course‎

Hi there Nasnema, you recently performed a reversion to one of my edits on the "2012 Olympic Marathon Course‎" article, but gave no reason for that. Could you give an explanation please, as what you restored was overly detailed trivia (and misleading in part) in the context, and what you removed was clarity of the background as to why the official length is such a quirky number. Good wishes from a relatively inexperienced editor attempting to make a valid contribution here, but encoutering some unexpected obstacles :-) Shufflee (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it seemed to me to be WP:OR and have you looked at your edit closely? Nasnema Chat 10:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have I mucked it up? What needs fixing to make it a good edit? Oops, I see the typo on "rounding". Is there anything else? Thanks for any constructive criticism. Please don't hold back - be brutally frank if appropriate. :-; Shufflee (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was basically the trigger but you were removing valid sourced information "short course prevention factor" and adding your interpretation to the rest. Nasnema Chat 10:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that the technicalities of how the course length is guaranteed is a bit too much geeky information (even if interpreted correctly from a good source) for an article which is essentially about the route taken through the streets of London? It's a bit like giving the chemical composition of the marking paint to be used. Would you object if I took it out again so long as I was a bit more careful with the typing? Shufflee (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead - I have no strong objection. I find it interesting that the final course length was determined so as not to inconvenience some royals in 1908. Nasnema Chat 10:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll see if I can do it justice. Shufflee (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I like your "signature" motif Nasnema. Presumably you don't type, or even copy&paste that in each time. Is there a way of defining a "shortcut" to put all that in there? Shufflee (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, you can add some markup in Your Preferences to make a custom signature. Look around and get some ideas. There is a limit on how long the markup is though. Nasnema Chat 10:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delve around and see what I can come up with! Shufflee (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megaupload‎

No problem at all, opinions are just opinions, don't care too much even to my own (will never know the actual meaning of the web slang "relevance"), anyhoo thanks for the notice. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theckho (talk • contribs) 13:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Wiki

I redirected that page because it is not article-populated, compared with German Wikipedia or Spanish Wikipedia TheChampionMan1234 23:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It wasn't clear what you meant by article populated. I still don't know why you changed it. Nasnema Chat 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you didn't understand, but it has less articles compared with the German, French or Spanish wikis.

TheChampionMan1234 23:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how it was not ok at it was. Nasnema Chat 23:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

96.253.99.195

Hi Nasnema. For now, I have declined your request to block this IP. All I saw was their one edit and your one warning; also I did not understand your comment about impersonation. Normally we don't block folks unless they've ignored several warnings; obviously if they switch user accounts or IP addresses, we count all the warnings across all the accounts they use.

If I'm missing something here, please let me know.

Thanks for watching over our articles!
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete my edit?

I am concerned with the recent delete of the edits I made on Bade achhe lagte hain.. Just because you do not find that useful enough doesnt mean someone else wont. And I know for a fact that my information is valid and verified, thus my information should have under no circumstances been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.99.195 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for temporary break

Please see here. Thanks.24.181.178.235 (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions! SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hi Nasnema, I was just glancing at Dilazak and saw a revert of yours there. While this edit does seem to be an improvement to parts of the article, it would have been helpful if you had used an edit summary for the edit. Not a big deal, but good to keep in mind. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genesee County, Michigan

Hey, I'm fairly sure the IP edits to Genesee County are legit! ^Alex J _Fox (Talk) (Contribs) 13:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was using Huggle at the time and must have accidentally pressed the wrong button. It's okay now, I see. Nasnema Chat 18:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

revert

What was wrong with my edit. The MOS tells to use lower cased? 69.5.89.90 (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: they were The Beatles not the Beatles. Nasnema Chat 23:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong look at the MOS.

NO, stop changing and get some consensus. Nasnema Chat 23:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys don't mind me butting in: The MOS was edited by a user who prefered "the" over "The". yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 23:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did this user also edit all the external style guides?

All known external style guides recommend using a lower-case definite article mid-sentence, including:

The Oxford Style Guide (UK): "Beatles, the, a pop group, 1960-1970." (R. M. Ritter, 2003, p.633)
The Times style and usage guide (UK) says: "Beatles, the, no need to cap the unless at the start of a sentence". (2003, p.24)
The Guardian and Observer style guide (UK) says: "band names: lc the: the Beatles, the Killers, the The."
The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition, US) specifically uses "the Beatles" as an example and states: "A the preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text." (2010, p.416)
On page 92 of New Hart's Rules (Oxford, UK) there is a list of examples for the capitalization of names, one is "the Beatles", with a lower-cased definite article. New Hart's Rules also states: "Historians commonly impose minimal capitalisation on institutional references" and "minimise the use of capital initials where there is no detectable difference between the capitaized and the lower-case forms" and "overuse of capital initials is obtrusive, and can even confuse by suggesting false distinctions". (2005, p.90)
Fowler's Modern English Usage (Oxford, UK), "a festival celebrating the music of the Beatles". (2004, p.293)
Butcher's Copy-editing (Cambridge, UK) says "in a sentence the definite article should be lower-cased". (2006, p.241) Also in Butcher's: "too many capitals can be obtrusive and distracting for the reader." (p.126)
The Duke University Style Guide (US) says: "Avoid unnecessary capitals."
The UPI Style Book & Guide to Newswriting states: "Avoid unnecessary capitals." (Martin, Cook, 2004, p.40)
From The Copyeditor's Handbook: "down style [lower-case] predominates in book publishing." (Einsohn, 2000, p.151)
The Christian Writer's Manual of Style states: "The purpose of capitalisation is to show that a given word has a specialised or specific meaning rather than a general one ... avoid capitalisation whenever it is not needed for such purposes of specification". (Hudson, 2010, p.105)
The Scout Association's style guide (UK) says: "the – Keep as lower case for bands (the Rolling Stones)."
The Yahoo Style Guide says: "We recommend lowercasing 'the Beatles', except at the beginning of a sentence, for two main reasons: Reason No. 1: expedience. Lowercasing 'the' in every proper name makes life much easier. Reason No. 2: aesthetics. Lowercasing 'the' in every proper name also produces a consistent look—a look that, moreover, conforms to normal English usage. To the Yahoo editors, capitalizing 'the' in the middle of a sentence simply looks odd."

The band's name is a WP:Trademark of Apple Corps. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 23:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if this IP want's to change it against MOS and the fact they were The Beatles then go for arbitration. Nasnema Chat 23:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think the IP is trolling us. (Sorry for all the talk notifications.) yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 23:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right about trolling. Nasnema Chat 00:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LAUREN LEE GAUCK, v. HOOMAN KARAMIAN et al, p. 10 (“... The TPRPA “does not prohibit all unauthorized uses of another's name or likeness.” Apple Corps., 843 F. Supp. at 347.(emphasis in original). Rather, the statute is “narrowly drawn,” id., “proscribing only the unauthorized use of another’s name or likeness in advertising.” Id. at 347 n.2. The limited Case scope of uses prohibited by the statute was explained in Apple Corps. In a Beatles look-alike performance case, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that, while the defendants’ advertisements for their performances did violate the TPRPA, the performances themselves did not. Id. at 347-49. Even though the defendants engaged in the performances as a commercial endeavor, the court reasoned that defendants’ use of the Beatles’ personas during the performances and the Beatles logo on the group’s bass drum did not violate the TPRPA because the statute only forbids use of name or likeness for the purpose of “advertising” or “soliciting” purchases of goods or services. Id. ...”).

Our in-house style guide, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks states:

"Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'."

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Trademarks states:

"Trademarks should be written in a way that follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules."

69.5.89.90 (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not against the MOS do some research before you say that Our in-house style guide, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks states:

"Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'."

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Trademarks states:

"Trademarks should be written in a way that follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules."

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Capitalization states:

"Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists".

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) states that a lower-case definite article should be used in band names:

"Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word 'the' should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g. 'Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.'"

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization states:

In band names, and titles of songs or albums, capitalize all words except:
articles (an, a, the)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters says:

"Generally do not capitalize the definite article in the middle of a sentence."

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Flags#Inappropriate use:

"For example, with an English flag next to him, Paul McCartney looks like an 'English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles'; without the flag next to him, he looks like an 'English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles'".

The Wikipedia Manual of Style says:

"If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." That was this version, which uses "the".

Our MoS is clear and consistent. Absent a compelling reason to ignore the advice from our in-house style guide we should follow standard English text formatting. 69.5.89.104 (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so f-ing leave it alone. Nasnema Chat 00:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree to stop reverting us then since we are obviously right?

No. Go to arbitration. i.e. the talk pages. Nasnema Chat 00:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well, the troll has failed to miss that you undid one of his edits, and he undid one of my old edits.~~ (<- That probably didn't make sense, but the link should clear the confusion up.) yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 00:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Still there. If there is no agreement then it must go to arbitration. Nasnema Chat 00:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thing is, I stopped reverting his edits somewhat 20mins ago, ~~and it seems he hasn't noticed~~. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 00:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now he's noticed. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 00:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Butting in): This (long-running and excruciating) dispute is currently the subject of an ongoing MedCom case, so I would suggest all autoconfirmed users who are interested take it there. Also, I would advise you to not use your rollback privileges in a content dispute and beware WP:3RR; that's liable to get them taken away from you (it happened to me a few months ago, so this is just a friendly reminder). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

okay noted. Nasnema Chat 00:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also left the IP an edit warring notice; hopefully he'll stop here soon. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He just changed IP addresses rather quickly. This is beginning to cause me concern. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to have to eat some pie after reading that. Nasnema Chat 00:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm headed for the fallout shelter. I hope the walls are nice and soft. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in advance. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you had to see that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skandia changes

Hey Nasnema! Apologies for not adding a source. The source is from https://finance.yahoo.com/news/op-pohjola-acquires-skandia-life-103602373.html Could the changes be added back to the Skandia article with the source as stated previously? 188.222.105.6 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sure, with sources all is ok. Nasnema Chat 23:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: User:Sanjietan

Hello Nasnema. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Sanjietan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Doesn't appear to be a test. Looks like a description of the editor. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of minor characters in Peanuts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ax (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) 11:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dude calm down at least i have better things to do then correct wiki articles online fucken loser

Robert Owen and User:68.8.110.160

Regarding the warning you gave to User:68.8.110.160 for their disruptive edits to the Robert Owen article, please note that Owen has been dead for over 150 years, so the BLP template you used isn't appropriate. Perhaps {{uw-vandal1}} would have been more appropriate. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Racist.

	Breed-Specific Legislater
	Leave my contributions to the Pit Bull page alone and get a life! Is your face glued to your computer? Evert time I check the page, my addition (which was only a fucking paragraph) was removed and it says it was you. Grow up. Also, enjoy this custom reward I made for you, jack ass. Kat-Sapien (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a think as a watch list, you know. If you follow the rules of Wiki then your contributions won't get reverted. I recommend you follow WP:BIAS, WP:OR and of course of encyclopedic style WP:MOS. Thank you. Nasnema Chat 07:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Pokela

He teaches at Don Estridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.100.24 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have some specific reason for not providing independent sources? Nasnema Chat 01:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

idontwantdowry.com

I was trying to find a way to delete the wiki, but couldn't find it. Is this your website that you are promoting? Do you think it meets the standards for a wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.56.86 (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

??? Nasnema Chat 08:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 2

Hi there!

Can you kindly explain the reversion you made to my recent edit of PlayStation 2?

It was both SCE and Nintendo (not Microsoft and Nintendo) who created decentralized pvp networks after Xbox Live, and my edit corrected someone else's bad edit of the previously correct text.
I added a non-breaking space where appropriate.
I corrected the capitalization of i.LINK and removed a redundant mention of its removal from SCPH-700xx models, when it is already mentioned previously that it had already been removed from SCPH-500xx models.
I corrected an unclosed pair of parentheses and styled the text of some proper names appropriately.

I am going to re-fix the article. Please do not revert again.

Thanks!

69.181.245.156 (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You, as an anonymous user (from Pacifica), made a major edit to an article without making any comments as to why. You, my friend are a fool if you think no one will revert you. Nasnema Chat 00:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does the fact that I am the mayor of Pacifica have to do with anything? 69.181.245.156 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1990s in fashion

Can you get someone to lock the pages for 1990s in fashion and 2010s in fashion so only registered users can edit them? These pages are regularly vandalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Talk:Jozef van Wissem shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 123.224.114.61 (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

post a big movie spoiler to the whole plot of Star Trek Into Darkness, why not hide the text that says a movie's ending plot , that info is too soon and is a big movie spoiler

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) Main article: Star Trek Into Darkness

In Star Trek Into Darkness, Spock Prime is described as living on 'New Vulcan', as Spock remains struggling with the loss of his homeworld, as well as his relationships with Uhura and Kirk. Spock Prime is contacted by young Spock, on the Enterprise, to find out details on Khan Noonien Singh. Spock Prime informs him that Khan was a dangerous man, and the largest threat that Starfleet ever faced in his own timeline, and warns that he is likely as dangerous in Spock's timeline as well. When asked on whether Khan was defeated, Spock Prime answers that he eventually was defeated, but at a great cost. When Kirk contracts radiation poisoning and dies in front of Spock, an enraged Spock attempts to kill Khan to avenge Kirk before Uhura informs him that Khan's regenerative blood can save Kirk.

This section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spock#Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_.282013.29 is a big movie spoiler, the text should either be hidden or removed since this movie is still in theators and maybe theirs some out their who have not yet seen this movie, this text info posted their is a big movie spoiler, and should be treated as such, for others who haven't seen it yet, unless you really want to spoiler the ending of the movie for others! I seen this movie in theators but I bet you theirs someone who is going to come across this text who plans on seeing the movie, and they they go and post a big movie spoiler to the whole plot of Star Trek Into Darkness, why do you think people are going out their and buy this either on dvd or blu ray when they just spoiler the ending without any good reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtrek (talk • contribs) 00:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Star Trek Into Darkness end of Movie Spoiler hover over your mouse to read it

how does this code look and who is martin451, who doesn't exist coding to their wikipedia page , can't you guys keep spoilers coded like this method on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtrek (talk • contribs) 01:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's a Wiki Policy WP:SPOILER. Nasnema Chat 02:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mulligan (games) Edit

Regarding you undo of my edit to Mulligan (games), I changed the phrase "one fewer card" to "one less card" because the word "card" in this usage is a countable noun. Therefore, "fewer" is not grammatically correct. If the word "cards" had been used, then "fewer" would have been correct because "cards" is not a countable noun. Jsblume (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that you've got the rule completely backward - please see the article Fewer vs. less. Nasnema Chat 05:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Aline conus

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Aline conus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Nasnema Chat 16:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twinnie Lee Moore

I dont understand why you changed the edits I made on the Twinnie Lee Moore page as all were accurate and I know the person well ,do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinniefan (talk • contribs) 20:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's got something to do with WP:OR. There's probably some trivia there that needs to come out when I've got time. Nasnema Chat 04:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Talk:Dharmesh Tiwari

Hello Nasnema. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talk:Dharmesh Tiwari, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting mentioned once in an old publication doesn't make the subject of interest to wikipedia. There are only two relevant lines in 3 years for an ordinary professional. Nasnema Chat 21:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Dharmesh Tiwari

Hello Nasnema. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dharmesh Tiwari, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, there is nothing to add here - I just wanted to stop the random article boring everyone to death. Nasnema Chat 21:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the indomitable affrontery of some nobody imposing himself on other more sensitive individuals: that of the Wikipedian. Nasnema Chat 21:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Rain

Hi. Please justify your reversion of both of my two edits to this article on 10 August 2013. They were made in good faith and I think they made sense. 86.139.166.113 (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you were evangelising - not allowed. Nasnema Chat 00:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I was (edit 1) removing something that looked like spam (the very opposite of evangelism or promotion) and (edit 2) very reasonably asking for a "who" citation where a statement was unsourced. Please elaborate. 86.139.166.113 (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct spelling of "Metop"

Hello,

Regarding your reversion of my edits to the "Metop" page and associated articles, "MetOp" as used by ESA is not actually correct. The correct spelling for this satellite programme, as officially pronounced by EUMETSAT, the operator and owner of these satellites, is "Metop".

Please refer to www.eumetsat.int and associated pages for clarification. ESA's involvement is in the launch phase of the satellite, they do not operate them thereafter, therefore citing them as an authority on the naming of the programme is incorrect.

Thanks for listening.

You might be correct bulentyusuf, but please don't just go round unilaterally making major changes like that. I see that you have now gone to the talk page, which is what you should have done in the firstplace. Please don't forget to sign your edits on talk pages with these ~~~~. Nasnema Chat 06:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stoney Jackson

Um, I'm just being useful with this one particular person with his article deleted. What's wrong?--70.193.132.95 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please be aware of the requirement to provide evidence of any claim through written works on-line or other verifyable source. Nasnema Chat 00:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC) WP:OR[reply]

WLNI

The edits you reverted here were actually correct. Just because they were added by an anonymous user doesn't mean they were vandalism. Please slow down in the future while using HUGGLE. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I was reverting something that had an external reference? FO comes to mind. Nasnema Chat 01:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope you were refering to Italian actor-entertainer Dario Fo and not making a personal attack there, else that would probably cost you your access to HUGGLE. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just removed a reliable source (Federal Government) from the WXLK page and added WP:OR. Do you want to explain yourself? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Nasnema Chat 01:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is far past WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Stop now. If there's a dispute about the validity of sources, go to WP:RSN. Huon (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and be civil but I will always revert some edit that does not have some eveidence behind it and will always place some viper's tongue when challenged so FO. Nasnema Chat 02:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer, unless I'm missing something, I believe you misread the diff. The IP removed sourced information and replaced it with unsourced information with no edit summary. I would have reverted it as well. Ryan Vesey 02:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norblin (surname)

Excuse me??? Did you even look at what you just reverted???

The bot got it wrong. I am now going to undo your edit, please don't do that again. Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 02:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garwood Industries Edits

Why did you undo my edits? You said they didn't seem relevant basically. I am trying to show that Dillon Aero is not the only company in the world that sells miniguns and that his are outdated and not the newest version out there. I am new at this Wiki thing but I am learning as I go and my information was very relevant. People should know there is more than just Dillon and the entire page is practically about him. So Garwood Industries Needs a section of it's own to be fairly represented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linsey.Garwood (talk • contribs) 02:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editor needs to be stopped (quickly if possible). Thank you. Ryan Vesey 02:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked you for one day for this and similar edits. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He/she incorrectly reverted me too. 86.164.240.239 (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what has happened here? I come back from holiday and am greeted with all this. Nasnema Chat 10:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business Schools in BC

Hi Nasmena,

you reverted my change and left me this message:

Hello, I'm Nasnema. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to List of business schools in Canada, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Nasnema Chat 00:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The question I have is: What do you mean by "constructive"? I was just being factual not providing a criticism! Are you saying that there is no Business School in UFV which is located in heart of British Columbia, Canada? Well then you would be wrong, UFV has over 16,000 students and the Business School is its biggest department.Follow this link and please revert the change once you did: https://www.ufv.ca/busadmin.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.61.143 (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was an editor in my family who used my account while I was away, due to my forgetting to log out, and was drunkenly creating havoc with Huggle. I see you have reinstated your edit and I am sorry you were incovenienced. Nasnema Chat 18:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Frazers edit

Sorry Im new to this i dont know how to do it right but Im friends with one of vinces grandchildren and thats how I know vinces kids so I didnt need a source so what can I do and please put my edit back or respond on my page. Thanks and sorry for the bad grammer im in a hurry — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnFrazer9 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond on your talk page but there needs to be notability as well as verifiable sources when adding information to biographical articles. In theory you could add a massive family tree that has no real relevance. Nasnema Chat 18:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

john frazer

screw you, you probobly are going to die alone because you wont let someone put info on someones page that is accurate what kind of world do we live in — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnFrazer9 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

helpful hints

sorry for being mean that was my friend on my computer but i saw that the ncaa sponsors were off so go check a look at the ncaa article please — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnFrazer9 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Art Nouveau

Thank you for your message, Nasnema, I've noticed you undid my latest contribution to Art Nouveau. I think you've called it unconstructive. Just wanted to explain that Alfons Mucha was born and raised in the Czech Republic and not in "Czech lands" as inaccurately stated on the page. There is not such a thing as "Czech lands". You can either say "Czech Republic" or "Czechia". I'm going to revert your edits, if you don't mind. Please let me know. Thanks. Standager (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

okay. It didn't seem right to me and I was not the only one. Nasnema Chat 23:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am rich

my changes have been removed by you several times. I can understand the first time because I had a hyper link and didn't include a reference for that. But why did you remove it again after I have taken away the hyper link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinux wiki (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

twice by me and twice by another user basically because it looked like WP:SPAM and lacked sufficient relevance for this article. Nasnema Chat 12:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Imee Marcos' Biography

Previous version is an attack page which falls under WP:BLPSTYLE; it was just bombarded with CLAIMS by selected references which make the article BIASED and definitely not an indication of being balanced. The one who edited the article clearly uses others’ statement to subtly attack Imee Marcos and the Marcos family.

Example: “Imee Marcos is widely criticized for taking the lead in street protests in defense of human rights abuses which “they” say is “out character for a daughter of a former dictator whose regime was well known for its brutal violations of human rights”.” Who is he/she referring to with they?

Speculations are vast about the Marcos’ looting but until now, they remain as speculations. They are not yet proven guilty because anti-Marcoses cannot show concrete evidence. In the previous version of the article, accusations were stated as if they were already proven. They are not supposed to be included in biographies or else the biography would look as if it came out of a tabloid. (WP:Eventualism, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:BLPSOURCES).

It also uses dead links. They are considered poor sources because there is no way readers can verify them.

Moreover, users who have edited the article before us are Anti-Marcoses. One of them has a username,“Titinimarcos” which translates to “Marcos’ penis” (WP:BLPNAMEABUSE). Can you warn this guy for me?

If you have time, Nasnema, kindly do a research too. You’ll be surprised that there are many negative articles about the Marcoses and very few that defends them. I'm not a fan to this family; I'm just giving the issue a benefit of the doubt though and found that the previous version of the article misleading, especially as for young readers/students or others who are wholly dependent of one-click search engines like Wikipedia. That's why I didn't add anything to the article, just omitted the part which I consider 'ad hominem').

Nevertheless, let's maintain fairness in Wikipedia's biographies. Greetings from a concerned reader from the Philippines!

Jenpascua (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of MPs' terms of office

Hi,

I've noticed you've changed a load of new MPs' dates of taking office to 8 May, and as far as I can see, your reasoning is perfectly correct and I thank you for that. I wonder if you'd consider doing a similar job on the end dates of terms for MPs from the previous Parliament who were not re-elected? A quick check on a few random ones shows them all with their terms in office listed as running to 7 May, when they should state 30 March, the date of dissolution. (I think ministerial posts and the like may continue, as they do not - strictly speaking - depend on the office holder being an MP.) --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks. As and when I have time I will be reviewing all the MPs of the last Parliament, successful or not. One of the things on my list was to sort out the end dates and honorific titles for those no longer an MP. My guess is there is quite a change to be made to the Privy Council list too, but not looked into that yet. Nasnema Chat 05:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've already checked and corrected the end dates for all ex-MPs from Scotland and Northern Ireland, and all non-Labour ex-MPs listed at List of MPs who stood down at the United Kingdom general election, 2015. I'll do the Labour ones later if you don't get there first. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I did those and then ended up doing all the MPs who lost their seats as well, so I believe that's all of them now. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, 38 of them (so far) have been reverted by User:Therequiembellishere. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015

Greetings. I saw that you removed two “The Honourable” from this list, while leaving the other five there. Seeing that you did not leave an explanation for this, I restored them. If you are going to present a sufficient reason for their removal, feel free to remove them again.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I was mistaken on those. I thought at the time it referred to the office of MP instead of the hereditary honours. Will try to be more careful. Nasnema Chat 21:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nasnema. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nasnema. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nasnema. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Medicare’s problems" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Medicare’s problems has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 18 § Medicare’s problems until a consensus is reached. PleaseStand (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]