User talk:N5iln/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thank you

Thank you very much for reverting vandalism on my talk page! Ilyushka88 (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Alan (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry about the reverted on the Vandalism Template! I thought it was some person just trying to make fun of people trying to stop vandalism! My Apologies --Vishnu2011 (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. Alan (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Senior Abuse of a 93 Computer Illiterate man at Wikipedia

  • I am a relatively inexperienced editor of articles about China. Louis Lesser is a historic business figure in China, who was instrumental in opening it up.
  • Louis Lesser is now 93 years old man and is computer illiterate.
  • Kimball Dean Richards has a criminal record that includes so many crimes over the past twenty years that he has been identified as a “Master Criminal” by the FBI, was sentenced to 20 years for bank fraud, mail fraud, an wire fraud in about 1990, and plea bargained after he solicited the MURDER of one of his own employees, tapped the phones of the Sheriff’s office in order to pre-warn drug dealers of impending searches, and was extradited to Arizona for still more criminal charges.
  • WarriorBoy is an editor who only writes articles that promote ALlied Artists International.
  • By allowing the vandalism of reliably sourced content, from LA Times, federal court records, etc., WarriorBoy and the Consolidated Allies gang are linking a beloved 93 year old man with a Master Criminal, in order to profit from his computer illiteracy, and use the name of his company by forming similarly named companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaUpdater (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I note that you have also posted this material on the article's Talk page, and there is a very lengthy and detailed discussion ongoing regarding the matter, involving several Administrators. It's best if I step back and let those with more time and knowledge of the subject matter do their work. Alan (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Allied Artists International

An article that you have been involved in editing, Allied Artists International, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Artists International. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've recused myself from activity with this article. Alan (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism/Libel/Defamation

Hello,

I notice with relief that you reverted vandalism on the page of Swindon 105.5 (I'm a Volunteer at the station). The vandalism was created by 'thejpmshow'.

Not content, he has now set up a page defaming the station manager Ms 'Shirley Ludford'. If you compare his vandalism of the station's page with his diatribe on Ms Ludford, you will see a common thread by a disgruntled former helper at the station.

Can you please help?

I'm sorry that I am not named on here, just an IP address. However, my email address is: [email protected] or if you do not send to hotmail, send to [email protected]

My thanks in advance for your help.

Ron Inglis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.207.131 (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the page for Shirley Ludford, I don't see any material currently in the article that could be considered defaming, biased or prejudicial, and I also see that User:Thejpmshow has not edited in several days. I think it safe to say, for now anyway, that the issue may be stabilized, if not settled. Meanwhile, if there's consistent vandalism ongoing at the Swindon 105.5 page, I (or any other editor) can request protection for the page (see WP:PP). Alan (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of B.R.A.K.E.S.

The article B.R.A.K.E.S. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article does not have references to independent reliable sources, and I cannot locate significant coverage in sources to demonstrate notability. See WP:V.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Chzz  ►  00:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The information currently in the article is base information only. I'm still compiling other sources; however, my time for such research is limited due to the nature of my employment. I'll flesh the article out as I'm able over the next few days. Alan (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Hi, could you please tell me where i have to mention the edit summary? the reason i'm redirecting that article to Descendants of Henry IV of France is because the article is not big enough and that Marie de Medici's descendants were Henry's descendants too. Nirvaan (talk) 9:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Right down under the main edit window you'll find a small line for text input, labeled "Edit summary". Without entering a short summary of what you changed in the article into that, people reviewing recent changes to articles won't know why you made such a wholesale change, and may see it as vandalism. See WP:EDSUM for more information. Alan (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

fix

hey your information is incorrect on who is the chairman of the house committee of homeland security, just look here on the left side of the page http://homeland.house.gov/

I stand corrected. Alan (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

New Sharon, IA edits

I'm confused as to why you deleted my addition to the New Sharon, IA page? Please expound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmichaelc (talk • contribs) 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOTE and WP:BLP. Information included in an article must meet notability guidelines and have reliable, verifiable sources for support. This goes double for biographical information, which by its nature is considered very sensitive. Alan (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Right of reply

Please resolve the issue about my right of reply on this page or remove the libellous content about myself.

Cheers. Lyndon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndonashmore (talk • contribs) 15:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Replying isn't blanking others' talk pages, nor is it refactoring comments contained on those pages. If there is a dispute between yourself and another editor, and it can't be resolved between the two of you, invite other editors in to comment, or ask for help in accordance with WP:DR. Alan (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, replying is one thing, removing it completely is another entirely. Aren't you supposed to be a scientist or something? HalfShadow (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Lyndon has not as yet made any attempt to contact me or convey his concerns, other than by edit summaries when he blanks the page. I had recently added a section of the associated talk page for him to use, and directed him to the talk page in my own edit summaries, in an attempt to open communications. I have now also spelled out how I see the matter on Lyndon's own user talk page, so we can see where it goes from there. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I looked over the commentaries in that talk page, and even with an elementary knowledge of physics, I see a large number of problems with Lyndon's theories...problems which were pointed out by other commenters. Yes, I know how much work goes into a thesis, and I know how much it hurts to have that thesis shot full of holes, but when some of the theories being proposed fly in the face of such basics as the Laws of Thermodynamics (which, last I checked, quantum physics had NOT negated), it calls the remainder of the thesis into serious doubt.
If Lyndon is choosing to construe criticism as libel, well...that's the primary issue at hand, and I'm not sure there's any easy or gentle way to disabuse an editor of the logical fallacy. A "tough-love" approach may be the only option available. Alan (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
That's all that is on offer. I'm happy for other editors to comment or observe if they like, or you can leave it in my hands if you prefer.
For what it is worth, Lyndon and I have a history. He has attempted to defend his theories in various online physics discussion forums, where the the errors in his work have been explained at some length by myself and others. He has been banned from most physics forums in which he has attempted to discuss his work, mainly because he simply does not engage the substance of the criticism and continues to assert plainly refuted claims ad infinitum. I am not planning to reprise any of that discussion here. As far as I am concerned, the errors in his physics are not up for discussion and no right of reply is required or useful. His ideas came up here peripherally as part of the concerns from editor W. Kehler, about two years ago. They are not actually a topic for wikipedia in their own right. But in line with wikipedia conventions, I'm open for him to express his concerns on the appropriate talk pages. That's his first step, and it isn't going to get him very far. But he has to make the attempt there first if he wants to do anything at all. His wisest course would be just to forget it, but he's under no obligation to accept that suggestion. His other alternative is the talk pages. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but this is totally untrue. I am assured by Wikipedia that these are not editors but merely users. Dear Lyndon,

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that the people in question are not editors, and do not act on behalf of Wikipedia.

I can confirm that you can redress your complaints by way of dispute resolutionm, which I linked in my previous email.

I can confirm that the page referred to is indeed a user page.

Yours sincerely, Joe Daly Sylas please supply me with your real name and address and myself or my representatives will be in touch. We are not playing games now. Cheers, lyndon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndonashmore (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A few pointers for you...
1. ANY Wikipedia user is, by definition, an editor, since any Wikipedia user (unless blocked from doing so) may edit any article.
2. No one is playing any games here, with the possible exception of yourself. Looking at the page history, I see absolutely no effort on your part to gain consensus on the material being presented; rather, you content yourself with wholesale deletion of material. And your opening statement to me comes perilously close to being a legal threat, which is a clear violation of WP:NLT.
3. As I have only a basic grasp of the fundamentals of physics, and have studied only one specific branch thereof extensively - that of electronics - I now recuse myself from any further discussion of the topic, and leave it to those more versed to continue. Alan (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Idalia, Colorado, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 69.171.160.58 (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm...I think you're confusing vandalism with removal of unrelated information; the latter is what I did. I now see that you have re-added the information I removed, with sufficient additional material to show relevance to the topic of the article.
I'd suggest you use care in applying warning templates to user Talk pages in the future, especially as an unregistered user. If there's a question as to why a particular editor removed or reverted one of your edits, the first place to go is normally the article's Discussion page, where an explanation of your edit should be posted. Alan (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

International English

I'd like to thank you for informing me. After reading articles about correcting errors, I was a little confused about whether I should edit it based on English (UK) or the form of English predominantly used in the article. Rahrahbahb T 18:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries...it's a fairly common event, and it's often difficult to tell what the original target audience is without careful examination of the full article. It should probably be mentioned that as far as I can see, American "English" is frequently not apropos for the content! --Alan (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Monster Article

I don't think the anonymous user with the IP 76.103.192.43 touched my edits. All I did was add the Fouke Monster to the list of monsters on November 18. I didn't add anything to the body of the article itself. From the looks of it, the vandalism was just a snarky addition to the monster definition. grifterlake (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ummm....I don't recall seeing that article on my edit list, and according to the history of that page, I've never been in it...are you sure you've got the right editor here? /Me is confused... --Alan (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Unless someone hacked your account and removed some vandalism in your name (Batman?) it looks like your entry:
23:21, 22 November 2009 N5iln (talk | contribs) m (6,530 bytes) (Reverted edits by 76.103.192.43 to last revision by Grifterlake (HG)) (undo)
Here's the link if you want to check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster and see for yourself. To get here I just clicked your username in the edit history. If it wasn't you it might be a good idea to change your password. But if that's the case someone did a good deed in your name by removing a vulgar reference in the Monster article. grifterlake (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

alan

i did not edit that treasure hunting page...thank you.

scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.164.16 (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

See [1]. Does your ISP assign IP addresses dynamically? --Alan (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


Edit of the Controversy and criticism of the X Factor (UK)

Thank you for the advice, and my apologies for the edit. Jules93 (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

TransporterMan has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

For your revert of the vandalism to my last edit on Cable-stayed bridge.TransporterMan (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

<Blush> Well I now see on closer examination that the vandalism was not actually to my edit, but to the page as I last edited it. Pardon a newbie's misinterpretation, but you deserve the cookie anyway.TransporterMan (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for removing the vandalism on my user page! Manfi (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Reversion - Crucifixion in Art

Excuse me, I did justify my edit. Sourcing a baseless claim from an encyclopedic fan-work should not be sufficient to justify including it on the page. Did you even read the talk page, or did you just blindly hit 'revert'? 68.114.130.234 (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Where was the edit summary? Only in the content of the Discussion page? If so, there should have been an entry directing editors to the Discussion page for more information. The material removed appeared to me to be both relevant and properly sourced and cited. See WP:PRESERVE.
In the future, I recommend you explain your edits more thoroughly, even at the risk of redundancy. I also strongly recommend you use caution with your tone when commenting on other users' Talk pages; what you wrote here runs perilously close to the WP:NPA line. Thank you. --Alan (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This IP came here from an external site that is stirring up drama at that page. User:tedder has also put a specific instruction on the article talk page, forbidding deletion of material without an edit summary. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah. That explains the other edits I see in the page history. Thanks for the corroboration. --Alan (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: December 2009

I bother you only a few minutes because I have received your attentive message for an edition that I have just done in the article about the Twenty-second Amendment. Although I am registered in the Wikipedia in English and do editions with certain regularity here, really I am a user of the Wikipedia in Spanish (w:es:Usuario:Furado).

Since you will be able to verify for my editions in the Wikipedia in English, you will see that if I have committed an error, this one was without bad intention, but I believe that my edition is correct, because Barney Frank, José Serrano and Howard Berman I believe that they are of the Democratic Party, since seeing the articles about each of them I could verify it. If it is not like that, I feel it deeply, so my intention was only to correct an error. Thank you again for your polite message, excuse my bad English, pleased to meet you, and a greeting, --Furado (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

While the three Representatives you name are indeed Democrats, the proper form of address is Congressman (or Congresswoman, as appropriate), or Representative. To denote their party affiliation, a suffix is added indicating their party and the state they represent. Thus, to properly and fully reference Barney Frank, the full form would be Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). --Alan (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh!. Now I understand my error. I confused the abbreviation "Rep." with "Republican" (that's why I changed to "Dem.", for "Democrat"), but I see that in fact "Rep." it is "Representative", not "Republican". Well, the typical case of a good faith edition... but erroneous!! Thanks for your clear and kind explanation and excuse me for making you lose the time with this small question. Greetings, --Furado (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

alan

I did nothing different from what you wrote to me. If the person violates Wikipedia conduct, you warn the person. Unless your warning warrants the same response from me for threatening me with suspension - violators of conduct should be warned. Just like you - I did the same. I urge you to reread what I wrote and take a look into all the shenenigans that been done to Wendi Deng's bibliography. Information on how much of her sourced info has been scrubbed out and what is left is mostly unsourced, poorly written disjointed sentences and with extreme positive PR spin writing. Sadly, previous, and well written and properly sourced material has been consistently and constantly removed. All of this is documented through wiki history as well through discussions on the page. What will you do about that? Thank you. StopTheCensors (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I read through all the discussion and looked over the edits that have been made. The more I examined, the more I came to believe that one of the best things that might happen is that the entire article be deleted as failing to meet the criteria of WP:NOTE. If nothing else it would end much of what appears to be pointless bickering over who changed what and who didn't cite what.
Failing that, I think you need to look again at what you wrote on the article's Discussion page. It wasn't the content I took exception to, it was the tone. Your commentary flirted dangerously with WP:LEGAL and definitely crossed the WP:NPA line. My suggestion here is that rather than attacking the person who made the changes you have issues with, rewrite the questionable sections of the article and include appropriate, reliable and verifiable material and citations to support that rewrite. By doing so you establish yourself as having the factual and ethical high ground, and put the so-called "censors" on notice.
At this point, since I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in anything to do with Deng (or, for that matter, her husband), I recuse myself from further involvement with the article. --Alan (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User 82.17.139.176

I don't know if you know, but this guy vandalised the article on Vladimir Makarov (a fail of an attempt too), which I have reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casual T .30-06 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson

Hi N5iln, I have reverted your edit to Jena Jameson. The proper spelling of glamour in this case is glamor. The American version is different and should be used not the British version. This is because she is American.--NavyBlue84 16:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to both my print copy of the Merriam-Webster American Collegiate Dictionary (2004 edition) and their online version, "glamor" is NOT an accepted spelling. --Alan (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually if you look the proper version is glamour, but right below that it has glamor listed as correct. Also I use Firefox, and it is set to American english and it highlights glamour as being wrong. So both are acceptable but like I said, since she is American, the American version should be used and that is glamor.--NavyBlue84 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

One Sonic Society

The article creator had already contested a prod. Now at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Sonic Society. Fences&Windows 04:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

message you sent me

I think you wrote the wrong person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.99.242 (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on the edit history of the article in question, all I have to go by is the IP of the user who committed the edit in question. You can avoid possible erroneous notices such as what I sent by registering as a user. --Alan (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Matrox Mystake

None of the article is sourced, save for one link at the very end. My guess is that you don't know video cards - I mean, if you had read what is already there - namely that the Mystique was derided in magazine reviews, you would know that it fits in - if not, Google "Matrox Mystake". I'm going to leave it in unless you are willing to delete what isn't sourced in the article (basically everything). May I suggest that you stick to subjects that you know, rather than making edits on subjects that you don't know. If you had ever heard of the Matrox Mystique, you would have known that it was nicknamed the Matrox Mystake. In any event, it used the VR chip - which didn't catch on with software developers, so very few programs were written for it (the VR chip was what caused the Mystique to be a miserable failure). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.125.82 (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If the Mystique was "derided in magazine reviews" as you claim, surely you can locate some of those reviews online and add referencing links to the article in support of your claim. If not, you should leave such obviously non-neutral commentary out of the article. See WP:CITE and WP:NPOV.
I also strongly suggest you be more careful in how you communicate with other editors, especially those who are working to maintain the integrity of articles on Wikipedia. What you have written here can be construed as a personal attack and could lead to a suspension of your editing privileges. Thank you for your attention. --Alan (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
It is people like you that make Wikipedia a second-rate source. The articles are no longer on the web - the card is ancient 1990's. Go read what was previously there. And, again, Google "Matrox Mystake". I didn't say that the articles said that it was nicknamed the "Mystake" - the review articles derided it as second-rate (which is what somebody else had already put in). I only put in that it was nicknamed the "Mystake" - by the gaming and programming community. If you would like, I will put in some gamer blog links where people refer to it as the "Mystake" - but I'm sure somebody will say, "That's not a proper source". That's why Wikipedia is second-rate - and will remain that way - because busybodies like yourself insist on editing articles on subjects you know nothing about. Oh, by the way, one other thing - there is a second article on the "Matrox Mystique", and in it, it is referred to as the "Mystake". I was just conforming this article to that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.125.82 (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
That article should be fairly easy to reference, yes?
I won't bother issuing an "official" warning regarding your WP:NPA behavior. I believe the fact that two other editors have also cautioned you should be sufficient. As far as I'm concerned, the matter's done. --Alan (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You Got the Wrong Guy

User talk:71.155.145.16

Re: Andrew Wakefield, the original text in the first line described his work with a word with more negative connotations than the now existing "discredited," "irresponsible," I think. In an effort to provide a more neutral point of view I changed it to "controversial." After more thought, I decided that someone with more expertise in the area should make the call and reverted my own change. In other words, I made no changes -- you have the wrong culprit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.145.16 (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, my bad...I didn't go back far enough in the article history. Sorry about that. --Alan (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing

I have NEVER edited Wikipedia, I will NEVER edit Wikipedia, and no one else on this computer even USES Wikipedia. SO PLEASE STOP SENDING ME MESSAGES EVERYTIME I VISIT WIKIPEDIA TELLING ME YOU REVERTED AN EDIT I NEVER MADE. ESPECIALLY ON PAGES I HAVE NEVER VISITED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.225.196 (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous users editing articles have their IPs recorded automatically. If that edit is reverted for any reason, the notification is sent to the IP that created the edit. If you use an ISP that dynamically assigns IP addresses, it's very possible that another user is the originator of the edit in question. All I have to go by is the IP address.
If you make regular use of Wikipedia, you might consider registering (the price is definitely right: free). That way, you avoid erroneous notifications. --Alan (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

You said one of my edits was unconstructive, but ,my summary was "Nobody cares" because he replaced content with "Bikers are annoying". Jimbo Wales NEKAMI!!! (Talk to her) 22:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I reverted it because, from an encyclopedic view, there's no need to describe the climate of a single neighborhood of a major metropolis. Climatology isn't mesoscale. --Alan (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, replacing it with "Bikers are annoying" is still blanking, so please don't revert again. Instead, you should just delete the section. Jimbo Wales NEKAMI!!! (Talk to her) 22:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see "Bikers are annoying" in the edit history. That doesn't mean it wasn't there; it just means I didn't see it. --Alan (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh. Well, I just got rid of the useless section myself. Yeah, it did say that, unless I was looking at the wrong edit.Jimbo Wales NEKAMI!!! (Talk to her) 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Western Eurocentric Ethnocentric Paradigm WEEP

Hi, i see ive been deleted in my social theory, please advise how to delete the whole text from Wikipedia as for now, I do not want to pursue this further as I am unsure how to do this. and i am worried about putting my social theory up on wiki as it is mine and copyrighted and without reference to me as this is my discovery, I dont want others to create theoretical jargon to claim my copyright title of WEEP or NAP. please advise, thank you, Paula —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosquitopoint (talk • contribs) 13:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Simply delete all text from any related articles you have created. Once your material has been published in peer-reviewed or refereed journals and become available as a reference work, a student or colleague may re-create the articles and cite such journals as sources. I wish you the best of fortunes and continued success in your academic endeavors. --Alan (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Mennonite

I'm a little mystified by your edit/edit summary here: [2]

Seems like you reverted the removal of dubious claims. Am I missing something?

JosiahHenderson (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My bad. The correct edit summary should have read "Reverted unexplained removal of material". Poor aim with a mouse on my part. --Alan (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yorkshirian

Do you mind if I revert your SPI case? I was ahead of you and submitted it under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yorkshirian Forever since the CU said Yorkshirian and Y.Forever were unrelated. –MuZemike 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. I didn't look that far down the list...my bad. --Alan (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to User:Blackmagic1234.

I am Blackmagic1234 I removed the message I said about my ex friend now my mortal enemy >.> because I bloody dam well quit this place I may as well quit the internet cause she will never stop stalking and harassing me what you see on my user:blackmagic1234 is her causing me to lose control of my anger and rage..my so called psychopathic side I had get help to control. And now because of her harassing and stalking then you add on her signing me up for email newsletters and other spam. I lost control now all because of HER I will need to go see a Psychologist after years of being in control of my anger and rage.

142.163.148.8 (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

While I can empathize with your anger at your ex, Wikipedia isn't the venue for either continuing the fight or decompressing. Doubly so since there is no way another editor can quickly or easily tell what the situation is, what started it, how long it's been going on, or what the ultimate resolution will be, based solely on the content of a user talk page.
Best of fortunes in finding relief and peace. --Alan (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversy and Claims

Ferriss makes several unsubstantiated claims in his book:

  • That he is a National Chinese Kickboxing champion.[1][failed verification]
  • That he has been a "Cage fighter in Japan, vanquisher of four world champions (MMA These fights are not sufficiently substantiated by Ferriss [3] and appear in no MMA databases.
  • That he is "Advisor to more than 30 world record holders in professional and Olympic sports" (not substantiated).
  • That he has been a "Cage fighter in Japan, vanquisher of four world champions (MMA)" and a "National Chinese kickboxing champion" (not substantiated).
  • That he created a chain of gyms in China before being forced to close them down by local gangsters (not substantiated--Ferriss refuses to name the gym or its location).
  • That he was an actor on a hit TV series in mainland China and Hong Kong (not substantiated--no trace of video nor listings and Ferriss will not name the show).
  • In an article on his blog, Ferriss claims to have gained 34lbs of muscle in 4 weeks, with a total gym time of just 4 hours (not substantiated)

Ferriss' book received numerous five star reviews on the day of its release, prompting the blog author to suspect inappropriate gaming of Amazon.com's rating system. The blog author further speculates that Ferriss has perpetuated a Confidence trick in the mode of Aleksey Vayner.

Respected TED member Max Hodges noted that Tim Ferriss's claims regarding his swimming ability are completely fraudulent. TED Members thanked Max for pointing out Tim's fraud "Ah...you're a genius. Now I feel disillusioned. Thanks Max." and many lamented that TED is ruining its credibility. [2]

You obviously have more than an academic interest in the subject matter. See WP:COI. I, on the other hand, am looking to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia by ensuring material included in articles BY ANY EDITOR can be supported by reference to reliable, verifiable sources. The material you are attempting to include is either completely unsourced or supported only by sources with obvious bias; see WP:NPOV.
As to who I work for...again, see WP:COI. If I was working for Tim Ferriss or Crown Publishing, I would have to recuse myself from any editing on this article. --Alan (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


Please stop labeling my truthful work as "vandalism." obviously have more than an academic interest in the subject matter, and this is sad as it blinds you to the truth.

Thank you Alan.

The onus is on Tim to back his words up with reliable, verifiable sources. Do you not agree? Or can one just make a claim and the moment it gets out on the internet, it is just the truth.

I am willing to take this to the top of Wikipedia, Crown Publishing, and Random House publishing, in which case I will request your full name and association with Wikipedia/Tim/Crown.

I am currently penning a paper on Wikipedia and its relationship with corporate entities and interests, and I would like to include your work, actions, and opinions in my paper.

Alan--are you of the opinion that Tim Ferriss can say anything he wants and never provide any verifiable resources, and the world must accept it as the gospel truth as Tim is backed by major corporate interests. Alan--in your opinion, is this how Wikipedia works?

The references and verifiable sources for Tim's outlandish claims are Tim's blogs and books. Are these not good enough references? I am not sure what more you want. Indeed, the outlandish claims have no other sources but for Tim's work, and that is what makes them outlandish. Because Tim is a #1 bestselling author in the NYT and WSJ, this is major news. He and his publishers are making millions on unverifiable claims, and this is news and of great interest to the general public. The claims are Tim's and they are set down in stone via the printed word, authored by Tim, to be found in his book and blog. What more would you like to see?

Would you agree, Alan, that the spirit of Wikipedia is to speak the Truth? Or is it to be used as a branch of Random House and financial interests.

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.157.163 (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Alan--please let me know what you would like to see from me in the way of sources and I will be more than happy to provide you with it, inlcuding your own preferred format.

Thanks for your time Alan.

Best, :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.157.163 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything I've read regarding your proposed edit violates WP:COI, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. What you're writing makes it very, very plain that you have multiple axes to grind regarding Mr. Ferriss. I would be derelict in my own duties as a Wikipedian, and a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, if I allowed your efforts to continue unchecked.
Please note that I am not taking ANY stance regarding the veracity of your claims; in fact, I will state openly that you may in fact be correct in your assertions. But the accuracy of your claims is not what is in question here. What IS in question is whether you are able to support those claims by reference to reliable, verifiable sources. See WP:SOURCES and WP:V. Until those tests can be met, your material is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedic article. --Alan (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hankel

I made a note in the talk page regarding why I was deleting what was deleted in the Hankel wiki page. Is there somewhere else I should note deletions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.202.148 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A brief notation in the Edit Summary would be extremely helpful...something like "removed unverified information, see Discussion page" or similar, depending on what was removed and why. That way I know to check the Discussion page before reverting an edit. --Alan (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Messi

Why did you revert my 2 edits? /Heymid (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

From your edit: "Messi is considered to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest football player of his generation...". See WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:PEACOCK. While there's no question regarding Messi's talent, such wording is questionable outside a direct quote from a reliable, verifiable source. --Alan (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, one earlier editor wrote that in the article, so I basically wanted to bring it back. /Heymid (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Understandable. Unfortunately, under WP:PEACOCK, about the strongest superlative allowed would be "outstanding" or "excellent". --Alan (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wooden Shjips (album)

Hello N5iln. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wooden Shjips (album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to creative works. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Alan (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Kleo Bare Metal Backup marked advert

Hi, I'm a new contributor looking for clearer understanding. I've spent the past 2 months studying the wikipedia policies & submission guidelines, but it appears my first submission came up short and is now tagged as an advert. I'm interested in improving the article, but I'm having difficulty seeing the article from another perspective. I've begun making changes, but I'm not sure if I'm making any positive difference towards NPOV. Would you mind providing a bit more feedback on how I missed the target?

Thanks

Jamercee (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Writing an encyclopedic article about software is very difficult, especially when trying to point out the features that make that software notable. The especially tricky part is avoiding WP:WEASEL issues; describing features in a positive light treads a blurry line between description and marketing. One line in the current article version leaps out:

"Kleo simplifies the process of creating file system snapshots suitable for disaster recovery."

Were it me, I'd rewrite that sentence to state something like this:

"It is designed as a disaster-recovery tool, producing complete file system images."

You already mentioned the GUI, so the matter of simplifying the process is implicit...to me, anyway.
Perhaps an option would be to bring someone else into the editing task who is familiar with (but NOT affiliated with) the software and with disaster-management requirements and procedures.
I think you've got a good enough start on the article as it stands right now that the "advert" tag can be removed....which I've now done.
Keep up the good work! --Alan (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


I've made the change you recommended and I'm going to go through the article more carefully and see about removing any puffy stuff <grin>. Thanks much for the feedback. I'm really pleased to finally contribute to Wikipedia, and I'm looking forward to rolling up my sleeves and doing more.

Jamercee (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How to deal?

Hi the Sengunthar article lacks the neutral point of view because of a user named 'senguntham'. The user deletes the images and some personalities which were in the article many a day. The user gives some COUNTERFEIT links http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~kailasan/interviews/fundamentalist.htm that doesnt prove his claim. I replied him with the GENUINE web link http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/23791015.cms favoring my stance but he is adamant and he reverts and continues his malice destruction. So please protect the page from his misleading abuse. 


 Thanking you,The wind or breeze (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not an administrator, so I don't have the capability of protecting articles. I'll review the activity in the article, and if it shows a pattern of persistent and repetitive reversions that include erroneous information, I'll proceed accordingly. --Alan (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Earthquakes

Recently you reverted my edit of 2010 Earthquakes. The information I deleted was for a 4.1 earthquake that did not provide any reason for its inclusion in the list. At the time being the consensus is that earthquakes below magnitude 6.0 must demonstrate some notability for inclusion to keep the list manageable. I will be the first to admit this consensus is weak due to a lack of discussion but as the list has been managed under this idea for close to a week I re-deleted the item. If you feel the current policy is not sound please discuss on the talk page before reverting my edit another time. --Tmckeage (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was unaware of the magnitude 6.0 threshold for inclusion. --Alan (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

What was wrong with my edit? I changed one sentence and moved another to a more appropriate section further down the page and I'm not sure why you reverted it. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.94.97 (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

While your material may have been accurate, you did not provide reference to a reliable, verifiable source for that material. See WP:RS. --Alan (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Harmsworth, Viscountess Rothermere

Her name was Patricia, not Pamela. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.234.5 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The article should probably be moved then, so the title reflects her correct name. --Alan (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

petabyte edits reverted?!

Dear N5iln,

I changed the petabyte page to correct some math, but apparently (according to the page history) you reverted the change back, noting that the original math was correct.

I don't agree: the original text says that 1 PB = 1,024,000,000,000,000 B = 1024^5 B = 10^15 B. According to SI prefixes, only 1 PB=10^15 is correct (peta meaning 10^15). The other equalities do not hold, you can easily verify that 10^15=1,000,000,000,000,000 is not equal to 1,024,000,000,000,000, and 1024^5=1,125,899,906,842,624, which is not equal to either number (but is the correct number of pebi byte, using a binary prefix).

Could you please undo your last edit so that the math is correct? If not, could you explain why you think the original math is correct?

thank you, Inktvis (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct; it was my own math that was in error. It's been way too long since I tried thinking in base-16. --Alan (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

SpinWatch

Dear N5iln. Thank you for your interest in the SpinWatch entry. Can you help me out? Which words would you say are "weasel words"? yrs. Murray McDonald (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL. The words in question are the descriptors "activist" and "radical"; I'm fairly certain they're intended as accurate, but some might view them as pejoratives. If there's an attributable quote that uses those words, you can cite and reference it, and that would eliminate the concern. --Alan (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Changed "activist" to "campaigner" and "radical" to "socialist" in Wainwright's case and "journalist" in Pilger's, in both cases following the descriptions in their wikipedia pages. Murray McDonald (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Creating new article

Looks like this article doesnt exist.Can you create Malaysia and weapon of mass destruction article? I really appreciate it. Iznor19 (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

My work schedule currently won't permit me the time to research such an article. I'd suggest you post a request at WP:REQUEST. --Alan (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

NO OFFICIAL APPOINTMENT YET

Andrew Mitchell has yet to be appointed ID secretary. I suggest you check first before accusing me of playing with wikipedia.128.232.246.95 (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The terminology is what is in question here, specifically the wording "Shadow Cabinet". Appointment or no, it needs support, or removal. --Alan (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point

I've never considered the question of "automated edits" from this point of view. Also, succede or fail, I appreciate your support at my RfA. See ya 'round Tiderolls 02:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I seem to excel at making people go "Hmmm..." lately... --Alan (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

hi

Thanks for your concern but i only added a reference there.

The item was already properly referenced. The CIA Factbook is more readily accepted as a secondary source than most about.com pages, although it can be a bit more difficult to navigate. --Alan (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

all right, should i add the about.com reference then in addition to cia refIwanttoeditthissh (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)?

That would likely work well. It harms nothing to have corroborating sources...as long as those sources DO corroborate. --Alan (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
cheers for the suggestionIwanttoeditthissh (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

vandals

I see you are a good anti-vandal so i needed some help with these vandals on List of religious populations. I know how to revert 1 vandalism, but how do you revert multiple edits at once? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwanttoeditthissh (talk • contribs) 17:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the edits you're talking about...I'll take care of it. Having sources referenced in the text helped me verify the changes. It's one of many reasons I get picky about reliable, verifiable sources being used. --Alan (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

uncategorised

Hi, I noticed you've tagged Coțofeni culture and a few others categorised articles as {{uncategorised}}, did you mean to use {{catimprove}}? ϢereSpielChequers 13:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That tag can actually be completely removed, as far as I can see. I was testing a new semi-automated tool for patrolling new pages, and thanks to your comment I've discovered that for some reason it doesn't display the categories an article is attached to. I'm going to notify the tool's creator about it. --Alan (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense - uncategorised recently hit 8,000, we've got it back down to less than 6,000 articles, but anything that can be done to prevent mistagging would be useful. ϢereSpielChequers 06:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Pac Man 30th Aniversary

helpme Ref : Bio : Tōru Iwatani (岩谷 徹 Iwatani Tōru?, born January 25, 1955) is a former Japanese video game designer and creator of one of the most popular arcade games of all time, Pac-Man. The page needs updating Please Help!!! Ref: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/celebrating-pac-mans-30th-birthday.html CBS The GUARDIAN BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY Google has changed their Front Page! Help or take it over and give me a footnote or not... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micons (talk • contribs) 03:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Google changed their home page for one day to mark the anniversary. As far as the rest, I'm not familiar enough with the subject to create an article on him, and my work schedule won't allow me the time to research. If you haven't already, I suggest you look at WP:REQUEST. --Alan (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to happy with erasure of my contribution

The 2010 Olympics page is quite the whitewash. The paragraph which starts off claiming that opposition began in 2006 is obviously false. I'll concede that my opinionated refutation of this wasn't very ideal but it is an improvement over the obviously incorrect information and if you would like to improve wikipedia please improve or alter what I write rather than erase and revert to the obviously wrong information.

Probably you are just trying to keep wikipedia clean and prune imprecise language such as mine, but you actions so quickly to do this suggest an opinion on the subject that is not NPOV, so please note that this is a touchy subject, I've had to live with this nonsense for 7 years and I was hoping that now after the money was gone some people would stop whitewashing this whole thing, but I guess one can never beat the money. Rusl (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to assert it's a whitewash, you need to provide information from reliable, verifiable sources to support that assertion. See WP:RS. I'm not countering your claims; in fact, I'll go so far as to say you might be completely correct. But for inclusion in the article, those claims need to be referenced. --Alan (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

ACC account request confirmation

This confirms that I have submitted an ACC account request. --Alan (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request so welcome to the team. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide thoroughly to familiarize yourself with the process.
You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and to get any advice on requests as well as the mailing list. Please note that we have implemented a policy of zero tolerance on mishandled requests, and that failure to assess correctly will result in suspension. I would like to emphasize that it is not a race to complete a request, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly.
Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day (a day being from 0:00 UTC to 23:59 UTC), although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed". However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM.
Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse will result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you!

N5iln - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on earning your mop! Use it well and proudly. --Alan (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Once a Catholic

Hi N5iln,

I have rewitten/restructured the very short Once a Catholic article previously edited by Sarah McNair, Mary O'Malley's agent, under instruction from O'Malley. Her agent applied the same 'ownership' to the O'Malley page too. Although the article needs a lot more info eventually, I believe I have removed all the contentious non-NPOV. But please have a look. I have removed the flags, but if you feel they, or other flags need to be applied, please add them back in. Best wishes,

Acabashi (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a need to re-tag the article as it stands now; I have, however, added a stub template at the end of the article. Once you (or someone else) complete expanding the article with sufficient material, feel free to remove that template. --Alan (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

[5]

Thank you ;) --Thogo (Talk) 13:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

De nada. :-) --Alan (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wimbledon Championships

Hi, your GA nomination, Wimbledon Championships has been "quick failed" because it does not meet the basic requirements of a GA article. Please see Talk:Wimbledon Championships/GA1. When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That'll learn me to read before nominating... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: You're quicker than I am

I think I fixed the page. I noticed it too as soon as I hit the button. Thanks for notifying me, keep up the good work! – Zntrip 22:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, N5iln. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wimbledon Championships

Hi, your GA nomination, Wimbledon Championships has been "quick failed" because it does not meet the basic requirements of a GA article. Please see Talk:Wimbledon Championships/GA1. When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That'll learn me to read before nominating... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: You're quicker than I am

I think I fixed the page. I noticed it too as soon as I hit the button. Thanks for notifying me, keep up the good work! – Zntrip 22:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, N5iln. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much...

for the cookie you gave me! It made my day! And it prompted my talk page stalkers to leave me all sorts of cool gifts, so started a chain of wikilove. Thanks again and happy editing! PrincessofLlyr royal court 22:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I like starting things like that...and they're a lot less annoying than the typical Facebook meme, too!

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II on the PC

The reliable source is here. And on Wookieepedia they tell that the PC version will be developed by Aspyr. 84.86.199.99 (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ CNBC Profile of Timothy Ferriss
  2. ^ http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_ferriss_smash_fear_learn_anything.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:N5iln/Archive_6&oldid=1140168005"