User talk:Nsk92/Archive 2

Sleuth (computer game)
Hello,

I noticed that you added the unreferenced and notability templates to the Sleuth article. I've gone ahead and added a few references that I could find from Google Books (mainly from old PC magazines). Would that be sufficient enough for notability? It's a very old game and so I've had a hard time finding more references. -- vi5in [talk] 18:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the references (the goal in placing those tags was exactly to attact the attention of a knwledgeable editor who can add such references). I still a few notability concerns, but I'll not restore the notability tag. Regarding the references you placed, could you please clarify them a bit? E.g. I was not sure if references 1, 2, 4, 5 are books; and if yes, who their authors are and when were they published? (including ISBN numbers would be also good). Ref 2 is a magazine article, correct? In that case, the date of the publication would be helpful as well. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of them seem to be magazines. I'll try and get the publication dates (and ISBN's if they are books). Thanks for your help! -- vi5in [talk] 20:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris Rothfuss
No attack meant in this article, but I can see how it didn't look good. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

NFPA 1123
I do not understand what you mean by this article needs "reliable sources". Along the same note... see how many other NFPA articles there are? They are all from the same book... they are just different "chapters" and this is adopted internationally. I dont know how the NFPA is not a reliable source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Fire_Protection_Association Climbjm (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The meaning of "reliable sources" is explained in WP:V and WP:RS. They are, typically, articles in newspapers, journals or mentions in books. Yes, NFPA is a reliable source and it is OK to cite it, but for the purposes of establishing notability of the subject one needs to also find reliable sources that are independent from the organization that actually publishes NFPA 1123, that is sources that are not published by the National Fire Protection Association itself. Usually, if the subject is notable, it should not be very hard to find such independent reliable sources by doing some standard google searches, such as GoogleNews and GoogleBooks. A few examples are . Since you are the expert here, you can probably find better ones. Nsk92 (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Alexei Khvostenko

 * OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Srbosjek
Hi Nsk, just a quick point re:. I think Christopher Stewart's book is titled Hunting the Tiger: The Fast Life and Violent Death of the Balkans' Most Dangerous Man, not as stated. If this AfD is going to turn on the sources & refs, probably that needs to be corrected. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for spotting it! I've just corrected the book title in my comments. I must have had the wrong thing saved in my copy-buffer when pasting in the title the first time. Thanks again! Nsk92 (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, I spend heaps of time doing Word docs for work, and the same thing happens to me all the time. Given the discussion is going to be all about sources (& lack or otherwise thereof) it's probably best to have sorted it. Mind you, if this knife only has a couple of refs in passing at best, I wonder where that leaves us in terms of notability? Also I wonder if the term 'srbosjek' was just a colloquialism that became a popular nickname for any old knife from the kitchen drawer? Somebody more knowledgeable than me can no doubt answer those questions. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also have a concern about notability, but looking at the previous two AfDs,Articles for deletion/Srbosjek,Articles for deletion/Srbosjek (2), it seems that there may be more sources available here. Still, both of those two AfDs were pretty poisonous and I am not sure if I'll vote in this one...Nsk92 (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

problem with adding an AfD to delsort list
I tried to add the AfD Articles for deletion/Srbosjek (knife) (2nd nomination) to the History delsort list, WikiProject Deletion sorting/History. However, when looking at the preview, the item did not appear appropriately: the title of the AfD did appear on the delsort list but the content of the AfD itself was not trascluded there. I think the problem may be caused by the AfD itself (some technical problem with the way the AfD page was created), but I could not figure out what the deal is. I'd appreciate some help here. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at it and fixed it. I think some of the coding was b0rked. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 18:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! I'll try again now. Nsk92 (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, no something is still buggy. I have added the item to the history delsort list but the AfD itself is not properly trascluded there... Nsk92 (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Maybe something's wrong in your browser? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 18:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Looks fine because I've just corrected the code for you. :) - tholly  --Turnip-- 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks a lot to both of you! Everything indeed looks fine now. Nsk92 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good :) - tholly  --Turnip-- 20:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Srbosjek article
Please note that the sources presented in the second nomination for deletion have been removed from the article. I have a strong suspicion that nomination is done in bad faith; I will return the sources removed when I have more time. Second nomination discussion is very enlightening, I would appreciate if you would take a look. Quotations were provided from books using google book service, and they can are not disputed as such. I would appreciate if you would take a look. Terse (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A technical problem at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people
There is some weird technical problem at this delsort list page. The closure box for the AfD Articles for deletion/Don Ed Hardy (2nd nomination) somehow captured ALL the AfD listings directly below it on the delsort list. I could not figure out what the problem is, some kind of a code bug. The problem is probably caused either by the Don Ed Hardy AfD or by the AfD directly above it on the list, Articles for deletion/Diane Teasdale, which is not transcluded correctly on the delsort list. I've contacted the closing admin for the Hardy AfD but he appears to be off-line. Could some-body please take a look? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You forgot to put the subst:ab footer at the bottom of the Don Ed Hardy afd. Fixed. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 04:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it wasn't me, must have been the closing admin, Jerry. I just saw it there, looking at the delsort list. But thanks a lot for fixing it! Nsk92 (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

203.122.240.118
A few things A) thats my static IP B) its a known fact amongst the crats and admins C) stop removing my votes.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I removed your votes twice, but I certainly did not know it was you. All I saw was an IP voting in an RFA and I indented the votes fairly automatically, based on the WP:RFA rules. Admins and crats may remember your IP but I certainly didn't. However, now, that I have done it to you twice, I will memorize your IP or at least will double-check back here to this message before indenting another IP vote in an RFA. Nsk92 (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's okey, I don't expect everyone to remember a cryptic series of numbers. The reason I sometimes edit via IP is the Security server on my network logs me out after 30 minutes (quite annoying but intentional) and I don't realize it has. I have put a notice on the IP talk page stating that's its my static IP  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.soccer
I've removed RSSF from the nomination, since it was starting to create some confusion. It wasn't my intent to nominate RSSF's article in the first place. It was added later by another editor. DarkAudit (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Mar Diop
I had my discussions on IRC because it was the easiest way to get things done quickly - and even then, I had to spread it out over three days', showing people what the other had said.

I avoid ArbCom as if it had a case of virulently airborne explosive diarrhea, and this mess was damn well going to go to arbcom and people were going to get banned and blocked and desysopped, and people were going to stomp away from the project in indignant anger. Good people who we can't afford to lose.

I'm including you among the people we can't afford to lose, mind you.

Now, tell me. Given what an IMED listing actually means, and given the substantial explanation of controversies afterwards... what precisely is your objection to mentioning the fact that the listing exists? I want to know how I can fix this to accommodate everyone. DS (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting the process considerations aside (and I do find your actions there extremely objectionable; I would have thought that people will have have learned from the Orangemarlin/FT2 affair exactly why WP discussions should be done in the open and with an open record remaining), I'll reply at the article's talk page in a few minutes. In the meantime I categorically demand that you revert our edits to the article immediately. There is not and there was not consensus for them. Nsk92 (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please answer the question. Explain to me what's wrong. DS (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am typing it right now at the article's talk page. Please give me a few minutes. Nsk92 (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've posted my substantive objections (rather hastily written but still) at the article's talk page. Responding to your other point. Doing things right is much more important than doing them quickly. That is especially the case for contentious disputes, like this one, which somehow ended up at ArbCom (I don't know how and I have not seen the actual ArbCom case). It is imperative that there be a public record of the discussion, that any claims to consensus be properly substantiated and that all people who might be interested be properly informed. This is the Wikipedia way. Discussing the matter with a couple of users on IRC and declaring that consensus has been achieved, in a dispute where lots of other users are involved, where there has been a recent RfC, where the page is fully protected, and where the page is under an ArbCom probation, is manifestly the wrong way to go. The fact that we are having this conversation now is an obvious proof of that. Nsk92 (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

FGC
Thanks for your comments and opinion. I think we look at the situation fairly similarly.

The biggest difference, I think is that I feel that the reason that FGC is less used as a term is completely because of the polarization of the two perspectives, and the other two terms are used heatedly by their proponents. It is less used befcause of that polarization. That doesn't make it inadequate. In fact, I think it shows that it is adequate in terms of neutrality.

I eschew Female Circumcision for two reasons. The first reason is the confusion of terms. Female Circumcision is used in two contexts now. People who prefer either the term FGM or FGC mean the terrible and bad things that are done to girls when they use their preferred term, and FC when they mean the "acceptable", legal medical procedures. So people who use the predominant term(FGM), or the neutral version of the term(FGC) to avoid confronting parents, mean something entirely different when they say "Female Circumcision". The second, as the UN paper says "This term, however, draws a parallel with male circumcision and, as a result, creates confusion between these two distinct practices."

I admit my bias. I can see why people who object to the mutilation of children are offended when someone tries to equate that with male circumcision by calling it "female circumcision". In my mind, renaming the article from what most people consider to be neutral (even if less used) to one that is more POV charged is not only ill advised, but offense to a group of people. Renaming it FGM would reflect reality more accurately, but also offend some group of people. Hence my previous statements that the FGC term is the most neutral for use in Wikipedia.

Anyway, thanks again.

Atom (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do see your point but I guess I tend to view the term "female circumcision" as less POV loaded than you describe here. I admit that I may be wrong about this and I'll have to think some more about it. As a matter of personal opinion, I actually prefer the term "female genital mutilation" and that is the term I would use myself in off-wiki setting to describe any of these procedures, regardless of their variations. Nsk92 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Message to To Enric_Naval, Nsk92, ThuranX, Cast, L0b0t, Pete,Hurd, Annette46, Artene50 and, T-rex about cooperation to improve the AI-Wiki-page
As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks on a request from Hoary. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone.

(Anna Quist (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC))
 * I have replied at your talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not that it much matters, but not as you described: somebody would have had to invoke "WP:SNOW", but nobody did. Instead, it was speedied. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, thank you, you are correct. Nsk92 (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: New Articles
I added a short sentence to deal with the problem. Thanks for the warning. (talk)
 * Sure, you are welcome. By the way, the standard way of signing one's messages is by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~ . Then both your username, a link to your talk page  and a timestamp are shown automatically. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Jim David Adkisson
Hi, thanks for you message regarding this article/redirect. I have redirected it back to the main article at 2008 Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting and left a message on the talk page explaining my reasoning for doing so to the person who created the new version of the article. From the message they had left on the talk page they had not realised that it had previously gone through AFD before creating the article.

I am reluctant to delete it and then recreate a redirect for a couple of reasons. Firstly the new version of the article did not use any of the old content of the article (it was not just someone restoring the old version of the article) and there would be nothing to prevent anyone from creating another new version of the article even if the history was deleted. Secondly (and perhaps less importantly, WP:IAR etc.) there is no policy basis for me to unilaterally delete the history and is not something which is normally done.

I have watchlisted Jim David Akisson and will keep an eye out for anyone recreating the article. If it keeps happening, without some significant new information or consensus, then I will go to WP:RPP and request that the redirect is protected to prevent recreation. I don't believe it is necessary at this stage and won't do it myself as I am now involved editorally.

Hope this resolves the matter satisfactorally. Davewild (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam
I appreciate the thoughtful oppose. I didn't mean to make a POINT violation, but I did consider that I might be risking it. I ultimately weighed it a bit and decided to go through, on the grounds that no process should be closed, even to those considered unqualified by consensus. Anyway, though, you're right &mdash; I was probably asking too much in the way of blind trust. I also think maybe I wasn't cut out to be an admin, so it was probably all a mistake. I'm still glad I gave it a shot, though. It helped me to realize I might be better turning my energy in another direction on Wikipedia. Hope to be seeing you 'round,  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

ratings
Hi Nsk,

in case you were not sure about that: I'd like to encourage you to rate the articles you wrote yourself. Except for Good articles and Featured articles and perhaps also A-class, rating is generally just part of writing the article. If you are not sure which grade to give, just have a look at some other articles and the general info WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Assessment. Keep up the excellent work! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I'll think about it. I thought it is better, on general principles of objectivity, if someone other than the creator of the original article provides initial rating. (And in the biography project, for example, initial assessments are usually done by somebody other than the author). But if that is what the conventions are in the math project, I might indeed rate them myself. Nsk92 (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

John Stallings
I created a stub for Stallings. I just included enough information to avoid deletion. Could you add some flavor: Thanks for your other related articles! JackSchmidt (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * why he is important
 * wiki link out to some of his contributions
 * basic bio (ensure he is american, ensure he current works at UCB, find his year of birth)
 * OK, thanks for the note, I'll try to do this in a few days. Nsk92 (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. I just wanted him to have a nicer bio than I had written, but I figured most people have an easier time contributing to an existing article.  A previous 2007 version of the article had been deleted, so my first draft was simply designed to pass the speedy deletion checkers and make an AfD obviously silly. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Style
Please.

Manual of Style (mathematics) exists.

Don't just indiscriminately italicize everything in non-TeX mathematical notation. Variables should be italicized; digits and parentheses should not. And
 * 5 &minus; 3
 * 5 &minus; 3

is different from
 * 5-3
 * 5-3

in two respects: spacing before and after the minus sign, and the minus sign is not just a stubby little hyphen. Spaces should precede and follow "+", "=", etc. (With "+" or "&minus;" I often make the spaces non-breakable; with "=" sometimes I don't bother with that.) Michael Hardy (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, will do. These were my first articles on math subjects, and I guess I should have done more homework on learning the relevant style guides. Nsk92 (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
If there is anything I can clarify, I'd be happy to do so. Where can I help? — BQZip01 — talk 05:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a difficult situation, but I would have like to hear your overall view of the conflict, especially your view of your role in it, of why the conflict has lasted for so long, whether you have tried to walk away from it and when, and where you see it going in the future. Of course, this is one of those catch-22 "anything you say can be used anagist you" situations, but still, the matter is already actively discussed in your RFA so a clarification of your own view of the conflict would be helpful. If you decide to provide such info, please do it in the RFA itself, rather than on this talk page (e.g. you can expand your answer to Q3). I also wanted to hear some outside views of other users familiar with the case, and I hope that some of them will participate. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

PROF
Give me 48 hours to suggest wording changes, please. DGG (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, sure. Also, if the changes are not too dramatic, you can just go ahead and edit the draft yourself. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I may need till Tuesday night NY time, though I'll try to do it earlier. Unfortunately there are other things afoot at Wikipedia also. 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

kinnow
Gulf, CIS and Russia is definately largest market of kinnow mandarin, source Federal Bureu of Stats Pakistan. Link www.sadruddin.com/pack1.htm shows processing of kinnow. Why to remove? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshna (talk • contribs) 14:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the largest markets for kinnow, it is perfectly fine to have this information provided a reference satisfying WP:V and WP:RS is given in the article. If you have a reference to Federal Bureau of Statistics of Pakistan, then it is fine to include this info but you do need to include the reference as well. Also, it is not sufficient to say "Federal Bureau of Statistics of Pakistan". You would need to either give a weblink, if this info is available at the Bureau's website, or to provide a reference to a printed publication, including the name of the publication, the date of the the publication, where it was published etc. See WP:citing sources for details.
 * For your other question, the link http://www.sadruddin.com/pack1.htm does contain some info related to kinnow, but this link is a promotional page for promoting and advertising the products of a particular company, namely S&C (Sadruddin & Co). Such external links are specifically disallowed by WP:ADVERT and WP:EL. If you find a link that contains similar info regarding kinnow processing but does not promote services or products of a specific company, it would be perfectly fine to include it. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)