User talk:Nuujinn/Archive 4

RS noticeboard comments
Thanks for the comment at RS noticeboard. I think what you said would be true if the TEXT was about what the journalist had said. But in fact it was supporting TWO CLAIMS. One that the journalist said this (which I do not doubt), but leaving the reader to believe a second claim that the journalist got it right, because we assume that journalists usually do. But we (the editors of Wikipedia) know for a fact that this is not true, and that this journalist on this occasion got it wrong. I could add text to refute the claim the journalist made but that just makes it messy. We should simply delete it because the reference being used was NOT RELIABLE. In fact its ore than just "not reliable" we know that the source got it completely wrong. Wikipedia editors should not be in the business of being clever with words to present a falsehood as undisputed whilst stay withing the rules. We have higher standards than that. Could you reconsider please? Please reply at the noticeboard where I have left a similar comment.Hauskalainen (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Switching to account
Hi Nuujinn. I'd like to let you know that I'm abandoning the IP address I've been using (as it is a public IP address that others could use) and will be shifting to an account. I created the account a while ago, but never used it much, having mostly edited as an IP. If you see any more edits made by this IP, it wasn't me who made them. 116.199.211.49 (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This account - Seed of Azathoth - is the one I will be using exclusively from now on. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am glad to see you will be using an account, it does make things easier in terms of knowing who one is talking to! --Nuujinn (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Concerning the Camille Paglia article: I'd like to suggest a couple of books that could be used as sources. Elaine Showalter's Inventing Herself discusses Paglia's life and career, and there's a recent book French Theory by Francois Cusset and Jeff Fort about French theory in America that discusses Paglia's view of Derrida, Foucault and co. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I look forward to seeing what you bring to the article from those sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I suggested those books because I thought you might be interested in using them, in case I can't find the time (Carl Rollyson and Lisa Paddock's biography of Susan Sontag should be another good source). But I'll probably add something from them soon if you don't want to look them up yourself. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Right now, I have two dozen journal articles to sift through, but I'll keep them in mind. Thanks for the pointers. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added some material from Cusset's book - there's much more that could be included, and if you're looking for a critical perspective on Paglia, it's definitely a good source. You can search inside the text of French Theory on Amazon, by the way. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive news
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 20:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

sentence spacing
My apologies, but the statement "most assertions are opinions, so that's not an issu" does not justify inserting a statement of opinion as if it were a fact. Opinions are ok if they are tagged to a source ("source xx says that..."), but even then, when it's possible to simply state the facts instead of rephrasing it as an opinion, that is preferable. Geoffrey.landis (talk)


 * I answered you on the article's talk page, per BRD (or, rather in this case, BRRD). --Nuujinn (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism and NPOV
Sorry, you apparently didn't bother to read my edits to Food faddism before reverting them. I did not commit vandalism, and I did not introduce a non-neutral POV to the article. Rather, I removed the non-neutral POV that mendaciously implies that caloric restriction leads to sustainable weight loss, a claim for which there is not a scrap of evidence and never has been. 85.178.76.98 (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did read your edits, and the edit summary that you used indicated that because you believe what the source is attributed to say is not true, that source is not reliable. That is not our policy, please read WP:RS. Your opinion and mine do not count, you will need to provide reliable sources to support the edits you wish to make. Also, please see WP:BRD--you made a change, you were reverted, the next step is to discuss, rather than continue a cycle of reversion. Please bring such sources to the article's talk page for discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to determine what exactly the source says, since it's only available offline. Does the source merely say that there's no evidence fad diets work? That's fine. Or does the source actually assert that evidence exists that caloric restriction leads to long-term, sustainable weight loss? If so, what are his sources for that claim? Does the source explicitly exclude caloric-restriction diets like Okinawa and CRON from its definition of "fad diet"? You're right, your and my personal opinions don't matter to the article, but if the source is being misrepresented in the article, or if the source itself is misrepresenting the facts, that does matter to the article. 85.178.76.98 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect. A minute of googling resulting in an online abstract from the article in question. It is in fact a copy of the text, so we have to clean that up, but it all to accurately reflects the source. It's also a primary source, so we should see to find additional sources, but please do not assume that we cannot get access to sources--there's no requirement whatsoever that a source need be available online, and many of us have access to research libraries. To assert that we do not know what the article says and thus we must recast the assertions based on what we know is a violation of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:AGF. Very bad juju. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I only meant myself when I said "It's hard to determine what exactly the source says, since it's only available offline". I know perfectly well there's no requirement that sources be online; I've written a featured article myself with almost exclusively dead-tree sources that don't even have online abstracts. However, if you read Katz's abstract carefully, you'll see he never claims that calorie restriction diets work; he only claims that non-calorie restriction diets don't. 85.178.76.98 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and not that he's not a particularly good source for us, since this is a complex issue and from all appearances he's a primary source. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Ethnicity
Thanks for your posting on this - I've replied (at length - can't shut me up once I get started on this) on my talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP
Regarding your question about BLP ("only permits negative material when there's really a good reason for including it"): this is, of course, the point of due weight, which BLP requires us to strictly observe. Same goes for positive material, of course. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Glog
Not a problem; the trick is to use or some combination thereof. We've been lobbying for a while to get the Twinkle developers to add that onto Twinkle's capacity, but we're still waiting. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Need help on J.G. Wentworth page
Dear Nuujinn, I saw your involvement in the J.G. Wentworth page and i was wondering if you could please advise how to correct the current page. I believe that Rich.Sparrow user has a interest in no substantial information being added to the page. I have observed that 100% of his edits are on all companies branching from the 1 company.

On 11:00, 30 January 2011 i have made a substantial revision to the J.G. Wentworth page, i have not removed content (other than minor changes to sentences to make them fit, and removal of 2 images which were in the wrong section), i have added a lot of content, while some unfavorable, all were accurate and sourced today on the 19:11, 31 January 2011 user Rich.Sparrow has simply reverted it and claimed vandalism, he did that 2 times today, and stated vandalism.

Can you please advise

thanks

Derk23 (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have three suggestions. One is discuss the changes that you wish to make on the article's talk page. People have been bold, been reverted, now it's time to discuss. Also, if I were you, and someone had accused me of being a sock puppet, and I knew that I had only edited from one named account, I would file an SPI on myself, asking for verification that I was not a sock. Finally, I would be a tad more careful about templates, since the autobiography tag was not appropriate. If that was a mistake, nothing to worry about. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, i would like to thank you for even beginning to look into this.
 * I am not very well versed in wikipedia options, can you advise how to file a SPI and what is a sock puppet?
 * I will place my proposed revision in discussion, and will ask for your help there.
 * And finally, i am sorry for misuse of any template, i meant 3 points when with those templates. 1. I requested 3rd party help to restore my version or any version people find appropriate. 2. that the article is written with a biased tone (focusing on good aspects, down playing bankruptcy by looking at restructure, etc) and 3. that it may be the actual party writing this article.
 * if those were inappropriate it was not my intent, i am just frustrated that someone who obviously is pro JG wenworth decided to delete totally accurate information.


 * I really appreciate your help. i will initiate all my main changes in the discussion, as soon as you direct me to SPI i will submit it. I would strongly appreciate you looking into my changes and tell me if anything strikes you as wrong, maybe i miss something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derk23 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the SPI, first take a look at WP:Sock to gain an understanding of what the basic policy is, we should never be in a rush here. My point is just that if you know you're not a sock, you can defuse that issue by requesting an investigation yourself. Also, I think the 3O template is fine, but a simpler way is perhaps to post a note to WP:EAR, that's a noticeboard where you can ask for help. I would have added that back, but since some more eyes are likely on the article now, it's probably not necessary. You may be surprised at how many folks watch articles and discussion. Also, and most importantly, please take a look at WP:AGF and adopt it as a mantra. For example, you might well be a sock playing with me, but I'm assuming that's not the case, and not worrying about whether that assumption is correct or not. To worry about another's intent isn't really helpful here, it's much better to leave that aside and focus on the content of the article, the reliability of sources, etc. Hope that helps, best of luck. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, i have now submitted a SPI investigation, and added my proposed version of the article to discussion to make sure everyone has input before bringing it live. Again, i really appreciate your help in this matter. Derk23 (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please advise, what is the appropriate step now, i have added the proposed version in discussion, how do we go about promoting it live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derk23 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer itchiness
I now have 4 different sources, one of which is "reputable media" explicity listed in wiki's RS guide.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.1.93 (talk • contribs)
 * http://www.kch.nhs.uk/news/archive/2009/kings-goes-purple-for-pancreatic-cancer-awareness-week/
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11646219
 * http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/type/pancreatic-cancer/about/pancreatic-cancer-symptoms#other
 * http://www.pancreaticcanceraction.org/facts-figures/jaundice/pruritis-itching


 * Excellent! I looked at the first one, and it seems to support the claim, I suggest we incorporate that information. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the first source does not mention itchiness as something that's misdiagnosed. Besides, it's a notification on a website, not a scientific publication. The second source is the BBC--sure, that's reliable, but we're dealing with a little sidebar (and nothing about misdiagnosis). The third and fourth, those again are not reliable sources. No one is going to be bothered by a little itch in this article, but if you want to make claims about misdiagnosis, you'll have to come up with something better than your own observation. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about the misdiagnosis, but it does seem to be a symptom, no? --Nuujinn (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure, but that only verifies "itch", not the rest of the words. My other interest is that the IP editor understands what a reliable source is. The BBC is not unreliable, of course, but their website is not where one should go for medical information. My third interest is that the IP editor understand that big claims need to be referenced completely, not just one noun in them. Thanks for your patience Nuujinn, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is important that we help clarify our policies for 82.2.1.93, they are confusing sometimes, and they have a personal interest in the subject, so their enthusiasm is understandable. So perhaps we can look for additional and better sources for the itching, and see where that takes us, although I think the BBC is enough for something the effect of pancreatic cancer may include  itchy skin as a symptom. I'm off to bed shortly, but I can cast about a bit in the morning. I appreciate your patience as well! --Nuujinn (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Message from 92.24.120.65
Hi Nuujin. Sorry about this, but I believe the following may be a message from IP 92.24.120.65 which they left at your userpage and I just reverted.

''I am trying to educate people on itchiness being a symptom of pancreatic cancer. If it was better known maybe my dad wouldn't have 3-6 months to live?'' 92.24.120.65.

Please feel free to revert. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the head's up, generally speaking I don't mind what folks say here. The IP is someone with personal stake in the issue, see above. I think their intentions are good, but their enthusiasm is working against them. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Nuujinn. I agree with you that if the IP has a personal interest in the matter it can sometimes create problems, especially with new and inexperienced users. Keep up the good work! Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

to the ip editing pancreatic cancer
First of all, I want to express my sympathy for your personal situation. I lost my father to ocular melanoma several years ago, and a friend of mine died from pancreatic cancer. I won't pretend to know what you're going through, but I do feel at least some of your pain. If you would like some help on trying to find some reliable sources for the information you'd like to add, I'm game, but you'll need to slow down a good bit and discuss the issues with other editors. Because the topic is a medical one, the standards for sourcing are higher than you might realize, and claims need to be more conservative than you might like. But we can see what we can come up with. Please think about it, and let me know if you are interested. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Amway
You removed my edit saying "we" would need reliable sources. Who's "we"? Sounds ominous. Dr Asha Joliet (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Dom Dom Daaaaa" (
 * By we, I mean wikipedia, as we are a collaborative effort. Certainly we should include a reference to Amway being a ponzi scheme if that is documented in reliable sources, but without a source we cannot keep that kind of statement. Please let me know if you have any questions, --Nuujinn (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that Amway disrupts many lives and people tell their stories on pages like yahoo answers etc., but Amway does a good job of keeping out of the media and getting around the law by dressing up the ponzi scheme with a few cleaning products thrown in. HOWEVER - you say "we" need sources... but then again there's no source for the first, twisted statement about Amway on this page which says "Amway is a direct selling company and manufacturer"... ANYWAY.. here's a reliable source: Times + UK Government. Hard to see you getting round this: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2951266.ece Dr Asha Joliet (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:AGF. I'm not trying to get around anything, just following policy that assertions in articles must be well sourced. That source looks interesting, thanks for the reference. You might also take a look at WP:COI, as you apparently have one--the Amway article may not be the best first place to focus your attention. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Spam link?
Please kindly explain here. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied here. Nazar (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried to address the doubts you expressed here in a very detailed manner. Hope this answers most of your questions. Please let us know if you got any further inquiries. If not, then please kindly indicate this, so we can move on with our work. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Nazar. Out of curiosity, who are the others, other than you, that Nuujinn is supposed to inform? You know: Please let us know if you got any further inquiries. and ...so we can move on with our work. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. We are working together on that article, aren't we? Others are Dr.K., other editors, and the rest of humanity watching us seemingly silently but actively and compassionately at the same time (my salute to them)... -- Nazar (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. But I didn't have any question to ask of Nuujinn since I agreed that the removed link was not suitable for the article. So next time it may be better to limit any enquiries to the singular tense to avoid any confusion. Thanks. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're already confused. I don't remember you asking anything of Nuujinn, you're just using his talk page to converse with me, since you have a habit of deleting my conversations from your own page, and your previous "heroic feats" probably make it a bit uncomfortable for you to use mine for general friendly chat (though you're always welcome). lol. -- Nazar (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused on many fronts. First you reply to me: Oh. We are working together on that article, aren't we? as a reply to my enquiry to you about why you were using plural in telling Nuujinn Please let us know if you got any further inquiries. and <tt>...so we can move on with our work.</tt> I tried to be polite in my reply but that got you confused. So let me be clear: Next time when you ask anyone, Nuujinn included, please speak only for yourself and in the singular. I do not need you to use plural as if you are speaking on my behalf. As far as using scare quotes and talking sarcastically about heroic feats etc. you seem to carry a chip on your shoulder when it comes to me, so I just withdraw from this conversation because it is becoming rather unpleasant as usual and I don't want to further disturb Nuujinn. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The choice of tense depending on the circumstances is a prerogative of the speaker. It not necessarily indicates speaking particularly on behalf of Dr.K. or any other individual user. Therefore, imho, you got a bit confused. Also, be kindly reminded, that we share a common workspace and Wikipedia is a community project, not your individual work. Therefore, I'm not sure your previous request can be granted in broad sense. But you're always free to disassociate yourself in certain individual cases, if you feel confused by some general statements. Also, rest assured, we'll always take your position into consideration... -- Nazar (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. But remember you told me: <tt>Oh. We are working together on that article, aren't we? Others are Dr.K., other editors,...</tt> So you created the confusion by mentioning me in your reply to my question about you using majestic plural in your original question to Nuujinn with an edit summary: "The us". So it appeared as if you were acting on my behalf and on the behalf of the other editors on that talkpage in your post to Nuujinn. But I do not recall anyone of the regulars at that talkpage appointing you as their representative. However if you feel it is your prerogative to use majestic plural when addressing others here or as a representative of a group of other editors, so be it. Just make sure you are the real not imagined representative of the group you are acting as the spokesperson for. Because if you are not really the appointed spokesperson of a specific group of editors at an article talkpage, speaking in the plural could be mistaken as an attempt at intimidation, among other things. There is always another possibility of course, heaven forbid, that an actual group of editors are editing out of a single account, but I AGF'd this as impossible in your case. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 15:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm... It wasn't necessarily the majestic plural in strict sense defined under that link, and we are indeed working together here, including you, which is a fact, although it does not necessarily imply that I'm entitled to speak on behalf of you in certain formal situations. I'm just wondering, is there a particular Wiki policy regarding multiple persons sharing the same user account? -- Nazar (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Multiple users using a single account are covered by WP:ROLE. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 17:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "accounts shared by multiple people—are as a rule forbidden and blocked" -- interesting... I did not think it would be considered that much of a breach... it may be difficult to draw the line in many situations, because individuals making edits are almost always influenced by various other individuals. very often their edits are a result of following someone's advice, or a common decision... in broad sense no one is ever editing alone and exclusively on his/her own... but it's always good to know the current formalities in force (however absurd they may be)... -- Nazar (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nazar, with all due respect, this is a line that is not at all difficult to draw. If you're the one typing, they are your edits. If more than one person is using your account, you're in violation of the policy. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this seems quite a narrow-minded criterion, and one which is quite hard to prove if someone really wanted to deliberately violate it, while not disclosing his/her actions. But I see there may be some formal reasons for that (representation of interested organizations and legal entities through individual user accounts is likely the sensitive point). It's probably legally and formally justified, as the lesser evil to address the issues which may arise... Well, if Dr.K. was concerned about that point (I was starting to think what was he aiming at), then I'm a single physical entity typing. lol. Also, in my native language, the usage of plural is considered a more polite form of address (single tense is used between close friends, or to indicate a high level of familiarity). There are also other peculiarities related to how one perceives the reality -- either as a divine Unity where all is together, or as individual divided entities and phenomena (the latter perception is generally considered to be a more gross and underdeveloped one). -- Nazar (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think the policy is narrow minded, by all means bring your concerns to the appropriate talk page. And once you figure out how to get the divine Unity to login with an account, it is welcome to edit here, but until then, I'm afraid we're limited to the individual concrete realizations. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Amen. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 22:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

RfC
There is a request for outside comment at Talk:Spark_(fire) which I felt you should be alerted of.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I don't want you to think I was ignoring or disregarding your advice over at Talk:Spark (fire), so I wanted to explain my rationale. It didn't seem logical to keep arguing in the RfC and then start a requested merge, since then we'd have to just re-argue all of the points again. This way, the discussion is moved to a section where, after discussion ends, the proper action can be taken. Also, some of it may have been that I was getting frustrated with saying the same thing again and again to Colonel Warden's increasingly strange and flawed arguments. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, so long as we can maintain focus. You might invite comment at an appropriate noticeboard to get more eyes on this. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Any particular suggestions? I'm always paranoid when posting something along those lines that I'm doing it in the wrong place.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

you are having a proper laugh right?
Do the letters FRS mean *anything* to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.31.4 (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why, yes, they do. I'm glad the article survived, looks pretty good now. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The WP Policy violation
I am surprized to see the clear violations of WP policies on this article. He was a Pakistani Muslim Sufi and founder of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam only, why have you added MOVEMENTS? Messiah Foundation was founded by Younas after demise of Gohar Shahi in 2002, while Gohar Shahi passed in November 2001. This is baseless claim that Gohar Shahi was founder of MFI supported by SPS sources. Can you explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.30.43  (talk • contribs)  11:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (talk page stalker) I'm not Nuujinn, I'm acting in the time-honored role of a "talk page stalker" here. But I can tell you, IP 116.71.30.43, that you could speak more easily here. Nuujinn might have made a mistake ( I don't know enough about this to give an opinion ) but I can tell you with absolute certainty that he's a man of good will, good intention, and his only wish is to improve the encyclopedia. I'm sure he'll respond to you directly, but I thought you should know this, so you could communicate more politely with this kind, helpful, intelligent user. Best regards, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OhioStandard, thank you for the kind words. 116.71.30.43, I'm sure that you're aware that there's significant disagreement between various factions surrounding Gohar Shahi, even as to whether or not he has died or is rather beyond our perceptions. Any reliable sources you can offer would be much appreciated. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, Nuujinn, my pleasure. Except I forgot to add that you like puppies, and that you help elderly people across the street, too! ;-) Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I smell like freshly baked cookies. If only RL were so simple. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Though, I am not concerned with date of demise but for reference you can see |this book, which is available on google books. My question remained unanswered that Gohar Shahi was the founder of on Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam then why have you made him founder of MFI without any reliable source or reference? The people of MFI clearly violating WP and I regret to note that Admins are leting them do that?


 * You haven't responded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.54.60 (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't really have any answer for you at the moment. I'll have to go look over the article again, it's been a while since I've read through it. I think you should bring up the issue on the talk page of the article itself, not here, tho, since I'm not the only person who's edited the piece. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But what I felt your opinion is hefty and you are playing key role there. Then why promoting any baseless claim with out any interrogation or even proper source. Let me tell you that:


 * Gohar Shahi was born on 25-11-1941 and died on 25-11-2001. |see
 * He was founder of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam only.|see MFI was founded by Younas not gohar shahi.
 * I have noticed that both articles (MFI & Younas) supported by SPS sources.
 * Younas is an enemy of Gohar Shahi, he was sacked from Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam by Gohar Shahi |see.
 * Gohar Shahi was not controversial at all, this is Younas & MFI who are making effort to make him controversial, he never claim to being Imam Mehdi or anything, this is conspiracy of younas & MFI.|see
 * Look forward to hearing on above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.23.167 (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark Boerebach
FYI, user, who is evidently the man himself, has raised Deletion review/Log/2011 March 3 saying that he has new sources. He put a "helpme" on his talk page, but he seems to have done it correctly. The article was userfied to you, and I have put a note on the DRV of where it is. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the head's up. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Nuujinn, My friend has just found another source from the colorado film festival, which they will send to me tomorrow.  Administrator had remarked, "no apparent change in notability since the AFD--this is a one-time contestant on a rather minor game show who for whatever reason seems desperate to have an article here about himself at any cost. Wikipedia is not a venue of self-promotion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC), which I disagree, apparently I'm still being looked upon as promoting myself.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_March_3#Mark_Boerebach  There seems to be many sources Australia wide, I would think this would be significant coverage, if it isn't, then I wouldn't know what is. Thanks  Whitewater111 (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nuujinn for the help, you pretty much had it on the money when noting that the original discussion might of been coloured by my involvement, hense why I didn't want to add anymore to the discussion. Here's the link as promised, but apparently the schedule noting my film is not up yet.  Thanks

http://www.indiespiritfilmfestival.org/2011/ Whitewater111 (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

 * And one more! :) Also, before you answer, thank you! -- WhiteWriter speaks 20:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Seconded. As I said at RSN, extraordinary generosity is one of your many super powers. :-) Best regards, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words. German's fine, so's French, Spanish, even some Italian and ancient Greek. But Latin stops me in my tracks. Seriously, the article's a bit of a mess. I'll see if I can help a bit here in the next few days. I suppose she's inherently notable as royalty, but I need to check on that. But the second section is almost all OR. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. You should see article now. I doubt that any of the sources presented there also can pass as reliable... -- WhiteWriter speaks 10:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WW the article is mainly based on Fan Noli's work which is the most comprehensive biography in English of Gjergj Kastrioti, the standard modern biography in English of the Albanian national hero George Castrioti, considered undoubtedly as the best modern work on the subject and according to the Library of Congress most up-to-date detailed biography of Scanderbeg i.e it's WP:RS . Btw it can be easily replaced with a 1999 work, whose co-writers included David Abulafia of the University of Cambridge.--- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:(
Please, ones more... ;( We have problem with that Vojsava Tripalda article, and i am afraid that none of the sources are ok. Please, see talk page, and this list. More and more sources are popping up, can you please propose something. Or, can you find someone to help. Please, man, i am really begging you, as i am dead tired of misinformation's, awful bad faith, and hush POV pushing. You are one of the only few who really wanted to help in this article... Even if sources are unreliable, why are then sooo many sources with identical claims? More then and other one. -- WhiteWriter speaks 18:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WW there have already been six discussions, so please don't dismiss them as misinformation and bad faith POV pushing because the result of those discussions was against the addition of those sources. The only new additions on that list are 2 19th century sources, an early 20th century travel guide and something published in 1920 titled Old Europe's Suicide. The quantity of sources doesn't verify the argument itself as most of those 19th century sources you added share something else too: racist comments about non-white people. I've asked you to inform the users, who are involved in these disputes every time you start a new discussion. Btw the sources Antid. added from Albanian sources say the opposite, but he didn't even translate them correctly.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, Nuujinn, respond me, despite wiki stalker above. -- WhiteWriter speaks 20:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

VHEMT Article — Archive Talk Page
Hello Nuujinn, What are your thoughts about archiving the VHEMT Article Talk Page? "Please" proceed to my User Talk Page to discuss archiving. Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sprechen Sie?
Hi, Nuujinn! I seem to recall having seen on your talk that you're fairly fluent in the German language. I'm afraid I've forgotten most of the schoolboy German I once knew, so I'd like to ask for your help, if I may? There's an article at AfD that I'm especially interested in because I researched its plausibility a month or two ago, and it seemed to come up wanting. The article is Abraham Reuel, which is actually kind of funny because if the subject ever existed, his name would have been Reuel Abraham. The article's creator was just careless in that respect.

Or that would have been his adopted name, actually, as opposed to his given one, which is reported to have been Karl Heinz Schneider. When the article first came to my attention the only remotely legitimate source for the story that was listed in the article was a cutesy little book called A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes. Once it got to AfD someone then found ... well, I'll let you look at the AfD.

The reason I'm asking you for help is that I came up blank when I searched German language sources to try to determine whether this guy ever actually existed, let alone whether he's one of the world's most famous converts to Judaism, as our article currently maintains based on a single in-passing sentence in another source. Nothing I could find in the proprietary databases I have access to, either.

I was wondering whether you would be able to spare a few minutes to see whether you can find anything in German about "Reuel Abraham" or "Karl Heinz Schneider" to confirm this story or disprove it as a hoax? It's certainly an interesting opportunity to put one's deerstalker on, however the AfD turns out. I'll certainly understand if you're not interested, or just can't spare the time, of course... Oh, btw, I haven't forgotten about our old friend Geronimo. I'm actually offline on the text of an article about the topic, and will reassemble the interested parties, I'm sure, when I go live with that and link to it from the article where we had the kerfuffle about doing so recently. Cheers, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nuujinn, since I see you haven't been online much of late, I think I'm going to go ahead and ask elsewhere for assistance. Perhaps if you do see this and are able to help you'd drop me a note at my talk page? I have your page watchlisted, but I also have too much on my watchlist right now, which makes it easy to miss responses. Thanks; hope you're enjoying your time in RL. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Mediation
I'm not sure where you stand with the mediation. I think we should move towards closure. Would you be willing to make some suggestions as to what text we should finalize before moving the draft to the article? Sunray (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Nuujinn: Any comment? Sunray (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to take a bit to get back to you, I've been enjoying spring in RL and spending time here. Yes, I'll be happy to. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not many comments besides yours. If I read him right, JJG wants to get the draft into the article asap. Fkp has contributed some sources. It seems that the main task is right now is editing (as ever). I have seen your work and know that you have those skills. I will try to keep it moving along. How's your time in the next short while? Hoping I'm not presuming too much. BTW where's RL? Sunray (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You were one of only three mediation participants who commented on what to do before closing the mediation. As there is not much energy to do further work on the mediation page, I am making a new proposal on wrapping it up here. If several participants agree on this approach, the mediation will have more force than an individual's actions. We could then move to the article talk page and continue the discussion on sources there. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I answered on the mediation page, but I can give it some time this weekend I think, esp. if it's raining as expected. If you're every in central NC drop me an email and I can show you an example of RL, I have an excellent simulation off of the back deck, which includes refreshing beverages and views of these bushy green things we call "trees" (which have a structure similar to that of a filesystem directory, but are harder to navigate) and "flowers", which resemble the decorative elements found on many web pages, but which require water. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it! NC is one of my favourite places in which to experience RL :) Sunray (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding implementation of the draft
Hi Nuujin. I have no objections in general to replacing the current massacred version with your work, however, I have to ask, are there any significant changes to the collaboration section? Also, I'd also like to make it clear I will strongly oppose the removal of the newly added lead paragraph, and I believe I have sufficient grounds. An RfM, of course, is primarily a tool for achieving consensus and does not have the "power" to enforce its version of the article, and I want to make it clear I will also not stand for being "ganged-up" on by ex-mediation participants. My concern, however, is primarily with the (meticulously sourced) lead paragraph, which, I hasten to add, carefully avoids any labels ("collaborator"), and does not even state Draža Mihailović "collaborated". -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't speak for others, but I certainly have no desire to participate in any gang activities. I might change me my mind given the opportunity to be a Jet, but I can't dance. And I'm well aware of AFM's limited powers. The thing is, we'll have to find a way to work together whether through mediation or outside of it. My immediate goal is to try to stabilize the article with the draft version, since recent activity is a bit troubling, but certainly we can look at the new version of the lead. In terms of reaching consensus, I think it would be more productive to seek guidance from RSN and other specific issue noticeboards.
 * In the way of a general suggestion, if you will pardon me for saying so, I think you'd be better served by toning down and reducing the amount of text you're posting on talk pages and noticeboards, esp. at ANI. It's hard to read through all of it, and after a while, people just won't, and it seems to me that the personality conflicts are sometimes interwoven with the substantial disagreements about conduct. Often it is not a question of whether one is right or not, but rather how persuasive one can be. And I believe that since the mediation has not yet achieved it's goal, substantial conflicts that are not handled politely and respectfully will have to be referred to other noticeboards. I think everyone editing the Draza article in particular will need to be very careful to keep a cool head... --Nuujinn (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I wasn't implying anything about you Nuujin old man, rest assured. :)
 * I certainly agree that some way towards cooperation needs to be found. As I did my best to point out to Sunray, the only way we can possibly solve this dispute is through sources. In other words, until a sourced piece of information can be accepted as fact without apologetics, we cannot progress. Once I made absolutely sure that this is impossible within the mediation, I left. The only thing we need is to establish a set of crietria for a reliable source on this issue, and to agree to accept what the sources state at all times ("revolutionary", isn't it?). Sunray, in my opinion, is more concerned with getting us all to agree than with sticking to the sources. But enough about that..


 * To be clear, I am categorically opposed to the removal of the sourced information currently posted. I am open, of course, to minor changes, but whichever way we decide to go on this matter, I shall be (re-)inserting the paragraph into the new lead. Thus, I sincerely hope you will not remove it in the course of posting the draft. That of course, is my main concern here.


 * With reagrd to ANI, I disagree. If at any point I feel I am being prevented from posting impeccably sourced information of unimpeachable quality and veracity, I shall not hesitate to bring the matter up at ANI. The more admins we have here, the better. I sincerely feel that, if this were a more prominent article, this issue would have been over in two days. On that note, I've invited Paul Siebert to join the fray, one of Wiki's foremost editors on WWII subjects. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't worried about any implications, I tend to try to avoid drawing them. The more the merrier in terms of editors, my only thought is that in regard to quality of sources, etiquette issues, and the like, venues other than ANI may be more appropriate. ANI is the seat of all drama and a relatively big hammer for some of these smaller issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as its a non-local, scholarly publication, the source is fine by me. Those are the only two criteria I myself have. As for etiquette, well, you can count on me doing my best in that department. I won't respond to hostility, I will simply point it out. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Need help from a senior wiki-editor
Hello, Nuujinn.

Thank you for your useful welcome information. It clarified much.

However, I need further advice... I face a unique potential conflict-of-interest situation. I have expertise in two areas: the indie motion picture industry (I produced a dozen motion pictures for cable-TV) and the sport of kickboxing. With regard to the latter, I am either a primary or secondary source for the period 1970 through 1989. I ran the STAR System world ratings for professional kickboxing that was published monthly in up to 15 newsstand magazines and was recognized as the official rankings source for both the WKA and KICK, two of the three major sanctioning bodies of the day. STAR collected and archived fight scorecards and outcomes from those organizations, and was supported by approximately 250 eyewitness ring observers and officials around the world.

STAR also reconstructed and documented the ring records of many early champions.

Martial arts reference author John Corcoran, whose books are the most frequently cited on Wikipedia entries for this subject, was a co-founder of the STAR System. He and I still collaborate. Much of his information on kickboxing comes from STAR.

I also published magazine articles, wrote a sports column and authored books. My published writings and/or the STAR ratings are similarly cited as a source on Wikipedia. Some of those references are out of context or do not reflect the final correct facts. In certain instances, particularly as pertains to historic bout outcomes or misunderstandings about what I wrote or said, there are no other corroborative sources available.

For example, one issue I have heard about repeatedly from several major figures in the sport concerns two observations by a wiki-editor: 1) that the STAR ratings dropped Benny Urquidez' loss to Billye Jackson on his record, and 2) that the STAR ratings did not reflect Urquidez' muay Thai loss in 1978 to Prayut Srisontob. The implication of the entry seems to be that STAR or the WKA organizations were involved in a misrepresentation or even a cover-up. What the wiki-editor does not disclose is: a) that the WKA governing body officially transmuted the Urquidez' loss to Billye Jackson five years after the event, and b) that STAR never included muay Thai bouts in our ratings. We regarded muay Thai as a different sport, like boxing or wresting.

In particular, the Benny “The Jet” Urquidez entry is a sore spot for the early leaders of the sport because he is extremely well-liked as a person, and he is universally respected as the first international champion’s champion. Yet, although I know it was not intentional, his Wikipedia entry makes him appear deceitful. And he was not.

There are many similar instances with other entries. I have documented the most egregious on the homepage of the STAR System website at: http://starsystemkickboxing.net/default.aspx, as well as provided many authenticated ring records within. There are several other factual misunderstandings that the kickboxing community would like me to clear up. I am among the few who can, and I feel an obligation to do so before the opportunity becomes lost to time. Most of the sport’s champions and officials would cooperate with me and would provide interview material for the STAR website or whatever documentation may be required to verify single-source citations.

What would you suggest? I want to do this correctly. WikiProject Kickboxing seems to be inactive. Could I work with a senior Wikipedia editor who may have interest in this topic so that I can help improve the Wikipedia entries without having to cite myself or my own published writings? --Paul Maslak (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I would not characterize myself as an senior editor. I think your best course in the way of a good start would be to propose corrections on article talk pages, and on your account space post a note identifying you as being associated with STAR and a published author on the subject, but please take care to avoid any semblance of self promotion. Something along the lines of "In the interest of full disclosure, I have done X and Y". I think a good example of what I am talking about is User:Crusio, who is a fine editor with academic credentials. By making it known that you have worked in a given area, as you indeed have already, you make it easier for other editors to evaluation potential conflicts of interest. Editing the articles themselves would be fine as long as you can avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest and provide citations in reliable sources other than yourself. I would imagine that you have a number of print sources such as magazines that are not available online, and those would be fine sources for articles. You should not rely on your personal knowledge for editing as that is considered Original Research, but I think pointing to your work on an article's talk page would be fine. Under policy, assuming that you are who you say you are and that you are a published author on these topics in independent third party sources, then your current web publications can be considered reliable sources. See WP:BLOGS for that policy. Pointing to these on a talk page so that others may choose to use sources you suggest should be fine, but keep in mind that they may not choose to do so.
 * I would also suggest that before you dive into the WP's articles on martial arts, spend a few weeks doing some editing in areas with which you have an interest but no real knowledge or experience. Pick a subject that you'd like to learn something about, and poke around a bit, make some edits, read through talk pages, and the like, just to get a feel for how things are done. When I first signed up a year or so ago, I started by doing copy editing work for the Guild of Copy Editors, since I was interested in honing my writing skills, and it seems to me that you could do some good work there if you are inclined. For what it's worth, I think you're off to a good start, and are approaching this with a good mindset, and feel free to ask questions of me and other editors as you get your sea legs. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nuujinn, thank you for your advice. I love the way Crusio lays out everything on his user page. I'll adapt some similar format. Where do the "user boxes" come from?
 * Afterward I'll start with a few simple things like correcting the confusion in several Wiki entries between the US Karate Association (USKA) and the US Kickboxing Association (USKA). This confusion arose because a single Wiki-citation misstated the content of its source.
 * I still do not know what to do with published inaccuracies: 1) Don "The Dragon" Wilson's entry says he created his own style called "White Dragon Kickboxing". Don Wilson personally told me that this statement disturbs him. He did not say that and would regard anything like that as inappropriate. His martial arts style is Pai Lum; kickboxing is his sport. He would never found a style to unite them. It's in print but it's wrong. Could an online interview with Don fix that? 2) In my own case, the book "King of the Ring" abridged the official STAR ring record for Benny Urquidez, identified STAR and me personally as the source, but added ghostwriter comments that neither STAR nor I authorized. Wikipedia attributes the content of those comments to me; but they are not my comments and they are not accurate. What can I do about that?--Paul Maslak (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In regard to Don Wilson, I would give the interview notion a try. Do you have a web site currently that you can point me to? One thing I could do is take an example to the reliable sources noticeboard to see if there's some consensus that you are a reliable source on your blog based on your prior publication record. Now, if you did an interview with Mr. Wilson and that appeared in a magazine online or otherwise, and that magazine has a reputation for fact checking, that would certainly qualify.
 * The other question is a bit tricky. We rely on sources such as books as they stand. But if you can provide quotations from each source, the book and the STAR record, I think bringing up that issue on the article's talk page and asking other editors for comments would be an appropriate action to take. It is generally never a problem to pose a question, always good to be straightforward in your edits, and best to allow other editors to decide issues where you might have a COI. But if wikipedia has misrepresented you, you could also email to OTRS since you're a living person and we have high standards for what we can use about living persons. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in regard to userboxes, see Userboxes, basically they are templates you just cut and paste and then perhaps edit. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nuujinn. I believe I can work within the parameters you outlined.  The STAR System historical data website (http://starsystemkickboxing.net/default.aspx) is controlled by me with collaborative kibbitzing from noted martial arts author John Corcoran (current editor of Martial Arts Success magazine).  We'd like to get that site qualified as a reliable source.  I'll work up a complete list of our published works and qualifications (identified in brief on this page: http://starsystemkickboxing.net/OurFounders.aspx). Since all the pioneers of the sport know us, either personally or by reputation, we can get good cooperation from them. As time allows, we can periodically post one-on-one interviews with them to deal with issues such as I mentioned with Wilson. It may take longer than we'd like to get the correct results, but our motive is more about the historic record. Getting it done correctly is more important than getting it done quick. Thanks again.--Paul Maslak (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, best of luck and glad to have you aboard! --Nuujinn (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 Geo Bard  Rap 07:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)