User talk:Nuujinn/Archive 5

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

FA
Just fyi, FA is Featured Article. :) Dreadstar ☥  00:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha! Yes, I confess, I am ignorant of those as well! Thanks for the head's up, --Nuujinn (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek Love
I reverted Greek Love again. It was not vandalism. It was a bold edit..and not even that bold. If you wish to chnage it again I request that you do not abuse twinkle and do it manualy and I will not revert afterwards. We can discuss at talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I notified Cynwolfe as a major contributor so as to be sure and let them know of the changes. Hopefully we can work through any problems or issues all parties may have.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm done with the article. It's absolutely unbelievable to me that someone wouldn't participate for at least seven months in the lengthy discussions there, nor pay any attention to all the work done, and then just breeze in and claim ownership. I've removed it from my watchlist. But it was a pleasure to work with you, Nuujinn. You have been unfailingly courteous and considerate of others. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Cynwolfe, best of luck to you and I hope to work with you again. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group
Nuujinn, the following text was removed from the Bilderberg Group article by User:NilsTycho due to copyright violation:

Could you fix it and put it back in? --Loremaster (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad to, but it will be a couple of days, I'm heading out shortly for a vacation. What we need to do is recast Sklar and provide a directly link also to Moorehead's article. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. --Loremaster (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Kudos
... for taking another look at Articles for deletion/Congregation M'Kor Shalom, and re-thinking your !vote as the article developed. I find that too often (to my taste) editors seem to stick with whatever their initial position is (for whatever may be the reason), refusing to re-think the matter honestly as matters develop. Kudos to you for being one of those who is intellectually honest, and avoids that behavior. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sometimes things just slip by me though, so feel free to ask me to reconsider any of my opinions on any issue at anytime, and I'll think it through again, and if I'm being pigheaded, tell me so, as that is all too often true. Nice work, btw. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very kind of you to suggest. I appreciate your collaborative spirit (self-deprecating, and all).  And thanks for the compliment.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Only 1 problem...
If we required the use of Twinkle, we would end up having to go into a long endless debate with the anti-Twinklists and pro-Twinklists and well.... that would take a while. .... -- Avanu (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed! thanks for the laugh, --Nuujinn (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Rationale
WP:BAN and WP:RBI. What should really be done, according to policy, is simple removal of all of User:Licorne's posts. I attempted to do that and it triggered an edit filter. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Foreign reference citations
Nuujinn,

Following your advice, I have successfully cleaned up the accuracy and imposed a neutral tone on the objectionable passages we previously discussed. I am, however, having difficulty with one factually suspect assertion from a single Wikipedian who likes to cite Japanese-language magazines which are not available online and cannot be validated. Specifically, with regard to the Benny Urquidez entry, this Wikipedian wrote:


 * "The Suzuki fight was materialized due to the fact that the WKA, then newly formed organization, could not compete against the PKA in the stateside, therefore, WKA president Howard Hanson and vice-president Arnold Urquidez had to look for actions in overseas.[10]"


 * Because I was involved with the WKA beginning shortly after the Suzuki fight, I know this statement is incorrect. In fact, the cited Japanese source [10] refers to a Japanese TV interview with Dave Cater, one of my successors as editor of Inside Kung-Fu magazine.  I contacted Dave personally and he does not remember saying anything like the above and does not endorse it.  The correct fact is that the WKA went into Japan in search of TV deals that it could and did subsequently package to NBC-TV.  The WKA's Japanese expansion had little or nothing to do with their ability to compete against the PKA in the US.  I have nothing in print to substantiate what I know.  At the time, the sanctioning bodies would never go on the record with their insider TV politics.  Furthermore, I suspect this Wikipedian is speculating about the meaning of whatever information his source actually provides.

I ran the Japanese-language version of Benny Urquidez's Wikipedia entry through Google translator and note that it was both more accurate and more neutral in tone than the English-language version before I began editing. In other words, virtually all the speculative distortions in the Urquidez entry came from just one Wikipedia editor.

What is the best way to deal with suspicious foreign-language citations that cannot be verified online?

Paul Maslak (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the first thing to do would be to start a new section on the article's talk page and ask if anyone has access to the sources. If you know the editor that added the sources, you can also ask them to provide translations--since this is the EN wikipedia, english languages sources are preferred, all other things being equal. Foreign sources are fine, and editors are encouraged to provide translations when asked to. It's not a requirement, but it is worth asking. Unfortunately, you can't really use your conversation with Dave Cater. I'll poke around, I think there's a noticeboard for translations somewhere.... --Nuujinn (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nuujinn. I'll post the appropriate questions on his talk page and on the article talk page.
 * Paul Maslak (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nuujinn. ALL of the suspicious Japanese source citations come from one Wikipedia editor who no longer has an account on Wikipedia.  Now what would you advise?


 * Paul Maslak (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Which user is it? But I think barring other issues, I would make the request for access/translation on the talk pages--ideally, you find someone to confirm or deny the sources, then proceed. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * His handle is User:Legkicker01. It seems he hasn't been around since November 2010. I put the request for access/translation on the discussion page, but I fear no one will be able to respond. One of his sources, "Gong" magazine is a real publication. It's one of the publications that used to run the STAR world ratings that I administrated. The sources he cited that I doubt come from broadcast interviews on the Japanese "Martial Arts Network" television. Frankly, I do not believe what he claims was said in those broadcasts. In one case, the cited authority personally told me he did not say what was claimed. In the other case, where Legkicker01 alleges that a no-decision bout had occurred simply does not square with the usual conduct of the sport. No-decisions went out the window sometime around 1930.
 * Paul Maslak (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Natami
Thanks for stepping up! I've put up the page as it last was (without deletion notices) here. Thanks a lot for merging it! Cheers, m.o.p  22:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus
Is not formed by people who decide to dictate to others on a page they do not edit. I have seen no evidence of you as a contributing editor at Greek love so you may not be considered the best person to explain how consensus works. Your reverts and misuse of twinkle are recorded and those far in this situation you appear to on the least steady ground. Please consider that as we move forward with any dispute resolution.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there something you wish to ask of me? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Nat Gertler (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Confidence in statistical conclusions
You PRODed the above article. For info, I am happy for this to go, but we will see if anyone else wants to save it. It was originally created to deflect out-of-context from another article, but has not really served that purpose. Cheers. Melcombe (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks so much! Hobit (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. BTW, I can fix that template at the top of your page if you need help with it...(--Nuujinn (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Help with OrangeMmarlin
Hi, could you help out in a dispute I'm having with User:Orangemarlin? He seems to be reverting me on-sight and, by my reading, is violating WP:TWINKLE. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. Right now, his user talk page is protected, so I can't even discuss things with him. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you point me to the discussion in question? I am happy to take a look and give you my opinions, for what little that is worth. I did take a look at your contribution list, and one thing I would suggest is that you slow down a bit and relax a bit, we're not going to finish Wikipedia today. I would also suggest you consider creating an account--it is certainly not required, and many of our best editors are IPs, but it does help somewhat in dealing with difficult issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
You're welcome. I suppose you were talking about René Gutman? Come to think of it, I added better sources from Légifrance, the legal website of the French government. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the one. I was feeling lazy so I just tagged it, and voila, sources appeared. Thank you (again), --Nuujinn (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Request editing assistance
Article: VHEMT Editing Error (article section): References Nuujinn, your assistance will be appreciated---11 July 2011 (00:21 hrs) while editing the "History" section it caused two errors in the "References" section---and I don't understand how to restore the two references to a proper format. Once again, "Thank You" for your assistance. P.S. The two external links in question (improper format) are:
 * Reference link #8
 * http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-11-16/home-and-garden/17397333_1_two-billion-planet-human-population


 * Reference link #9 (Added by Skyeking on July 11, 2011)
 * http://www.vhemt.org/les.htm

Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I got it fixed, take a look. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your editing assistance is truly appreciated, and "Thank You" for the Talkback notice. Have a great week! [[Image:Smile.png|16px]] Skyeking (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Need to discuss
Dear, The accreditation status part of Bircham International University looks more like criticism and controversy. I think this section should contain information simply indicating accreditation, not much about quality. Any further comment regarding quality should be shifted to criticism. I fear to edit it because there is so much misunderstanding among many people regarding this article. Will you do anything about it or suggest me something?Shoovrow (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, I think I've fixed the things you had a problem with, and have sent you an excerpted article. Ancient history, but there is more if you need it. Thank you. Jazz N Media Jazz N Media (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Need Arbitration
Nuujinn.

Legkicker01 finally showed up and has reversed some of the corrections I made to Benny Urquidez's entry. Besides being inaccurate, I believe his language violates the original research and neutral POV rules. How do I appropriately address this issue?

Paul Maslak (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Arbitration is not needed, at least not yet. First, we try to talk out the content issues on the talk page, and depending on how that goes, we seek other venues for help. The most important thing for the time being is to assume good faith on the part of all parties, and stick to what the sources tell us. I'll try to help on the talk page some, but this is outside my area. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the assist. When I modified this entry, working with the existing contributions of several other editors, I stuck to the facts, provided legitimate references and wrote in a neutral POV encyclopedia-style. Editor Legkicker01 has removed my references, cited chronologically earlier and therefore incomplete sources (if any) and restored his original defamatory opinion.  I do not believe we have a discussion of fact, sources or appropriate language here.  More than 24 hours later, he has not responded to my objection.  I am now prepared to cite chapter and verse from multiple sources on all factual matters.  I think we may need to invoke the "3O" process.


 * The instructions for the "3O" procedure seem unclear to me. Do I need to provide counter-argument and references about factual matters on the article's Discussion page?  And then is there a separate "Active Disagreements" page where we are supposed place the "3O" symbol with links back to the arguments on the Discussion page?  If I understand this process correctly, where is the "Active Disagreements" page.


 * Paul Maslak (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, let me take a look, we're not really in a hurry around here. I can get to it tonight, and then we'll see where we are at. Generally, you want to make sure you're given the talk page discussion plenty of time to work before moving on. And at this point there are likely multiple uninvolved editors watching the talk page to see what we all do as we work towards consensus. Since you are closely linked to sourcing, you'll want to take things slow and easy, so as to avoid the appearance of pushing a point of view. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, Nuujinn. Good advice. I'll post my best case for and about the facts on the Discussion page under separate dispute header. Then you and others can review. I am comfortable that reasonable editors following Wikipedia guidelines will eventually reach a fair consensus and resolution. Paul Maslak (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, I think your edits were completely fair-minded. I still think all that discussion about whether Urquidez did or did not show up for explained or unexplained reasons is fanciful. Pro fights are scheduled and cancelled all the time for any number of routine reasons; not dissimilar from when a celebrity actor leaves a motion picture prior to principal photography. It's insider baseball. I don't think it belongs in a biographical entry. I added the citation you specified for the sentence I contributed. Also, I finally posted my best case about the facts on the entry's Discussion page; took longer than I expected. As you may have surmised, there's some tension between the fans of kickboxing and the fans of muay Thai. As a rule, when a champion of one sport fights under the rules of the other, they each generally will lose. Fighters fight as they train. The champions of both sports are all pretty terrific within their accustomed rules. Kickboxing's rules were organized to be acceptable to Western TV audiences: fewer cuts, favor kicks and outfighting, accent on athletic skill. Muay Thai rules were organized to be acceptable to gamblers: more cuts, more unpredictable outcomes, favor clinch-fighting, periodic under-the-table fight fixing, less precise emphasis on athletic skill. The fans of each sport can be very passionate. I suspect my editing skirmish was with someone who wanted to extol the virtues of Japanese-style muay Thai at the inappropriate expense of Mr. Urquidez's reputation. Thank you again. Paul Maslak (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand your feelings, and although I'm not a martial arts fans, I spent a bit of time in Thailand and know a little bit about muay thai, one of my childhood friends has been practicing Ta Kwan Do for over 40 years, so I can appreciate the differences. Here's the thing--in our dojo, we are slow and methodical, and we stick to sources. So in this case, we'll talk on the discussion page and be conservative in our edits, and this will take longer that usual because some of the sources under discussion are not accessible to everyone because they are old, not online and some in a foreign language. I can do some research this weekend and see if I can turn up any newspaper or magazine articles through my library or google. If sources disagree, we will weigh them and give each appropriate weight. You are close to the subject, and you may not like the final form of the article because you are also, in a sense, a source. Now, if Urquidez is offended by any of the content, there are ways for him to object, and we can explore those if need be. We'll do our best, but it will take some time. If discussions on the talk page do not get rolling in the next few days, we'll ask for some additional eyes on the article. Also, there's some puffery in the article, and I'll go through and try to clean that up a bit, we really try to keep language toned down. For what it is worth, you act doing a fine job, and I appreciate your joining the community. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by another editor on Mihailovic talk page
This is to let you know that I agree that the recent statements on the Mihailovic talk page constitute a personal attack. I've asked the editor in question to remove them. Sunray (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that earlier. I won't comment at this time what I think of the current situation, but I appreciate the gesture, and thank you. --Nuujinn (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Over limit posts
You have exceeded the limit of three posts per day, as agreed in the Terms of Discussion for the Draža Mihailović talk page. Please refrain from further discussion for today. Sunray (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't realize I'd done that, but I'm definitely done for today. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Shifting the discussion
I've asked participants to shift the discussion away from Karchmar--that discussion isn't producing any new arguments or sources. Would you be able to contribute some thoughts as to where we might go on the topic of collaboration (i.e., tomorrow)? Sunray (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I might not make tomorrow, but I can by the day after. I want to finish the draft tonight if I can and then recollect my thoughts. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (file this under flattery will get you anywhere!)
That was really thoughtful of you. You are one of the nicest people I've had the pleasure of editing with here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I can say the same of you, and I hope to match your diplomatic skills some day. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the Barnstar!
You can't imagine how much this means to me. Thank you so very much. Many, many hours of Wikipedia study before setting out and a whole lot of stage fright. Sigh of relief... you have brought me much joy. Koheli (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob Ross
Thanks so much for assisting in a consensus of logic ref: Bill Alexander. Even though you are perfectly correct about the slim nature of Alexander's complaint in the NYT, it still needs to be mentioned, albeit in one sentence. This helps lay the matter to rest, since my addition to the article has been left intact and meets your stated requirements.

I did wish to add to you in a personal note: I know Alexander always sounded as if he had invented a la prima painting. What he meant, of course, is that he invented this new approach, the newer techniques and of course patented many of the things Ross claimed he had invented. So Alexander clearly states, he did not mind the other things as much as he hated the fact that Ross thought he could do the technique better than Alexander who had created it. Anyway, I thank you for helping to settle it by consensus.76.195.83.171 (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like you to see this excerpt, my latest addition to the talk pages. And by the way, who removed the ability to edit the article? Why was that done?

From the Painting section: "Ross's former mentor, William Alexander, has claimed that he taught Ross the "wet-on-wet" technique and that Ross "betrayed him" by presenting the technique as his own."

This does not sound right. Alexander "claimed he taught" Ross? Ross himself acknowledged twice that Alexander taught him. Is this the final expression of that fact for the article?

I object to that sentence. It should state that Bill Alexander taught Ross the method. Ross acknowledged this, and thanked Alexander (on the air) for being his teacher. The rest of it mentioning Alexander's feelings of betrayal is OK as-is.

But I see that editing is out of the question. Who blocked the article from editing? Or am I missing something as usual?76.195.83.171 (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Ross" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.83.171 (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am aware that Ross acknowledged Alexander, but Alexander did claim that Ross "betrayed him" by presenting the technique as his own. Whether or not that statement by Alexander is true is not for us to decide, rather, what we do is present accurately what reliable sources say about the subject. In this case, so long as both statements can be sourced, both should remain, and we are doing our job in terms of documenting what was said by whom. Does that make sense? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You said: "Yes, I am aware that Ross acknowledged Alexander, but Alexander did claim that Ross "betrayed him" by presenting the technique as his own. Whether or not that statement by Alexander is true is not for us to decide, rather, what we do is present accurately what reliable sources say about the subject. In this case, so long as both statements can be sourced, both should remain, and we are doing our job in terms of documenting what was said by whom. Does that make sense?" --Nuujinn (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nuujinn

Reply: Alexander actually said no such thing. He said he had been severely let down and then betrayed, something to that effect, because Ross thought he could paint better than Alexander.

No one is even talking about deciding the truth of that! It's there in the NY Times, Alexander said it! He was not alleged to have said it and it isn't an urban legend. You and Elektric Shoes are taking yourselves too seriously and then misapplying rules here. This verifiability trumps truth crap must stop in cases like these, when it is FACT we are discussing, not claims. The fact that Alexander said what he said.

So I do not get what you mean by "both statements" - what statements? There is only one, that Alexander made this claim about Ross. If there is an argument about Ross stealing from Alexander, it was started by Alexander and I believe it because I was there. It is that particular 'statement' we should leave out - because that is only something certain people know as fact.

No one can prove that to you if you did not already know.76.195.85.222 (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the quote from the NYT from Alexander is ""He betrayed me," he said in his strong German accent. "I invented 'wet on wet.' I trained him and he is copying me -- what bothers me is not just that he betrayed me, but that he thinks he can do it better." I read that as Alexander claiming to have invented wet on wet, and that Ross copied him (which is the betrayal), and also that Alexander was upset because he thought Ross thought he could do wet on wet better than Alexander. I did not say that Alexander said Ross stole from him, as you assert.


 * The other statement is about Ross giving credit to Alexander as a teacher. My point was that we need to include both Alexander's and Ross's statements. And honestly, I'm not sure what you're upset about. --Nuujinn (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A little help?
Since you agree that the book mentioned over at WP:RSN is bookspam (as it is not referenced), would you mind putting Corset and Neo-Victorian on your watchlist? Andy Dingley has reported me for violating 3rr for reverting twice (because twice is more than three times, right?), so if I'm going to need someone else to help keep the bookspam out of the article. Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll put them on my watchlist, but I'm not sure what I'll do about it quite yet. But I think we're getting closer to consensus. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Cookies
Hi Nuujin, the cookies were delicious! Thank you so much. Jazz N Media (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you enjoyed them. Thankfully, they do not contribute to one's waistline. ;) --Nuujinn (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Re
I shall explain in plain words then. I'm just a "bitter old editor" pointing out I've contributed to this project for a period three times longer than yourself, and have four times more edits on articles alone (and two times more than Fainites). Its really quality of editing that counts, not quantity. With that in mind, I pointed out that the quality of your edits should be four times that of mine to bring our contributions into comparison. I've also been invited to try for adminship, but refused as it would limit my freedom of action on the project. Of course, Fainites does not seem to be bothered at all by those same WP:INVOLVED limitations that dissuaded me for pursuing such goals, but seems to believe an attitude of superiority to the "common discussion participant" makes him uninvolved in the discussion. But I digress.

As I said (and you), its irrelevant, and in the wrong place even if it were relevant, but I cannot resist the notion that my dedication to the project might count for something with the community. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I copied this to ANI and replied there. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

*Facepalm*
Andy Dingley and another user have somehow reached the conclusion that the consensus of the RSN thread was to include the book at Neo-Victorian based on a question BlueBoar asked. Andy even had the gall to lie and say I agreed the book was informative! I'm at three reverts for today, and I could use some cover. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the book (just the book, not the web site) being listed there (not corset). --Nuujinn (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Jews!
Hello! Richard Elfman here. First of all, thank you so much for offering me the courtesy to comment on my page. Being listed as an American Jew is quite sufficient to describe me. "American of Jewish descent" implies that my ancestors may have been Jews, but I may presently not be. Technically speaking, as my mother is Jewish and I remain a part of that community, then I am Jewish as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Elfman (talk • contribs) 20:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. Usually, we use "ethnically Jewish" for people with Jewish ancestry if we do not know whether they practice Judaism as a religious, since most secular Jews self-identify as Jewish. The big problem is that we have these info boxes and categories and people want to fill them in. I'll take a look at the article later and see if I can tweak it and then drop you a note. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V - Machine translation
Hello Nuujinn,

This is an invitation to revisit Talk:WP:V#Machine translation. Your views on the current proposal and recent comments would be appreciated, whatever they may be.

Many thanks.  Rubywine. talk 16:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Leuren Moret
Hi. I believe the Leuren Moret article should be deleted, but if the article is not deleted, it is essential that those who come here looking for information about her see what she presents about herself. I'm making the argument that this fringe statement she makes about HAARP and the earthquake needs to stay in her biography so that others see her as what she is. An administrator and I had a back and forth about using youtube as a source and that is located on the talk page. Thanks. PRONIZ (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see. I don't really agree, since the video is pretty much the quality of a home movie. We're not really in the business of exposing people for what they are, but rather to document what reliable sources say about the subject. If you think the article should be deleted, we could take it to AFD. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't meant to be an "expose" but rather a reflection of her own words. The article has been through a number of AFD's and survived. PRONIZ (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
Hi Nuujinn.

I see you have undone my edit and given as a reason "We're discussing... stop pushing your personal view."

But I'm quite clearly not "pushing [my] personal view". I'm adding information coming from verifiable sources and which has NOT been objected to by any of the interested parties.

And I'm only doing precisely what has been decided and agreed in the discussion page.

Please can I ask you to undo your revert.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You can ask, but I won't. By personal view, I meant your personal view of how the article should be written. The cycle is BRD, we're discussing the issues, so continuing to push your edits is not appropriate, in my personal view. I see no indication of consensus on the article's talk page, and certainly no agreement about how to proceed. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you undoing my contribution then because you personally don't like me and how I have discussed? If not, then on what infringement of wiki policy? You have said previously consensus, yet you haven't even been involved in the discussions. Those that have been involved and have earlier disagreed with myself and two others, now have said to go ahead and make changes. Do you seriously deny that?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no requirement of which I am aware that someone has to have previously engaged in discussions to be able to participate, can you point me to a policy that mandates that?
 * I don't have feelings about you one way or another at this point, and if I did, they would be irrelevant. And I'm not going to speak for other editors, but my read of the situation is that there is not consensus for the edits you propose. --Nuujinn (talk)


 * No, there is no requirement for that. I'm not suggesting that. But I am saying I find it unusual that you do not take part in discussions and yet feel you can come in without discussion and make changes by claiming to be able to decide on your own what is the consensus view.
 * And you still haven't adressed the issue that those who have been involved have given the go ahaead to change the lede. You are therefore going against the consensus by undoing my edit. I have asked you civilly to revert. Please I ask you again to do so. If you do not and do not adress this specific point of permission been given (ie.consensus) I will have to take this further to some kind of third party. I don't want to do that, so please will you revert to allow what has been agreed. No-one has contested my rephrasing of the lede plus it complies with all wiki policy. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is always a moment when one begins to participate in a discussion, and no requirement that one participate prior to editing. I am not deciding what the consensus view is, I am noting that I do not believe there is consensus for the changes you wish to make, please note I'm not the only one to revert your edits. I think your interpretation of the conversation on the talk is inaccurate, and your attempt to push the Barkun reference out of the article is inappropriate. That's why I'm engaging in the discussion on the talk page. I feel my actions are appropriate, if you do not, please feel free to bring the matter up wherever you wish. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob Ross is laughing at us
Nujinn, I appreciate your input at the talk page as usual. You are right about the Times article, I'm sorry for that. My brain was broken that day.

What I do wish is that you'd look more carefully at this dumb thing that quotes Ross as thanking Alexander on an episode of the show. If you want anyone to think that is verifiable, you're dreaming!

And how does that make it more worthy than my addition, that Ross was always bragging about inventing things Alexander invented? I saw him and heard him do this in almost EVERY episode. Do I get equal billing?

Or am I supposed to prove that Alexander invented the stuff? I have the link to Alexander's site, maintained by his heirs. It's at alexanderart.com175.21.159.66 (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My brain dies every day about 3 and then resurrects itself. See my comments on the talk page, but I'm sure he's laughing his head off about this. I've watched the show a few times, but never really paid attention to what he was saying, it was just a nice relaxing background drone..... --Nuujinn (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, quite so and thanks for dropping back there for the explanation you gave and for the corrections. I apologized on the talk page because someone did come up with an exact citation for the Ross episode. On the other hand I can only offer the Alexander site and say that in nearly every Ross episode I saw, he bragged about inventing everything from the palette knife to the easel! How do I cite those?! I still watch Ross on TV and there is no way I can pick out the episode or season ....75.21.159.66 (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Basically, you say where you got it, see WP:CITE. so if you watch an episode on TV, make note of the title of the episode, when and what station showed it, production credits like where it was first filmed, and put enough material in the citation to make it possible for someone else to try to verify it if they wish. I'll be watching the article, so I can help fix the ref if you need help. Just keep in mind this is a pretty minor issue overall, since they were competitors and wet on wet goes way back as a technique.... --Nuujinn (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate the help and the work. It's just that I can't stand seeing Ross being biographed and having this major event glossed over: we are not talking about the a la prima technique, we're talking about the things Alexander invented such as the easel's design, the knife, even the can to wash out the brushes. I know Alexander invented all that stuff, not Ross. So it is only minor because most people do not know about it. It isn't minor to Alexander's heirs, I assure you!75.21.159.66 (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can understand that, but we do have to keep in mind that we're writing a general encyclopedia, and keep an eye on WP:DUE. The Ross article shouldn't focus too much on either Ross's or Alexander's claims, and a general way to figure out what worth noting is what coverage is available in independent sources, rather than what they or their relatives claim. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually ... agreed, my friend. As long as its improvement always leans toward accuracy and a good article in general, I am all for leaving it as-is now. I will repeat this same sentiment on the talk page.75.21.105.113 (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No criticism implied
Please understand that I intended no criticism of you with my edit. That editor is going to just grab at straws until we give up and we need to keep him reined in and not let him draw us into one argument after another. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries, it's all good. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Naturism
first of all thank you it look like you do hard work to make people who read this article understand or know what is this culture

this article is very good or excellent and it will not effect by removing some of this pictures .this pictures some people( most of people) will use it not for knowledge or for good thing and also they will use this article for other thing due to this pictures.

and again (because that is the truth)this article is very good or excellent .it have many pictures (with out this pictures)and i do not think it will have bad effect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed said mahmoud (talk • contribs) 19:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You are certainly welcome. My suggestion would be to bring up the issue on the article's talk page, express your concerns there and propose some changes. Do please keep in mind we are not censors, see WP:CENSOR, and from my perspective the pictures are neither offensive nor lurid (but I do understand that that point of view is due to my cultural background, and that others, perhaps yourself, would disagree. But I would not object myself to reducing the number of pictures, as we are also not really a picture gallery. But those are only my opinions, and there would have to be consensus for any changes. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar award

 * Thank you very much! It has been nice working with you, and I hope to continue to do so in the future, --Nuujinn (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Digital Signage
Thanks for the input, on the issue of the text i posted and is being used on the digital signage page, i understand that wgen i post that it becomes free for distibution, but would like to know why wiki will not let me put my link as a refernece point to were the full article is and were the refernce point came from. I notice everyone else that has posted original content is referenced so why cant we have our reference? Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timwoz (talk • contribs) 07:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you see, you put the text up from your web site, and your web site is advertising your business, so is seems that you may be trying to advertise your business. Your site is also not a reliable source under our rules, and the material you put up is your point of view. So it is very likely much of what you put up will be removed. The relevant policies are WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:POV, and WP:NOR. My suggestion would be to walk away from this article for a time and do some general editing on unrelated topics. We need the help, and it is best to learn the ropes by doing things like copy editing and other light work to get a feel for the place, then delve deeper. Does that make sense? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback i appreciate your time with this. The article was written after research with a university as well as the years in the business. You will see that the link goes directly to the blog and not the main business website. There are a lot of refernce point on the digital signage page that are matters of opinion from websites and are not research based fact. This article was published from our website at the Digital Signage Expo in Las Vegas, if this is good enough for the main industry i relly dont see why it isnt good enough for WP. I am not asking for an advertisment i would just like the link to the rest of the article to our blog page which mentions the article not our main site.


 * Yes, I see that the blog has advertising banners, such "Providing Digital Signage for Advertising, Business and Communication. As well as bespoke solutions to cater for all." I also see that the article contains no references to any university research projects--if a someone at a university with expertise in the field published a research paper on this topic in a peer reviewed journal, that would be a reliable source. A blog hosted on a commercial website, even if it is based on years of personal experience, would not. Using your personal experience to write articles here is a violation of WP:NOR. I also see that most of your article edits involve adding links to external commercial websites, and that it a violation of WP:SPAM. I hope that you will take me up on my suggestion to try a different style of editing and leave aside adding links that have the appearance of seeking to promote commercial web sites. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you clear up some points. The below are refenced on WP with direct links back to each of the sites as i have copied below, these are commecial websites as 90% of the internet is, why can these websites include their matter of opinion or knowledge and get a link and my website cannot. The last one is a blog post with links in the blog post back to the commercial website. I really feel that this is a one rule for one and one for another situation. I do feel that the article that i have written which has been published to the main trade in the biggest show of digital signage in the world but it is not good enough for WP. I really do want to know why, as i feel that some sites are favoured more than others, what legal policy do you operate with this site on a fair trade basis?

The last being a blog with links to their own site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timwoz (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point, I removed most of those and tagged the article, please let me know if I missed any. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

At least that is now consistent. I will check submission guidlines.

Sentence spacing
Nuujinn: your revert based on OR was fair. I do indeed have no references for any consumer word processors either expanding or not expanding the spaces between sentences. The only reference is to The Complete Manual of Typography, which does not appear to be available online, and the reference is not annotated, so it's unclear what that book actually says.

I believe the reference is theoretical, whereas the reality is concrete. Sure, fonts provide the basis for widening inter-sentence spaces, but Microsoft Word doesn't do this (even with KerningByAlgorithm enabled) because it's not a kerning issue. The reference as it stands is misleading. It is implying something that is not the case. The most commonly used WYSIWYG editor does not do what the article claims.

I mentioned (and referenced) TeX because it—exceptionally—does algorithmically determine which punctuation is terminal, and expands the space following it. TeX is full of that kind of magic (like margin kerning, which we don't even have an entry for), but Word is not.

So what I propose is that I rewrite the paragraph to remove the implication that editors expand terminal punctuation differently than other punctuation. Alternative, someone could scan page 80 of The Complete Manual of Typography so we can see what it actually says. As it stands, the article is relying on an unaccountable reference that, reading between the lines, isn't backing up the assertion being made.

What's your take on this? --pmj (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you think is misleading? My take is that you'd need to find a reliable source that backs up the changes you'd like to make. In regard to the The Complete Manual of Typography, I'm not sure why you say it is unaccountable, as it seems readily available, and I expect that you could find it in local libraries. You can certainly buy it online, new or used. You also might check the archives, this has been discussed at some length. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Unconstructive Edit
I poked wikipedia today and saw a message from you indicating an edit that my work IP (user_talk:96.245.12.219) made to some guy's wikipedia page whom I've never heard of (I can see 5 things in his biography I have heard of, though) was unconstructive. Apologies for the potentially confusing grammar and parentheticals of the previous sentence. Whoever did it was clearly an @$$ himself and masking his IP as to "get away" with the vandalism. My office has been using this IP for six or nine months now and I'm pretty sure it wasn't anyone in here. --Draco18s (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. If you have wireless at work, though, you may want to check security settings. WEP for example, is very weak. If you have questions about such, please feel free to email me, I have experience as a network admin. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"One of the leading sages"
Was Debresser correct in doing this following the discussion at RSN? Chesdovi (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe either source supports the statement "leading sage". --Nuujinn (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Johannes Ronge
Per your comments, I have elected to reopen the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hippie etymology
Sorry about that, I thought you'd done! By all means continue improving the article! I figured I'd done bringing it to near perfection just now, but no doubt there is still plenty of room for more improvement! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No drive by tagging
Please refer to the AfD discussions for the articles that I tagged for rescue. I overlooked the matter of commenting and/or voting prior to rescue tagging on some posts in error. This is now not occurring at this time, and rescue tags are only being posted after comments and/or votes at AfD discussions. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, I just wanted you to know you were being discussed. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable rescue tagging
I tag articles that are likely to actually meet Wikipedia guidelines for topic notability. I read this essay Tagging pages for problems, which is an essay, and not a guideline, yet provides some valuable information. Per this essay, "When adding a tag, keep in mind that other people who might be interested in fixing the problem (or who might dispute the tag) might not immediately see the same problems you do. Even if the problem seems obvious, it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how. Some editors feel this should be mandatory and "drive-by" tagging should be prohibited. Other editors feel that some tags are self-explanatory." Again, this is an essay, and not policy. Oftentimes tags are self-explanatory. However, in following with the spirit of the rescue tag template, it seems reasonable to also comment and/or vote in AfD for articles, although this is not specifically listed in any Wikipedia policies. Another problem is that the template for articles being considered for deletion does not provide options for users to search for reliable sources, while the rescue template does provide these options for users. Perhaps the article being considered for deletion tag should be revised to reflect the source search options present in the rescue template. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

An Overdue Barnster

 * Thank-you. It is a pleasure to disagree with someone willing to listen and work for compromise, and who presents logical and well-reasoned arguments for the position they hold! --Nuujinn (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Thanks for your advice. Per what I received from you:

Please slow down a bit and listen to what other editors are saying. For example, your response here was ill-advised, as Phil Bridger was correctly inviting you to a review of the deletion of an article because you were involved in the AFD. I'm sure you'll probably just delete this, but people are trying to get you to pay attention, and I wish you would think about that. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Refers to this:


 * The message I received: An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jacobson Flare. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The way this is worded is somewhat misleading, because it infers that people have done something they haven't, such closing a deletion discussion and speedy deleting an article. The part about being interested in the page wasn't really clear. Perhaps the user can reword it, and state, rather than people were otherwise interested, that they contributed to the AfD for the page. Also, please note that I sincerely messaged the person back after checking what they were writing about, that I understood what they were saying after checking researching the links they provided. Please don't infer that I just deleted it without reading it. I messaged the person back twice regarding this matter. Anyway, I understand what you're saying, but I can't go along with your statement that I just deleted it. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I messaged the person back quickly to be polite! ! ! Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I hadn't participated in the link the person provided. I had to research what they were talking about, and then message them back. Perhaps they could have included a link to the AfD discussion they were referring to, rather than the new discussion. After taking additional time to research what they were referring to, I messaged the person back again. The provision of this link: Articles for deletion/Jacobson Flare would have much less ambiguous. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you took the time to respond. I'm not sure, but I believe that Phil Bridger used a template to notify you of the deletion review, and it may be worth asking him about that if you think the wording is misleading--wording can often be improved, but sometimes it is a slow process. Thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Buatan Silver Strip
I am at the Bodlian now, onfortunately they do not have the journal in quertion. I have found a number of cites to Jesus Perlata on Copac, notably http://copac.ac.uk/search?rn=14&au=Peralta%2C+Jesus&sort-order=ti%2C-date held by UCL. Meanwhile I am unable to find even a deleted version of the article - the only web refernces to the subject are now copies of my talk=page... ISTR there was a book referred to as well as the journal. Do you knwo where the article is? Rich Farmbrough, 10:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC).


 * No, no idea about finding the article. The book, The Philippines in the world of Southeast Asia; a cultural history by E. P. Patanñe is call number 246371 e.62  and it appears to be in remote storage, for what that's worth: . 11:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll have another go next time I'm going to be in the library. Rich Farmbrough, 14:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

Further commentary at RS/N
I replied to you about the GameFAQs and Gamespot issue some time ago. I'd like to see if you have any followup as the issue does not look like it will be resolved with so little participation and disagreement. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  00:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)
Lung salad is again trying to push is POV into the Freemasonry section of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article. Your opinion is needed on the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) page. --Loremaster (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Lung salad (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quotation mark
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Quotation mark. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)