User talk:Nuujinn/Archive 6

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC
Nuujinn, I have every reason to think your comments are in goo faith. So I wonder whether you have read the guidelines for RfCs. They make it clear that an RfC is not a vote. It is just what it is called, a request for comments. That is why I suggested disregarding people who did not leave any commnts. To say you support of oppose a proposal without providing a comment e.g. explaining why, is not actually a response to the "response for commnts."

RfCs are usually used as a part of dispute resolution e.g. when there is a conflict between two users.

In this case, it was to invite comments on a proposal. But again, the RfC guidelines make clear it is not a vote. The idea is this: if people working on the talk page cannot reach consensus, input from people who have not beein involved in the discussion may be constructive i.e. help people working on the talk page more toward consensus. That is it. That is what an RfC is for, according to our guidelines. It is definitely never a substitute for our normal collaborative consensus-driven approach to editing. This is so when editing articles, and it (reaching a consusnsus) is even more important when making changes to policy.

The RfC guidelines specify that once an RfC is over, the editors working on the article (or in this case, policy) should discuss the comments that have been offered by outsiders, to see whether any of them can help move towards consensus. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we disagree really except on the small point. Perhaps it is my tech background coming through, or perhaps time spent at AFD. If an editor !votes Support, per X, that shouldn't carry much weight, but it should carry some, since that editor is basically saying X made the point that I support. If an editor simply states Support, we know their generally opinion, so that should carry some small weight, too, but not as much as the per X !vote. Neither should carry nearly as much weight as a !vote followed by a well reasoning argument informed by policy, and the better the argument, the more the weight it should have, and I would add that the reputation of the editor and how much and well they have participated in discussion will also add weight regardless of what we say in policy. !votes which contradict policy should have no weight whatsoever. But to assert that we should entirely ignore !votes on either side because no argument is presented seems like a bad idea, and if that is the way the policy is formulated, I think we should change it.


 * I think it also depends on the nature of the discussions--in this particular case the fact that some of us have been trying to various degrees to work through wording to achieve consensus for many months, and then for weeks to get the RfC wording settled before putting the RfC up. It is not a vote, but it is clearly oriented towards "make a case for this wording proposed or one against it".


 * What I am most concerned about in this context tho is the split between the opposes--there may not be consensus for this particular wording, but there is less consensus for any alternatives I've seen proposed for months now. Personally, I like the current wording, but clearly there are a lot of people who don't like it. My hope was that the proposed wording would be a reasonable compromise that most editors could work with, but it seems rather that this is like the US congress, and those on the more extreme ends are unwilling to accept any compromise.


 * I hope that all makes sense, and when we disagree on something, as we certainly will, please understand that it is not a sign of disrespect, and if I say something that you think is out of line or simply too harsh, please let me know, as I do that from time to time. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you made a very valid point at the V page than many pople who registered their support without providing a comment likely did so because they feel their reasons had already been expressed. Please do note I said we should disregard supports AND opposes that didn't leave comments.  This is only because I think the spirit of an RfC is to focus on the comments.  In this case, I mean, by my reasoning, I do not think we disagree.  In an AfD, if twenty people vote for delete and one person votes to keep, and none of the votes to delete provide reasons based in policy and the single vote to keep does provide a policy-based reason, then we keep the artcle.  Likewise, here I think it is the comments that matter.  If fifty people registered support or opposition (as i said, I don't care which) ithout providing a comment because someone else expressed their reasoning already, well, let's just focus on those actual comments that provide the reasoning, and see where that gets us.  This is just meant to explain my point about "comments."


 * As for my point about "discussion," I truly believe that comments in opposition to the proposal might be sufficient to keep the status quo, but that this does not negate the value of the comments in support. Comments in support may help pinpoint other problems with the policy or the way it is worded that might lead to a different solution than the one proposed by Blueboar.  And this logic works the other way around.  If the comments in support are enough to lead us to change the policy, but comments in opposition suggest real improvements to Blueboar's proposal, then we should make those improvements.  I hope it is really clear that my points apply equally to supports and to opposes.  And this is why our RfC guidelines tell us that after an RfC closes, we shoul discuss the comments before making any changes to the page.  Comments on either "side" might help us reach a consensus.  Some people (not you) seem to think that to oppose Blueboar's proposal is to oppose compromise, which is unfair. Some people (not you) seem to think that to insist that we discuss the comments before making any chnges to the policy is to oppose "consensus," which I also think is unfair. Finally, some people are frustrated that they have been discussing these issues for months without reaching a consensus.  To be frank, I do not think these pople are well-suited to WP or they need to change their attitued.  In my years at WP I have learned that one of the most essential virtues is patience.  I have been involved in the most viscious and contentions arguments with other editors that eventually led to constructive collaboration.


 * I think (now I am really veering into personal opinion) that the greatest problem with WP is that because of the technology, which enables instantaneous change, many editors end up thinking in computer-time rather than real-life-time. If you understand what I mean, maybe you have a better way of saying it.  I mean that because computers can process many thousands of calculations in a second, that we humans working ith computers should, too.  I know I have often easily gotten impatient at WP.  I have concluded that despite the technology we are much better off viewing problem solving in human terms, I mean human time.  A month may sound like an awfully long time - but honestly, do you believe that if we had a room full of 150-200 people, we could reach a consensus in a month?  And the people who have participated in the RfC are just a fraction of WP users, which is over a million.  What is a reasonable time to reach a consensus when a thousand, or a million people are involved?  My point is just that: if we were a thousand or just a hundred people in a room, no one would exect us to reach a consensus on changing anything that we have been doing for years, in just a month.  In a hall, with a couple of hundred people, we start out knowing that it is just going to take a long time to reach a conesnus.  But when working with WP I can never imagine that I am collaborating with thousands of people.  Even o9n the talk page, where only five or six people may be participating, I believe that I still experience it as just ME and THE COMPUTER i.e. just the two of us, and any other time I work with a computer, whatever I want happens instantaneously.  So when I work with WP this is what I expect.  I wonder if other people adjust their expectations the same way.  I don't think we are always conscious of how our experience of time gets distorted at WP, but I do think it often leads to impatience and frustration we wouldn't feel if we were with real people in a real room.  Sorry to ramble Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we are in much closer agreement than you might think. In an AfD, if twenty people vote for delete and one person votes to keep, and none of the votes to delete provide reasons based in policy and the single vote to keep does provide a policy-based reason, then we keep the article, yes, of course. In case you are not aware, I'm perfectly fine with the wording of V as it stands, and have no stake in the outcome of the RfC in regard to the wording issues. Could we come to consensus about this in a month? No, indeed, it took well over 8 months of sometimes very hard discussion to get to the RfC. Over eight months of discussion, this proposal and the RfC coming about in the last few month represented the only path forward as a means towards constructive discussion, and the quality of the discussions has improved dramatically. I had been hoping that the RfC would lead to wording that would help stabilize the policy for a while so we could continue to refine the wording. I fear that opportunity is perhaps lost at this point, but hope that is not the case. Recent activity could been seen by others, and indeed apparently is seen as by some, a heavy handed attempt by a few admins to derail the process in order to preserve the status quo they prefer. Renaming the RfC without discussion in the last week, for example, is at best sloppy and at worse disruptive. The fact of the discussion, the outcome of the RfC, what the resulting wording will be--these are of less concern to me than that the process be clear and transparent and above board, and that we not lose the momentum towards constructive discussion that was hard gained. At this point, we're teetering and may fall away from that being possible, which will, I think, set us back 6-8 months. So the short version is that while I'm not in a rush, this junction is a tipping point, and if I am pushing too hard, which I do from time to time, that's the motivation.


 * In regard to time and computers, I think you are completely correct, and I think that is part of the problem. It is impossible to keep up with all of the discussions at WP, and I'm seeing some comments that seems to express the notion that "I was unaware of this and therefore it was not advertised widely enough". Anyone who was not aware of this wasn't really paying attention to the V talk page, and just missed the notices that were posted, which is easy to do if you have several thousand pages on your watch list and are focussing on other areas. I think the other major factor is lack of context. Anyone who's been working on this regularly over the last eight months is in a completely different context than those who were unaware that that RfC was running. Some of the comments from recent participants reveal ignorance (not in the pejorative sense) of the long running discussions, and some of the comments of long term participants assume knowledge of prior discussions which is, of course, not available to recent participants. All are welcome to participate, of course, but the way this has unfolded suggests to me that the best course is to slow things down more than even you are suggesting, by drawing out the RfC a bit longer than normal, so we can all feel as though everyone's had a good chance to participant, and then move on from there. Regardless of the outcome of the RfC, we're long from being done with the wording issues surrounding "verifiability, not truth".


 * I hope this is clearly expressed, and I welcome any additional rambling you'd care to engage in, here or elsewhere. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I commend your patience
I commend your patience Nuujinn and applaud you for remaining active on Talk:Conspiracy theory. My life's schedule has become overloaded this Fall, draining me of the time and energy necessary to edit Wikipedia except for a few glances at my watchlist for vandalism now and then. The extensive discussions at that article simply became unbearable, and I see new ones are ongoing. Cheers,  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 16:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it is not as if I don't take breaks myself, and I think it's a good idea to do so periodically, or to shift gears entirely and do a different kind of edits. Hunting vandals is a fine way to relax, I hope you're enjoying your hiatus. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * At the very least, I think my hiatus is enjoying me. ;)  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 06:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Even better! --Nuujinn (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:V
Hi Nuu. I believe one of my edits inadvertently removed a comment you made at the same time. I did not receive any edit conflict message. Many apologies. Leaky Caldron  13:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and restored the comment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! --Nuujinn (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Katrina Kaif
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Katrina Kaif. 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) 02:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
A thread that concerns you has been posted on WP:ANI. Regards -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 07:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Referencing
I've been looking over your referencing. A piece of advice: when referring to the same page of the same publication more than once, it is advisable to use. The references will not stack in their section. Exempli gratia:

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. "

Notes

References

Thus we can avoid numerous "Tomasevich (1975), p.169" references cluttering their section. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree, the method you suggest is more difficult to manage, since we'd have to have a named reference for each page referenced. In cleaning up the Milhailovic article I found that many of these names refs with the page numbers pointed to page numbers that didn't support the referenced materials. I find the Notes and References as separate sections much cleaner and easier to manage. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you disagree (its me after all :)), but that is not at all what I am suggesting. "Notes" and "References" should of course be separate sections as this is the recommended format. You tend to forget this is my fifth year as editor 'round these parts - I am fully acquainted with the proper method of sourcing. I'm trying to help you perfect yours, since I've noticed there are numerous double or triple notes in the Chetniks article. You misunderstood, I think, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. All I am saying is that it is not necessary to list each reference to the same page of the same publication separately, as using allows you to refer to the one note several times. Have a more careful look at the example. --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying, and I simply disagree. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So you think it is necessary to have four Tomasevich's p.258 notes instead of one? Or four notes pointing to page 259? Five p.171 notes, three p.170 notes, and two notes for Malcolm's page 175? When we can have one Tomasevich p.171 note? One p.171 note? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 05:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I find it makes it easier to keep the references pointed to the correct sources, and it avoids the problems that occur when the primary named reference is inadvertently deleted. But I see no point in discussing these minor points when you are accusing me of edit warring and censoring content. I ask you once again to cease making these claims, as I believe them to be unfounded. Disagreements between editors on sensitive topics are certainly to be expected, but your recent repeated accusations are, in my opinion, very corrosive and make editing in good faith nigh impossible. I ask that you to retract those comments. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * DIREKTOR, even IF your method were preferable, (and that's about the most you could even claim) it would not merit the insulting and patronizing stuff you wrote above.  Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @North8000, please report any insults on WP:AN/I immediately, waste no time.
 * @Nujjinn. I am sorry, but you did delete, without replacement, large amounts of well-sourced text and supporting images - that's an indisputable fact, call it what you will. You also did engage in edit-warring (as defined by policy) with myself. These are not "claims" or "accusations", they're statements of obvious and easily demonstrable fact. What do you want me to say? "I apologize for stating the obvious"?


 * Nuujinn, rather than blaming me for a lack of good faith in discussion, as you do frequently and to whomever might listen, please review your own actions for a change. You forced major changes into the article without real consensus and against opposition. Adherence to WP:BRD is very basic in helping to achieve a more defused discourse. You call upon the mediation frequently, yet you reverted me numerous times when I restored the "status quo ante bellum" version of disputed text - as defined by Sunray himself. The same version that was considered the original state of affairs throughout the mediation process, and which stood in the article for months and years before the mediation even began. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * DIREKTOR, you've taken me to ANI about this, and for other issues, and so far no one has supported your view of the matter. You are welcome to haul me before whatever board you wish if you think I've acted inappropriately, but your continued accusations in every venue in which we have interaction is tiresome and not conducive to discussions about content. I am willing to work with you, but your incivility make that virtually impossible. During the mediation we achieved what consensus we could, and it was your choice to refuse to work with me and the other involved editors on the draft, not mine. What I see is you regularly attacking and bullying those who disagree with you, and I feel that your actions have driven off some good editors and created much more heat than light. I'm willing to move forward, but only if you will make an honest and obvious effort to be civil always, consider the points made by others, and work toward real consensus. I have tried to do that with you for almost two years, and I will continue to do so. Consider the number of editors with whom you have conflicts, consider the number of times you've been to ANI in the last few years--can you not see that those are indicative of problems? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of Sea foam
Hi Nuujinn, I've see that you've reverted edits to Sea foam and marked is as an AGF case. It's actually the work of an IP serial vandal - see User talk:EncMstr. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the head's up, I was assuming good faith... --Nuujinn (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification
You have been named an interested party at a request for clarification, at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal
I was just reviewing the discussion on your proposal at Talk:Draža Mihailović/collaboration drafts. I noted comments by Peacemaker67 and Jean-Jacques Georges between 9-12 November, but I can't see any adjustment to the text or discussion beyond that. I am wondering where you wish to go with the draft. It seems to have some support. Would it be appropriate to ask editors for final comments? Let me know if I can assist in any way. Sunray (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I've taken some time to think about it, and yes, I think that would be a good idea, so long as the net is broadly cast. Would you be willing to contact whomever might be appropriate? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas Ice
I have removed the prod tag you placed on Thomas Ice, as it has been discussed at AfD in the past and per policy is permanently ineligible for prod. I only did this to comply with policy, and have no comment one way or the other on the merits of deletion. If you still wish to pursue deletion, you are welcome to open another AfD. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the head's up. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

invitation
You are invited to help solve a problem. (LAz17 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:João VI of Portugal
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:João VI of Portugal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Confucius Institute
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Confucius Institute. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
Hi Nuujinn, I saw that you have been involved in editing this article and I thought I'd notify you that I just posted a significant expansion. I think that all of the same links and sourced information in the old version is present in this one, but let me know if you have any concerns. I'd particularly be grateful if you could help with copyediting the article. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC) NOTIFICATION by Skyeking to Mark Arsten (User Talk Page):

Hello Mark,

Thank you for the notification about your “lengthy rewrite” (not expansion) of the entire VHEMT article. I have reverted your extensive “rewrite” (no consensus – WP:CON of fellow Editors) because there are three primary Editors (Nuujinn / Mitch Ames / Skyeking) who oversee said article and they have contributed significantly (edited collaboratively) to its development for 21-months.

SOUCE – WP:OAS “Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert unconstructive edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia.” (WP:OAS)

Regarding the VHEMT article, we welcome you as a participating Editor and look forward to collaboratively editing with you.

Interestingly, you not request copy-editing participation from Mitch Ames or myself (quote M. Arsten as addressed to only Nuujinn and bobrayner) “I’d particularly be grateful if you could help with copy-editing the article.”

For myself, I am diametrically opposed to Mark Arsten’s extensive and lengthy (unnecessary phraseology and original research WP:OR) rewrite of said article (original version December 10, 2011). My proposal is that we (obviously inclusive of Mark Arsten) proceed from the original version and “slowly” (edit collaboratively) consider (discuss) “line-by-line” any-and-all “suggested” edits (WP:CON).

For myself, I am curious to learn about Mark Arsten’s “course of reasoning” (arguments) that lead him to a conclusion that an entire rewrite of the VHEMT article would somehow improve Wikipedia. My finding is that such a rewrite not improve Wikipedia, and at this time, I seriously question M. Arsten’s conclusion(s).

Therefore, my request to Mark Arsten is that he open a discussion topic at said article’s Talk Page and provide his fellow Editors an explanation about his “course of reasoning” (arguments).

Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Nuujinn, I see that you've been away from Wikipedia, but in case you see this: I've opened a discussion on the talk page of VHEMT and would like your opinion. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Swiftboating
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Swiftboating. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Swiftboating
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Swiftboating. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue cleanup
Template:Rescue cleanup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  MBisanz  talk 00:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Romanians of Serbia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Romanians of Serbia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2012 (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! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vates
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

rfcu draft
Hi Nuujinn, User:Nuujinn/direktor rfcu was created back in 19 December 2011. Do you intend to proceed with this? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably, after taking a quick glance at Direcktor's recent edits. I've been taking a break from WP since I had RL stuff to deal with and wanted to get some distance from the turmoil surrounding the Balkan articles to make sure I wasn't too wound up in things to have something approaching a rational perspective. Is there some issue regarding the draft where it is and as it stands? If so, I would not mind pulling it down for the time being. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Swiftboating
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Swiftboating. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Swiftboating
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Swiftboating. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Ryle
FYI: I've been asked to restore this, as a contested PROD, I did so. I found at least one third-party source talking about him (and added it), there are probably some others hiding farther down in Google Books search results, but haven't done enough looking to have an opinion on this fellow's notability one way or another, you're welcome to take it to AfD if appropriate. Best regards, --joe deckertalk to me 16:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the head's up. It's about time for me to get back to business here, I'll take another look and see what I can find. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

rfcu draft
fyi; probably time to take draft offline Nobody Ent 21:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

DRN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism". Thank you. --BoDu (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doctor
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Doctor. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism
Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BoDu (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear Nuujinn: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Nuujinn, and thanks for getting involved in the mediation! I notice that you have written your statement, but that you have not yet agreed to the ground rules. Would you mind signing the section on the mediation page to indicate that you agree to them? Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Done, sorry I missed that. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation step two
Hello Nuujinn, and thanks again for taking part in the MedCab mediation about Verifiability. I noticed that you haven't yet submitted a draft of the lede as I outlined in the instructions for step two, so I am just sending this message as a reminder. The deadline was 10:00 am (UTC) on Sunday, March 11, but as there are still eight drafts left to come in I am extending this by a day, to 10:00 am (UTC) on Monday, March 12. To recap, I would like you to draft your ideal version of the lead to the policy and post it on the mediation page, without any commentary. You can find the full instructions at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I would especially appreciate you getting in touch if you may have difficulty meeting the new deadline. Best wishes —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pro-Pakistan sentiment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pro-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Occupy_Marines
As you participated in a prior AfD on this subject, I wanted to alert you to the current merge proposal at Talk:Occupy_Marines. Cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation straw poll
Hello Nuujin, this is just to let you know that we are having a straw poll about how many drafts to include in the proposed RfC about Verifiability. The result of this straw poll will have a large effect on the direction the mediation takes, so if you could let us know your preferred number over at the mediation page, I would be very grateful. I am thinking of leaving the discussion open at least until 10am (UTC) on Thursday, March 22, and possibly longer if we require more time to reach a consensus. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Leuren K Moret
You commented on Merewyn's request about the degree status of Leuren Moret. I just wrote this on her talk page Leuren K Moret You asked if Leuren Moret has a PhD degree. She does not; she dropped out of the UC Davis doctoral program in Geology in the mid-1980's. I have an e-mail from the Department confirming that fact. Moret has done NO independent scientific research. She was given co-authorship of three papers by two UC Berkeley doctoral candidates, now both former Department Heads of major universities. I will gladly correspond with you or anyone else interested in Moret. My information is not posted on Wikipedia because I am considered the original source since I am the one who made the California Public Records Act request to Lawrence Livermore and I am the one who has found and corresponded with her former peers. I have deep intererst in Moret, Douglas Lind Rokke, Rosalie Bertell, Asaf Durakovic, Christopher Busby and the entire group that I have come to call the anti-depleted uranium jihadists. All of them have also morphed into being experts on Fukushima because that is where the money and attention are now. DUStory dash owner at yahoo groups dot com Rhotel1 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation compromise drafts
Hello Nuujinn, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation step five
Hello Nuujinn, this is another update about the verifiability mediation. We have now started step five, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the mediation page to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Easter
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Easter. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mexico
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexico. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pro-Pakistan sentiment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pro-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taiping Island
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Taiping Island. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chinese characters
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chinese characters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bloke
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bloke. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)