User talk:Nuujinn/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Louis Farrakhan

If you think the material I removed can be restored somewhere else in the article as it exists, please do so rather than restoring it in the controversy section. A belief that an editor thinks is wrong is not controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.180.101 (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your reasoning, and I will try to get around to this myself, but please feel free. My guess is we could document these as controversial opinions, but it is likely not necessary to do so. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinaldo Zavarce

I've been working on the mess of an article that you rightly sent to AFD. What began as this is already far better NOW and work is continuing. As you know from the discussion, I had pointed out that sources were readily available and I was hoping from assistance from Wikipedians fluent in Spanish and Portugese. That didn't happen... so I have begun translating myself and am adding more even as I drop you this note. Might you reconsider your opinion? Perhaps even a withdrawal considering improvements and potential? Thanks Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not think I can withdraw since there have been !votes for both keep and delete. My spanish is weak, and I can't really read portugese. What I'm seeing in the sources you've put in are more passing mention in articles promoting the shows, but what I'd suggest is picking the two best sources with the most coverage, and putting the translations for same on the talk page, then put a note in the afd that you'd done that. I haven't !voted, so I'll look for that and make a decision then. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Why they're so keen to have a WP article

It's actually a compliment - a recognition that we have standards, so that having an article here really means something, unlike (say) Myspace. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I get that part of it. But sometimes the strength of the desire to have an article here seems almost pathological. I'm probably just too old, recalling the days when photocopying was new and exciting and cheap compared to typesetting, and the only way to get the word out was to post a classified or pass out flyers. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

yo i think it is valid to say shakspear migh be arab, why would you take that off??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.253.109 (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Shakespear is an arab

yo i think shakespear might be an arab why would you take that out?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.253.109 (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, because you are not a reliable source. If you have a source, please bring it to the article's talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yo than can we put it as an anecdote?

Nope, sorry. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

why not are you like the king of anecdotes or something? (with all due respects) can you explain tho? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.253.109 (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha! KING OF ANECDOTES AM I! No, not that. Sure, since you asked, one of the core ideas here is that the information that winds up in an article is supported by reliable sources, see WP:RS for what that means, and that the information be verifiable, see WP:V for that policy. So, while you may believe that Shakespeare was an arab, you'd need to provide sources as support for that assertion, preferably from academic journals. See also WP:TRUTH, it's interesting in this context. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah i see, master of the anecdotes, can't we then say its a rumor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.253.109 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source Did you know that Shakespeare was actually an arab? As a matter of fact it is widely beleived that "Shake" is an anglicanisation of Sheikh which means king or prince while "spear" means Isbire a very common arab name so this gives us Sheikh Izbire and this sounds very close to Shakespear. That is an important point to consider when viewing authorship questions regarding Shakespear. search for background and youll see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.253.109 (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Typo http://www.fabula.org/actualites/article33446.php there you can search for background —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.253.109 (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, that was interesting. You could bring this up on the article talk page, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate in that article. But, you might consider making an account here, and then poking about a bit to get a feel for the place. I could see an article "Reception of Shakespeare in arabian countries" or something similar. But I'm off to bed for now, best of luck! --Nuujinn (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

PFI

I don't have time to debate out the telegraph reference now, so i have not re-inserted it. I will catch up with this discussion later. 117.204.93.111 (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted you again, you removed a reference to a source that indicates no evidence has been found linking PFI to terrorists. We have to report both. I question the reliability of the two sources you're inserting into the lead since they appear to be new aggregators--the articles are word for word the same, so the original source is in question. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence was found later. you cannot base your argument on a report that came before the evidence was found. 117.204.93.111 (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

see article talk page pls. 117.204.93.111 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Even the reference which supported your earlier claim ([1]) says evidence was found and they are probing the links based on these evidences. 117.201.245.237 (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (same person as above)

Thanks!

Hello Nuujinn, many thanks for your input into this recent AfD debate! Much appreciated. Malljaja (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving to Mainspace

Can you help me move my user space User:Houstongal82/ Kevin Warren Sloan to the main space? Houstongal82 (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Done! --Nuujinn (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

VHEMT Article – Archive Talk Page

Nuujinn, what are your thoughts about archiving the VHEMT Article Talk Page?
“Please” proceed to my User Talk Page to discuss archiving.

P.S.
Source Link:
“You can always take a discussion to E-mail or to your User Talk Page.....”

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

star

		The Original Barnstar
		the original barnstar for coming in and helping remove original research from paraprosdokian Aisha9152 (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ip comments

Please do not remove the comments of other editors on talk pages. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn the spelling of the word is 'hottest' not 'hotest'

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hottest

Please look at the edit before you criticize it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.45.173 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, not a clue in the world what you mean by that. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The only edit I made on a talk page involved changing the word 'hotest' to 'hottest' but fools that use autobots posted on that talk page. Should I store this nonsense on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.45.173 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this. If you want to not be confused with other people using the same ip address, consider creating an account.

Thanks for your politeness

It appears that I did edit the page in question, but inadvertently. All I intended to do and was aware of doing was unwatching the page. I wish they would bring back the watch/unwatch tab, which was simpler and could not have brought about this surprising result. Maybe I had better do the operation on my watchlist in future and not on the pages themselves. Esoglou (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand completely, it did not seem the kind of edit that one would expect from your history. I am happy each day that I don't put two rounds into my foot. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Hi...did you want to sign here...I forgot the template for unsigned postings...have a good one.--MONGO 17:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up! --Nuujinn (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Perry

It's unclear why you deleted my comment at the talk page. Please be more careful. Thanks.166.137.136.11 (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, by adding a heading above another editor's comment, you inadvertently made it appear that your edit deleted their comment, and I mistook this for vandalism. Do you need me to take any actions to remediate this? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look at it. No further action is needed, but please do keep an eye on the article. Partisan edits may increase as election day approaches. Cheers.166.137.136.11 (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

re:Speedy deletion

FYI. See WP:ATHLETE on the Soviet canoeist you want speedy deleted. He competed in the 1980 Summer Olympics and is thus notable. I have protested you CSD as a result. Chris (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Blake Knight

Hello Nuujinn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Blake Knight, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 21:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akio Nakamori

Five minutes of searching would have found enough references for you to save the hassle of trying to get this article deleted. Longer would have found even more. I recommend just asking me for references for older articles in the future, and I'll be happy to save you the time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I searched both Google news and Google books, and did not find any reliable sources, but you may be better at searching than I. My suggestion would be that you take a look at the unreferenced BLPs for articles in which you have an interest, you could be of help there eliminating the back log. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I just used the links in the AfD, so I didn't do anything special. I have worked on those, but I only have so much time available to me. You may be interested in this page. It can help you find refs for BLP articles related to Japan. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That looks useful, thanks for the link. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Bilderberg

The movie in fact does cover those allegation. Check out this small short on the actual movie. You may want to watch iyt all after this. I don't think it'sa all true but if even part of it is it is prety scary. [[2]]Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but youtube videos aren't considered reliable sources. On a personal level, I stopped worrying about such things many years ago. It's a bit complicated but once I realized that you cannot reach the truth of these things, nor affect them, there's no point worrying about them. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your message

Replied here. Thx. -- Nazar (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! GOCE November 2010 backlog elimination drive progress graphs We have reached the midway point in our backlog elimination drive, so here is an update. Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join! Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive. Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line! Your drive coordinators –The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 16:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Sri Caitanya-mangala

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 3.255

e-vanyāya ye nā bhāse, sei jīva chāra

koṭi-kalpe kabhu tāra nāhika nistāra

SYNONYMS

e-vanyāya — in this inundation; ye — anyone who; nā bhāse — does not float; sei — that; jīva — living entity; chāra — most condemned; koṭi-kalpe — in millions of kalpas; kabhu — at any time; tāra — his; nāhika — there is not; nistāra — deliverance.

TRANSLATION

"Anyone who does not float in this inundation is most condemned. Such a person cannot be delivered for millions of kalpas.

PURPORT

The kalpa is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and one thousand such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for millions of such kalpas.

Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Adi 8.38

'caitanya-mangala' sune yadi pashandi, yavana

seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana

SYNONYMS

caitanya-mangala -- the book named Caitanya-mangala; sune -- anyone hears; yadi -- if; pashandi -- great atheist; yavana -- a nonbeliever in the Vedic culture; seha -- he also; maha-vaishnava -- great devotee; haya -- becomes; tatakshana -- immediately.

TRANSLATION

If even a great atheist hears Sri Caitanya-mangala, he immediately becomes a great devotee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.164.173 (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

email

Thanks for your message; hopefully I'll be able to get something started tomorrow. Rodhullandemu 22:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, best of luck. Don't hesitate to drop me a note if I can do anything to help. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Bjmullan

No, I am answering them right now in the other thread where he has requested my response. Give me two minutes. I need to check some references. --LevenBoy (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how does that make it ok for you to remove another editor's comment or question? A better way to handle it would be to post a note telling everyone where you were answering and leave the question in places so others could follow. It's a fair question, I think. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove it. I moved it and responded to it. Which I have now done. You caught me in the middle of doing so. The end result is far more clear and orderly.

You will not know the background to all this. My conversation with Bjmullan has been going on for a long time and I cannot expect you or others to follow that.

I did not want the policy discussion to deteriorate into yet another Britain Ireland discussion when there is already an RFC going on about that.

He acknowledged my request at Talk:British Isles but did not move the comment. I don't know why. I thought it was kind of me to do so for him and would make more sense for others that are not following our every move. Does that help?--LevenBoy (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy: you did remove it from that talk page, and without an edit summary, no less. You opened the thread there and immediately started in on the BI naming dispute as your "example" of why you were raising the issue. At least two editors quickly realized this not a WP:V issue for that talk page, but rather a WP:NPOV issue. The fact that this has been initiated by you at more than one board simultaneously[3][4] is not unnoticed, I'm sure. Removing comments from other editors without their permission, even if its repeated on other pages, is still a "no-no" "even if you meant well". Why not keep it on Talk:British Isles where it really belongs? Does that help? Cheers... Doc talk 02:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy, as I said, a better way to handle it would be to post a note telling everyone where you were answering and leave the question in places so others could follow. Removing the comment changes history, and not in a good way. Arguing that you did not remove it, but rather only moved it is facil. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The thread never should have been there in the first place, as it is, IMHO, simply pure forum shopping. LevenBoy is correct that you don't know the background on all this: and believe me, you don't want to. The thread was merely an extension of an issue that LevenBoy is "quite active" in, and wasting the editors' time over there that are not familiar with the never-ending "BISE Wars" is unfortunate. Cheers :> Doc talk 02:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what LevenBoy meant when he said "acknowledged my request" it certainly was not my permission to move my comments. If someone forum shops they should expect questions and answers all over the place. Bjmullan (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, everything was taken care of. Please always ask first rather than make accusations and allow a little time for a response. As in my case, there might be a reasonable explanation for what is going on. Doc9871's only involvement in the British Isles discussion has been to try and nail me with a bogus sockpuppet accusation which failed. I have no idea why he is on my case.

Doc, if you wish to join the discussion about either policy or content matter relating to the British Isles, please do but on the correct pages. Leave poor Nuujinn out of it. He only meant well. Over and out. --LevenBoy (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy, with all due respect, I do not think that your explanation is reasonable. You deleted another editor's comment from an active discussion. Even if you had made your intent clear as you did so (and you did not), it would have been inappropriate. Also, please note, I refrained from making any accusation--the most one claim I think is that I questioned your actions. I hope that you at least made an apology to Bjmullan. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am still waiting but not expecting one. Bjmullan (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy may think that others should "apologise for wasting people's time and spreading bad feelings"[5], but he is under no such obligation for himself, even when blatantly forum shopping for what is clearly his sole cause here on WP. As far as him laughably giving Nuujinn "advice" about when to "accuse" editors: his own accusations against editors (including administrators) is a major reason why he is on civility parole[6]. Please keep your self-admitted "campaign for accuracy"[7] (strictly POV) off of boards that don't have anything to do with it. Thanks! Doc talk 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Nuujinn. This is to notify you that there is a report at ANI where you are mentioned. It does not concern your actions but you may or may not wish to comment. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Arthur E. Morris

Hello Nuujinn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Arthur E. Morris, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 20:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up, --Nuujinn (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I will follow your suggestion

I will follow your suggestion and refrain from arguing with Свифт. I hope he does the same. Thanks. Yahalom Kashny (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I can easily understand how both of you might have strong feelings on the question, it's just that those work against us in our work here. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Using WP:BURDEN to argue for deletion of sourcing information or of sourced material

Hi. You requested an example of how BURDEN can be used by someone deleting a source, without that person being forced to give a rationale on RSN for example. Sorry for coming to your talk page but frankly I am not certain this will help the discussion there. We can bring it there perhaps if necessary?

I recently spent about a month trying to talk to User:Jayjg, first on his talk page[8], and then after that failed, going through article by article trying to find compromises, while he was on a programme he had launched of deleting all use of a particular source from genetics articles. RSN was involved at least twice, once before the discussion even started. Honestly, I think I am right in saying he has no coherent rationale, although a quick perusal might give another first impression.

The first article talk page compromise I found simply involved deleting the mention of the source [9] because he obviously agreed that what was being sourced was bordering on something you do not even need a source for. I still feel bad about having accepted that! Other examples went on and on [10]. He pushed discussions into circles, cited BURDEN at a critical point, and methodically made everything as difficult as possible. This invocation of Burden was obviously a big part of the spirit of his efforts.

Why didn't RSN help? Frankly RSN can almost never help in such cases. People see long discussions with the right policies being cited, and back off. Although he claimed that the source fails RS while he was deleting mention of it, this started not long AFTER taking part on the loosing side in a case on RS/N concerning this same source. He simply claims to interpret the result differently. I summarized everyone's positions at one point to try to get past that: [11]. What's more (I found out later) even though during all the RSN debate he emphasized that he was not involved and kept inventing ways of not counting people he said were involved, this in turn happened not all that long AFTER he had been involved in heavily discussed activities to get rid of this same source, along with any others presenting a theory he wanted out, during events to do with the article Khazars. I do not remember what level it went to in WP's drama hierarchy but if I recall correctly he was trying very hard to get rid of any mention of the apparent Eastern European ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews. Please note that his actions show that he knew I did not know about the Khazars article and not long after I worked it out and let him know he suddenly backed down (05:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)). I do not think he would have otherwise. Calling for opinions on RSN a second time, this time about a very specific point which could have perhaps helped, also did not help at all. (I got one response, in agreement with me, and then several responses posted from Jayjg himself which confused the issue. [12]).

I do not think WP can ever aim to get rid of such things. But what I think it needs to be careful of is creating an environment with more legal technicalities and loopholes. Arguments will always occur, but their nature will be affected by how policies are written.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

AL, it will take me some time to work through all of this, but I will get back to you. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I am not sure that the effort will lead to anything. But anyway you asked for an example. I imagine that in terms of the policy wording discussion any single example can be argued to be irrelevant because they generally involve complicating factors. Differences in overall impression of what is common on WP seem to be the main source of differing opinions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Variometer, etc., edits

I've started a discussion at Talk:Variometer#RCDI_.2F_Rate_of_Climb_and_Descent_Indicator.3F, regarding the existence of the terms Rcdi and Rate of Climb and Descent Indicator. You fixed those links recently. If you know of any evidence that these terms are real, please let me know, or I plan to delete those redirect pages. Rwessel (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Inedia, bretharianism

Hello, Nuujinn!

I am currently referring to inedia and a specific workshop, by Wiley Brook, on which you kindly draw my attention.

On November 21, 2010, you have posted a relevant message, which says (and I quote):

• This section is largely sourced to the subject's website, and is at this point the last paragraph is basically advertising his workshops. This seems inappropriate, and I'd like to cut it back a good bit. Any objections?

Here is my answer:

Dear Nuujinn!

Thank you for your judicious and relevant comments!

Of course, feel absolutely free to update all of my writings, so that the textual insertions would fit the wikipedian "terms and conditions", in the best possible way!

Furthermore, as my English has a bit fallen into disuse (due to a crucial lack of practice), I’d be more than happy if you could kindly accept to correct any potential inaccuracies, regarding some specific semantic units or any other linguistic elements, which would drastically need to be improved under the guidance of your gracious and celestial majesty, thanks to your precious addenda and/or inserts.

This said, I am sorry if my last symbolic written contribution could have been potentially interpreted as sort of indirect advertising for this seminar, given that this apparent aim would be dramatically located at the extreme opposite side of any virtual intention of mine.

On the contrary, by exposing the "phenomenal" fee amount which is required, as an initial deposit (aimed to pay the access right), together with the unexpected specific requirements, which are supposedly due to remit the whole preliminary fee, I simply wanted to underline the possible contrast, which seems to apparently exude between the following paradoxical dichotomies:

1. The so-called notions of simplicity, poverty, destitution, relinquishment, abstinence, abandonment and/or detachment of any venal or materialistic foundation, which are allegedly linked (as a common cliché) to the notion of bretharianism, respirianism, inedia and so on.

And (as an unexpected contrast):

2. The unreachable – or, shall I say: "hallucinating"? – fee amount, which seems to be required, as a basic preliminary deposit... including the... remaining remittance... which sees the first initial deposit to be multiplied by an even more staggering and utopist coefficient.

Especially if one considers the "non refundable" aspect (the remittance is even less ever refundable, considering that any sort of subsidiary payment – credit card or other secured modes of payment – is ostentatiously banished).

Please, make yourself at home! My idealistic aspiration consists in working all together, for the best possible result, each one of us being utterly in position to enrich, improve and/or correct each former or forthcoming contribution, tinged with the final noble scope of making an all-together common and mutual creation, as a conclusive oblation.

Kindest regards!

Yours truly!

euphonie ^breviary
14:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Nuujinn!

I just read your recent additional contribution on Wiley Brook.
Very well done! You've done quite a good job! Congratulations!
Kindest regards!
euphonie ^breviary
09:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment! --Nuujinn (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Animal testing

Just to avoid confusion, you do mean "concur" with what I said, not with what the other editor proposed, right? Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the former, I'll expand it a bit...--Nuujinn (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:William Harvey

I reverted your addition, it may be good material but doesn't belong in this article. My suggestion would be that you create an account here and start a new article in your user space on this person, it sounds interesting. If you need any help, please feel free to ask me, --Nuujinn (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Harvey was not "the first to describe correctly and in detail the systemic circulation and properties of blood being pumped to the body by the heart," why do you deny that Ibn Al-Nafis did that 400 years before Harvey? Please don't insist on keeping that false statement on Harvey's introductory sentence. 74.96.165.65 (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That could well be true, but please refer to the policies on verifibility and reliable sources, as well as WP:TRUTH. If you have references that can support your assertions, then the best place to start would be a new article on Ibn Al-Nafis. I don't know anything about him or the sources, but I'm willing to lend a hand. --Nuujinn (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nuujinn. You have new messages at WP:FEED#Michael_Davitt_.28poet.29.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, I replied to your request for feedback. I hope my comments/suggestions are useful, but if you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Thanks! Chevymontecarlo 14:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sentence spacing

Glad to sign for you - thanks for your comments on the talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw your post at Talk:sentence spacing. Personally, I thought that the material you posted regarding "making my own fonts for an epson FX80" and the like was interesting. I hope you have applied this knowledge to the relevant Wikipedia articles, although I suspect that you already have.

Thanks also for your interest in the Sentence spacing article. I find it a fascinating subject. I knew next to nothing about this a couple of years ago (never took a typing class) when I first investigated the matter on the Internet. I discovered that reams of people ask about this, but there was no single comprehensive article. All of the information was spread out in disparate types of works. I decided that someone should put the article together, and finally settled on Wikipdia as the best venue to reach the most people.

Strangely enough, I personally prefer the look of em-spaced text from historical works, which looks more like double sentence spaced text than single. I even tried writing with em-spaced sentences once. I finally decided it was too much work. Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad it was interesting. I haven't really done anything along these lines in WP, since I'm here more to learn. Myself, in a monospace font, I do like the wider spacing, but it's too much trouble, and most of what I write is web based, so it makes no difference really. Also, I confess I have not found anything that looked quite so nice as my royal electric, which used the old style strikers instead of a ball, and dropped the caps just a shade below the lower case. The last paper I turned in for ungrad I type up on 22 lbs light brown paper, and it was gorgeous. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't mean to imply, in my last post, that you don't have experience here. Your comments were very appropriate as well, in my opinion. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but no worries, I'm still figuring out my way around here. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

VHEMT

Thanks for you help with the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement "extinctionist" issue. Would you care to comment on the the use of italics for "voluntary" in the lead section? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:TALK:COCNOTC comment on content, not on the contributor

Hi,

I have seen in your writing repeated demonstrations of skill in saying things in a non-controversial way, so I believe it possible that we can work toward consensus regarding WP:TALK:COCNOTC (comment on content, not the contributor)..

An example is the first sentence of the last paragraph of a recent post, whose first letters are Rfatthyunaph. It should seem to be enough to compare those words with WP:TALK:COCNOTC.  At the risk of moving off-topic, I draw attention to the benefit of WP:TALK:COCNOTC, because in this sentence behind the WP:TALK:COCNOTC, a third party might look at those same words and see content that could be misconstrued to say "no good faith here".  Trying to relate to the scope of the background misunderstanding within policy, though, may just be a distraction; when the background misunderstanding is more related to "condescension".  The point remains that I think that these background misunderstandings are constructively removed by applying WP:TALK:COCNOTC.  For example, I can't see that it changes the meaning to strike the entire sentence.  Another example of WP:TALK:COCNOTC follows in the paragraph with the word, "you", because immediately the thought moves from the content to the contributor.  Thanks, RB  66.217.117.192 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. Regarding "the last paragraph of a recent post, whose first letters are Rfatthyunaph", if you would provide a diff I'll take a look at it. I will say, however, and in general, that I still think you may be missing the point. We should and generally do focus on content, not the contributor. But in this instance, some editors including myself are trying to draw your attention to the notion that you have simply made a mistake by refactoring some text in a way that could be construed as evasion or vandalism. I am assuming good faith on your part, but I would suggest instead of arguing the issue, simply taking the advice and considering whether or not it has merit may be in order. My personal rule is to not alter comments by others, and on the rare occasions when I have, I have generally posted a note to the editors in question telling them what I have done and offering to revert myself if my action was inappropriate. And for what it's worth, deleting and striking are not the same here at WP, striking is use of the <s> tag to create a strike through, thusly. But you should only strike your own comments, not those of others. I have myself requested others to strike comments that I thought were inappopriate. And if someone posts something that you think needs to be deleted, I think the best course of action is to request that an admin delete it. Also, at the risk of going on too long, it is not a question so much of altering the meaning as it is altering the history that the talk page represents. Reordering and refactoring obscure the history of the conversation, which, in the case of disputes requiring outside attention, make the work of those outsiders that much more difficult. I hope you can appreciate that aspect of things. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you'd know which posting I was talking about.  I'm still looking for a user-level description of how a proportional font gets displayed without justification.  RB  66.217.117.102 (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! We have reached the end of our fourth backlog elimination drive. Thanks to all who participated. Stats GOCE November 2010 backlog elimination drive graphs 58 people signed up for this drive. Of these, 48 people participated in the drive. Although we did not eliminate the months we planned to (January, February, and March 2009; and August, September, and October 2010), we did reduce the backlog by 627 articles (11.2%), which was over our goal of 10%. 49 awards will go out to 33 of 48 participants. Check out the complete list of barnstar winners here. Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the September 2010 backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering these barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Our next drive is scheduled for January 2011. In the meantime, please consider helping out at the Wikification drive or any of the other places where help with backlogs is needed. Thank you for participating in the last 2010 backlog elimination drive! We look forward to seeing you in January! Your drive coordinators –The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Speedy deletion declined: Robert E. Jackson

Hello Nuujinn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Robert E. Jackson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 14:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up! --Nuujinn (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ending the Mihailovic mess

Hi,

just posted here what should be done IMHO. Would you be ok to work ASAP on the current version and put an end to this f***ing article ? As I said, I am more than willing to put this article out of its misery and achieve something worthwile, with or without mediation. If you agree with my proposal, just let me know. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

interesting perspective on that troubled article

Here's a source (this is to Google Books, so let me know if it refuses to reveal itself) that I found interesting, pp. 4–6 being all I've looked at: the approach to the "encoding" of classical texts. It's also an example of rejecting the use of the "exact words" in order to focus on reception and the active making of an imaginative model rather than defining the highly fluid term. This would be a relatively minor source, but helpful in the Renaissance section, which I'm happy to work on in the near future, though I'm not much for philosophy and hope somebody else deals with Ficino. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Your great feedback, assistance and willingness to help. You rock! Houstongal82 (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

C Warden

Did you mean to support this viewpoint? Because you have [13]. It is not clear from your summary which view you think is strange. Polargeo (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've augmented my comment to clarify, please let me know if you have any questions. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your question

I wish you luck getting a real answer, because this clearly wasn't one. How serious of a situation is this discrepancy? Reasonably interpreted as a slip-up?—Kww(talk) 13:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't say yet, haven't opened the book. Figured I'd try to get an explanation first, then verify the reference. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've looked it over twice now, can't see any justification for use of it as a source for that article. Time to do some additional digging. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but I was pretty sure that was true once he ducked your question.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I as well, CW is obviously very bright, so I'm sure he's capable of understanding the nature of the question. And he's been editing, but has not responded to my follow up question. Hopefully he'll come around to realizing that these issues are not going to go away. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll be surprised. After all, there's no policy demanding that he answer your question. That means it will also be very difficult to get people to agree that his evasion of your question is a sign of ill intent.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not at all concerned about CW's intentions, just his actions. Many of the diff brought up in the RFC are arguable. Regarding this, I don't know what CW was thinking or why he provided the particular source. Skookum is correct that the source does not support the assertion that Monterey Park is a Chinatown, but it does substantiate the fact that some people did consider Monterey Park as the "suburban Chinatown", a characterization which the author refutes. I can't see the article, so I don't know anything more than that, but I could see that sourcing as arguably valid. But I see no wiggle room at all with the other. I've been checking other edits, most seem reasonable or good, but we do clearly have some at this point that are just bad. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Spark (fire) for deletion

The article Spark (fire) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spark (fire) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GDallimore (Talk) 19:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

policy change

You just beat me to it, this is the discussion related to the desired change, I don't think a couple of people is a policy changing discussion either. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that discussion and then the policy change, didn't seem like a good idea. I hope you have a fine holiday this year, season's greetings! --Nuujinn (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, yes, you too, enjoy yourself, best wishes. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Check References Before Removing Changes

Please check references before removing changes to wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.252.225 (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis the season

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

I'd like to add to the above. Seasons Greetings! --Airborne84 (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And I'd like to say thank you very much, and the very best to you too! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Three phrases that sum up Christmas are: Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men, and Batteries not Included----"Happy Holidays Nuujinn!!"

In addition, a Special "Thank You" for all of your contributions, and other Wiki assistance.

Happy Wiki Year,

Skyeking (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cognitive analytic therapy

Hi there, I have made some expansions to this article and added some appropriate references. There are a great many potential reference sources but sadly many are in academic journals and won't be accessible to the average reader - I will try and find the most accessible sources I can. My redraft isn't finished, but I wanted to make a start to demonstrate that there is something notable to talk about - could you have a look and, if you agree it's improving, would you agree that removing the PROD is reasonable now? I will continue adding more material and references either way. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think if you're working on the article, pulling the PROD is fine. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks will do! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Many thanks for the lovely message. Have a wonderful holiday season and take care! (Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 09:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC))

Three phrases that sum up Christmas are: Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men, and Batteries not Included----"Happy Holidays Nuujinn!!"
And, "Thank You" for your Holiday greeting at my User Talk Page.
Happy Wiki Year,
Skyeking (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

My thanks as well - formal holiday greeting spam to follow in a day or few. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran. Thank you. - KrakatoaKatie 08:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The size of Wim Crusio's Wiki page

Remove inappropriate content. Please see edit history and content removal per WP:TPNO, and User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran, specifically no personal attacks, and do not misrepresent other people. It might also be considered vandalism. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I'm curious as to why the size comparison interests you, and why you are asking for my opinion in general. Secondly, I would suggest if you suspect a sock, reporting the issue to SPI would make the most sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Nuujinn. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Article titles.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Marcus Qwertyus 19:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

	<font=3> Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2011! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report

Season's Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 503 editors 2,589 articles removed through four Backlog elimination drives Our encounter with Jimbo Wales Guild home pages reorganized and redesigned Report on our inaugural elections Guild Plans for 2011 New barnstars introduced Requests page improved Sign up for the January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. See you in 2011! – Your Coordinators: S Masters (lead), Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Science article editing and deleting:

You calmly admit you are NOT a chemist, yet you presume to comment on the contributions of a particular chemist to the study of kinetic isotope effects, intramolecular or otherwise? With respect, let's leave editing of articles related to science and scientists (other than simply copy editing for grammar and punctuation) to the scientists who contribute here, and leave the copy editors in their place: to edit copy for factual, grammatical, or punctuational error. You have no more business indicating what is good science, bad science, notable science, or even useful science, than I have directing a film or conducting an orchestra! Further, the continued insistence on counting citations - no matter that the searches for same are often superficial at best, as journals list authors in many different naming conventions - as a substitute for genuine scholarship - again, by copy editors, it would often appear, who are experts in their fields I am sure, but darned straight not necessarily in mine - is highly problematic.

As this is, of course, a talk page, you (or anyone)can delete this comment at will. I do suggest, with respect, some thinking take place as you do. Some of the scientists you all have selected for deletion of recent have been nominated for the Prize more than once, despite relatively scanty publication records measured against the science factories that often produce high volume at the expense of insight or quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.22.222 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about--could you clarify what article you're talking about or what action of mine you're objecting to? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess it refers to this nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barton Hawkins.  --Lambiam 20:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)