Archives

Archive 1, to April 2010

Dear Nuujinn,

I am not sure if this is the right way to communicate with you. Please let me know either way.

[portion charactizing another user removed --Nuujinn (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Good to hear from you. Communicating with me here is fine, but please sign your edits with four tildes (Nuujinn (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)), that will mark your posts and put a timestamp in place. If this all started because of a disagreement with another editor, I think you've been going about this the wrong way. I'll look into the history of Phenomics and start there. But please slow down, and read some of the relevant policies. I'd suggest starting with WP:Sock puppetry and WP:Edit warring. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I took a look at Phonemics and I think the bit you're missing is the discussion, such as it is, at Talk:Phenome. You might consider joining that discussion, but please be polite, see AGF. One issue to keep in mind is that you have a clear conflict of interest since you started the Phonemics article with the claim that you coined the term. According to policy, you are strongly discouraged from editing articles with which you have a close connection. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you so much for helping out in this matter and I am sorry if I did not use the correct protocols in dealing with this issue, since I was not aware of these issues to begin with. I have never had this kind of an situation arise and once again I am sorry if I did not use the right tools, such as this talk page. I would be very thankful is you could act as a "middle man" regarding this issue and I am sure that the rest of our wikipedia colleagues would like us to deal with this as well.

Best Regards,

Steven A. Garan

Sgaran (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello aging, Thanks for point out the Talk:Phenome page. I will use that as a way to talk about the issue.

Best Regards,

Steven A. Garan

Sgaran (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. Another small procedural thing, you can use one or more colons (:) to indent your comments to make them more readable. Please also understand that while I'm willing to help, this will likely be a bumpy ride. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague,

I did just now look at the Talk:Phenome page, found the entry below. I did not even know there was such an interest in the issue..

As always you completely ignore the main points and suggestions I am making, do not answer any of my direct questions, and return instead to your fixed unyielding view that you are right and that hundreds of other researchers are not. I should have realized that it was hopelesss, once you said that even the word "phenotyping" was not acceptable (almost 5000 entries in Pubmed, >100,000 entries each in Google Scholar!). Are you also going to redirect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology ? I fully agree that this is an intellectually stale discussion, but that is because you will not enter into a dialogue with give and take, you just keep restating your fixed position, and ignoring all the valid issues I raise. I will wait a bit to see if you at least follow my request to make an entry into the Phenotype page listing the words Phenome, Phenomics and Phenotyping, and explaining why you feel that these terms should never be used by anyone ever again, and providing a good rationale for this. In my opinion, that would be the intellectually honest thing to do, rather than completely obscuring what you have done.--Pfjoseph (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sgaran (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I must say this has been an difficult day for me. I will try to get back to what I was going to do today. I will await your comments and actions. If I could ask you to email me at the user name sgaran and the domain lbl.gov if there is anything that you need from me or if you have any news, please feel free to contact me.Sgaran (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to keep all conversations in the open. Please refrain from personal characterizations, you must abide by the policy WP:CIVIL. The dispute between Pfjoseph and Crusio, or between you and Crusio, are not relevant to the question of whether Phenomics should or should not be redirected, or whether any particular article should be deleted. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn you are correct. I just can not believe that what is going on. That is the only comment I will make here. I will stop adding comments all together or make changes to the pages that in dispute, if Crusio agrees to stop as well, I think from this point, people with no vested interest should resolve this issue. BTW thank you for helping out in this matter. Sgaran (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you consider responding to the sock puppet report] I filed. It appears that you're continuing to edit under the two reported ip addresses. My apologies in advance if that it not the case. Generally speaking, it is considered bad form to edit from ips if you have a login, it's confusing to other editors. If you have been doing this, it would be a good thing to clear the air.

Also, you should participate in discussions if you can keep a cool and level head. If articles you have an interest in get deleted, it is not the end of the world, and you can request that those be restored in your user space so that you can improve them. Please remember that you do not own articles which you create or to which you contribute. Wikipedia should be fun. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, up until today I have never heard the word Sockpuppet in the context that you are using it. But I now have a better idea of the words meaning. The problem is that in the "old" days, a user had to logon to Wikipedia via a user id and therefore one had to logon before making any changes. I am not sure when the policy changed to allow anyone ie people with out user ids to update wiki pages, but ever since I have just updated wiki pages in that manner. It never dawned on me that it was an issue or even a problem until now. The reason I started using my user Id was because my IP address was locked out, from the issue surrounding the word "Phemomics" etc. I am sorry if this caused a problem, but I guess it had never been an issue until now. But as you can see the down side of using a user id, is that people such as crusio use this information and go on a targeted attack on people they disagree with. This is hardly a way to promote people to use their user ids when there are people like crusio out there that do the things he is doing. I am sorry I feel this way, but I hope you can under stand where I can coming from. By the way I agree with you, in that the wiki should be fun (but the last few days have been anything but fun) and I know I have said this a lot, but people like you are the wiki's saving grace. Cheers!! -- Sgaran (talk) 1:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that explanation is ok for how far it goes, but it does not explain how or why the same ips that you were apparently using apparently attempted to sway the AFD discussions by impersonating users who does not exist, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sgaran for the comments by David Eppstein. If it was you that made those edits, I urge you to come clean about it. Also, I'd like to make sure you understand that adding/keeping articles in the Paola S. Timiras article do not help establish the notability of Steven A. Garan. Notability is not transferred, so the association of Steven A. Garan with Paola S. Timiras does not establish notability of Steven A. Garan. See WP:PROF for guidelines on establishing notability of academicians. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nuujinn,

Thanks for your help and great feedback on my wiki article: Kanchan armour. Please let me know if it is not already in the mainspace. I tried moving it but not sure whether it has gone through or not.

Please help me as this is my first article.

Thanks, Lohiyagaurav (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you moved it just fine, glad to be of service. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have some serious issues and want to discuss a few things pertaining to above article. Therefore, can you kindly check my ID through checkuser, so that I could discuss about this article. Your kind response is awaited.--Saeedrags (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to talk with you, but I don't have check user powers, I'm just an editor not an admin. What can I help you with? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked now...guess who? *facepalm* — Scientizzle 14:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persistence is a virtue like no other. I wish I could understand why people care so much about encyclopedia articles. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the information provided in the article is not accurate and you are not ready to listen to the other party, its not fair at all.--119.155.51.165 (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean, and do you have sources? I realize that sometimes policy results in odd statements in articles, but that's the way it goes. In Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, for example, personally, I think it's most likely that he died in the UK. But we have sources that contradict that, so we have to document what they say. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So many things in this article based on lie for an example he was founder of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam only but you have added MFI as well, which was formed by Muhammad Younus after his demise. Moreover, his death is not controversial as we have many sources that he was died and This article, it states that The sentences are said to total 59 years. An appeal was filed in the High Court of Sindh and before it could be decided, Goharshahi died and the case was abated, the case is abated in case of death only. Shahi was a Pakistani personality and when Government is abating case it means there's is reality. Let me tell you that the Dawn is number one English News Paper of Pakistan and its text is reliable in all the aspects. Moreover, the email address of This article's author is there, you can simply email and ask. It means that above reference is most reliable as it is published and verifiable.--221.120.250.80 (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No answer from you means you are unanswered and not a neutral administrator on this issue. Saeedrags--119.160.120.37 (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, I missed your last message, it was not my intent to ignore you, please accept my apologies. The issue is that by wikipedia policy, we have to follow what the sources say, even if we believe the sources are wrong, see WP:V and WP:RS. The issue is further confused by the variety of dates given for his death. Also, if I were to email the author, I would be violating the policy against original research. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nuujinn/Slovaks in Hungary Guy (Help!) 16:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in this edit to Riverside High School (North Carolina) you reverted what you called "unhelpful edit" in your edit summary. In fact the edit you reverted was undoing vandalism. I am only too well aware how easy it is to make mistakes when dealing with vandalism (I make similar mistakes myself) but I thought it worth letting you know. JamesBWatson (talk)

Good catch, and thanks for letting me know! --Nuujinn (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you bring the article to WT:POLAND? I'll reply there. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nuujin,

Hope you remember me for the extended discussion (or "fight" :) we had over eFront (eLearning Software) (here is the related discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EFront_%28eLearning_software%29)

The verdict was to delete this software's article due to the higher weight on arguments from a regular wikipedia author compared to an SPA author. I have asked the deleting admin to userify the article so I can improve it (with the help of other people and wikipedia community so it has an improved neutrality, clarity and notability "character") and re-enable it on the near future (as long as convincing arguments can be found in its favor). And I need your help with that....

(Here is the userfied article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Papagel/EFront_%28eLearning_software%29)

Since the time we spoke I managed to find the final article for the "Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools" Here is the pdf : http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B8vrY4OEQsbRZjY1MDQxN2UtOWViMi00ZmJiLWE1NDktMjMxYjUxYzNkN2Fh&hl=en

I have also found an LMS review service (in German) that compares LMSs (feature wise). Here is the link: http://matrix.innovate.de/elsystems (eFront was added back on December 2009).

There is another LMS comparison system located at: http://www.edutools.info/summative/index.jsp?pj=4&i=631 It recently update its review to include eFront 3.6 Papagel (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was happy to see that the article was userfied. I'll be glad to take a look later this week, but right now my plate's pretty full. I'm also happy to give you some general advice, for whatever it's worth. First of all, you have a clear conflict of interest, and that's a specific term. It doesn't mean that you can't edit this article, but it does mean extra attention to your edits. Being a SPA also gets you more attention. So one piece of advice I can give you is to do some other editing--ideally, pick a few articles that you have only a vague interest in and see what you can do to clean them up. It seems to me that you write well, so the Guild of copy editors might be a good place to start--they have lists of articles that need general cleanup.

Read up on the policies governing wikipedia. I've only been active here a few months, and it really helps to understand the culture if you go read the relevant policeis. Arguments founded in policy are generally accepted. For example, what you really need for this article is something like a review in a magazine, online or otherwise. FOSS projects have a really hard time meeting the bar because the culture isn't oriented around those kinds of publications, and lots of articles about such projects get deleted. Also, don't feel badly about it, it's very hard to write an article and keep it up once it's been noticed unless you have a good bit of experience. If you follow AFD some you'll get a feel for how things work there.

The other thing you might think about is whether the software or the company is more notable in the way wikipedia defines it. I don't have any idea whether it is or not, but if you can find some significant coverage in reliable sources about the company, you might have a nice short article that could meet the notability bar. I'm not sure you can find that, but it's something to think about. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. The correct path I believe is to help first the wikipedia before helping my article. And I will do that.... Papagel (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's a good path. One thing I should have point out as well is that folks here use lots of jargon, and I'm sure you'll be able to grok that, since we'll all geeks. If you follow administrative stuff like AFD (or if you really want to see some drama, check out WP:ANI), and do some editing, you'll get a feel quickly for how the jargon's used. But I look forward to seeing you around here, and I will take a look at the article. If you want, I'll be happy to do some copy edits--I'm not at all certain you'll be able to establish notability, and I'm not saying which way I'll vote in an AFD, but I'm happy to help you get the prose clean. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar. It is appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that goes for me too! Actually, I appreciate very much what both of you have been contributing. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nuujinn. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 00:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JJG has completed a new draft of the article. I am asking for participants comments here. If you haven't much time, would you be able to just look at the lead and provide comments? Sunray (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]