Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

There are currently 0 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today!

The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles. Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — ɳorɑfʈ Talk! and S Masters (talk).

Thank you, Nuujinn, for weighing in on the dispute on the ENSCO, Inc. article. I appreciate your comments (and agree whole heartedly!), however, I am not sure how to make your suggestion "stick"--- WhisperToMe has continually disputed the validity of using the location you and I both agree is most accurate and easily understood. Any suggestions? What is my next step if it is changed again? Thanks! Mpennington (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Mpennington[reply]

I would suggest trying to reach a compromise first. There's no rush, try to engage other editors in a discussion. There are more eyes on the article now, so a reasonable discussion of the issues should be possible. If there is no acceptable compromise, we can take particular issues to one or more of the noticeboards. For example, if some of us feel there is an OR problem and some do not, we can bring that question up at the OR noticeboard and get additional opinions. Honestly, and no offense, but it's a bit of a non-issue to me, being familiar with the DC area. Nuujinn (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken.. quite frankly, I am not sure why it is of such importance to WhisperToMe... Another question for you, if you don't mind, since I am not familiar with Wikipedia and editing... why was the sudden warning about keeping the article free of promotional material (which I am aware of, and I believe it is clear of that)..will that warning remain there indefinitely? Any way to remove it? Why our company and not others? Thanks in advance for the info! 96.247.198.38 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Mpennington[reply]

Take a look at WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Since you're involved with the company, you should probably leave that notice alone. Generally, tho, what happens is sooner or later someone comes along and tones down the more promotional bits, and then pulls that notice off. Lots of companies get flagged like this, the idea is that the notice attracts attention. Now, since this article has been discussed on a notice board, there will likely be 3-4 of us working on it a bit over the next few weeks. If the company has been involved in any scandals or anything negative in the regular press, you can expect that to show up as well, since that would count as coverage. Nuujinn (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.. it was actually written by an outside party, not anyone who is involved with the company, so it is fairly neutral, I believe. THanks for the info! 96.247.198.38 (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Mpennington[reply]

Yes, I agree, it looks like a pay for post job, covering the basic information that one finds in press releases and company statements. Feel free to post me additional questions if they come up. Nuujinn (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to file Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Using_maps_to_determine_locations WhisperToMe (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hit this article with AFD instead of the prod. Feel free to comment. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrey He said that there are no problems with my editing work relating to before the Second World War. So there is no reason to keep returning to the old version. I leave you all to edit the Second World War, which was hard for me. Thank you.--Свифт (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, welcome on board! --Nuujinn (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again!--Свифт (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Do make sure that you put references in for your additions tho, we need to make sure we have [WP:RS|reliable sources] for all data. Thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nuujinn; I wanted to take a moment to apologize for having entirely missed your comment of September 6th on my talk page. I saw it just now; I suppose I must have had two messages, one from you and one from another user covered under the same "you have new messages" alert, and just missed yours. I'm sorry; also I'm afraid I was less persistent in dealing with the problem than ideal perfection would have required, so thank you for following through with it. Given the outcome of the AfD, it's my opinion that Aldinuc's additions of fastflow refs to other articles should also be removed. I can do that if you agree. Do you? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Fastflow references in other articles don't seem justified at present. If there were any relevant 3rd-party sources things would be different. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohiostandard, not a problem at all. Yes, by all means, the refs can go. If the software is as a good as the author thinks it is, I'm sure it will gain notability. I figure to wait a bit longer and then make some suggestions about that to the author directly, but a little temporal distance would likely help matters. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both. I'll get started on removing them, then. As I mentioned to EdJohnston, I'm also working on something else at the moment, but I can deal with the text inserted into other articles in small "bites" over the next day or two. Doing so will provide a good break from the other. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed the remaining text as well as I can; pretty thoroughly, I think. I didn't make the deletions intermittent with other work, as I'd planned, btw: see my contributions/edit history from 22:25 12 September 2010 (UTC) through 00:14 13 September 2010 (UTC). Still, there were some things - now orphaned - that I didn't know quite what to do with. It might be best to refrain from action on the first four of these items until we've been able to exchange some thoughts on a related topic, but here they are:

• File:Fastflow-logo.png
• File:Ff-arch-color.png
• File:Sw-perf1.png
• Template:Cite_doi/10.1109.2FPDP.2010.93
• User Pomello (talk · contribs)

I have a couple of impressions from going through this process that I'd like to share: First, Aldinuc added FastFlow to several places that seemed quite excessively promotional to me, such as to the Concurrency article, for example. Second, on his user page, now marked "retired", he posted a complaint that Wikipedia isn't hospitable for "newcomers", again implying he was one. But the near-certainty I expressed at the AfD that he had extensive wiki editing experience somewhere has certainly been confirmed to my satisfaction as I've followed his edits and made deletions. ( He replied that he did, but didn't say where. ) My impression is that he's a near-expert editor, actually.

Also, in going through this process, I came across a related problem. Details shortly.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to reserve judgment on those five pages until you have worked through whatever related problem you've discovered, but at first blush my inclination is to leave the pics and user account alone, unless they are used for some less than acceptable purpose. I can't speak to the template, since I don't really understand it's use. Also, I sent a note to the author suggesting he have the article userfied in case it becomes more notable, and expressing my hope that he'll come out of retirement. Thanks again for your help in all of this. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Armageddon_theology WritersCramp (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heres is some reference for the page, im very new to wiki if you could help me it would be very apreciated.

http://www.melbay.com/authors.asp?author=113 http://www.schooloftheblues.com/harmonica.html http://www.harmonicamasterclass.com/instructors.htm http://www.bluesharmonica.com/about_dave Beardharmonica (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC) beardharmonica[reply]

Sure. Those don't really help, the problem is that that are not independent of him, what you need are 3rd party sources, like newspaper articles or magazines. I added one to the article as an example, it's not great, since it's only local coverage, but a start. Google Books and Google News Archives are a good place to look. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you i understand, im sure ill find something relevant. thanks again for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beardharmonica (talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new article, Criticism of the Talmud, and if you have some time to review it and let me know if you see any areas for improvement, I'd appreciate it (especially if you see any POV or lack of neutrality). And, of course, you are free to edit the article directly. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, I took a quick look and it seems like a balanced piece of work. I think you need more references tho, less than 500 is just not good. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I respect your opinion, and you've always been a thoughtful editor. I'll work in increasing the footnote count :-) --Noleander (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't me. I just deleted the Board of Advisors section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darxus (talk • contribs) 20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted an edit and called it vandalism. I hardly care but if you are taking information of interest to others and selfishly keeping this page hostage then that is not good for the people. I am no expert here and likely have posted this wrong as well but if you are as leaned in this page as you demonstrate, you must know Anthony or Flea, ask them to confirm the edit. There is a book coming out in about 10 months and this edit and more will be addressed.

I take it you mean this edit?. If so, yes, as the edit appeared to be vandalism, if that was not the intent, please accept my apologies (assuming it was you who made the addition). Posting here is fine, but it is best to post new material at the bottom of a talk page and give it a section heading. As you can no doubt see, I've moved this and given it a heading. Regarding your edit, the problem with it is that you did not present it as sourced material--we rely on reliable sources for the material here in an attempt to keep the material accurate. If there is a book coming out in 10 months that would meet the criteria for a reliable source, when that book comes out, using it would be appropriate. Also, in terms of editing in general, many people recommend the "be bold, revert, discuss", and we're doing that--you were bold, I reverted, now we're talking about it. If you're interested in editing here, have you thought about creating an account for yourself? --Nuujinn (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You and once again I hope to post this response in the appropriate place and will take the time to learn more of the how and what to do. My thanks for your courtesy and yes it is true what happened and important due to the time and place in the history of The Red Hot Chili Peppers, I will revisit the page when the book is published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.207.197 (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly welcome, I look forward to it. But do please consider making an account now, and doing some poking around and editing to get in the swing of things. Personally, I think the best thing to do at first is take a look behind the curtain. I might suggest Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback as a place to start, that's a place where editors request feedback on their new articles, reading through that will give you a sense of the kinds of issues that come up in editing, and how to deal with them. Also, it's good form to sign your posts (whether you have an account or not) with four tildes, that makes it easy to follow conversations. Best of luck! --Nuujinn (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this re-created article for speedy delete under G4 (previously deleted) which was removed by non-creating editor. I have put it up for AfD with notability not being established (it's still being justified by non-notable sources). If you wish to weigh in, feel free. --Quartermaster (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the head's up. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		In thanks for your judicious reconsideration of Hirsute POTUS. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion (on the article Na Na Na (Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na)) but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nuujinn, it seems that your WP:TWINKLE stumbled over something and did not complete the deletion process. As I could not find your reason for deletion I have removed the AfD entry from yesterday's log, please resubmit your AfD. --Pgallert (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for the head's up. Twinkle does not like something about the article for sure, I think it's either the length of the name or the parens or both. I've gone through the process manually, and think I dotted all of the t's. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you give me further details on why you did not consider this source acceptable for my edits? ^[1] It would help me with further edits. My edit attributed the claims to Phil Zuckermann as did the link (The Guardian). --Vappuri (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the source is pretty good, but I'm concerned that the author isn't specific about who claimed what. For example, he mentions Zuckerman, but it's unclear as to whether the study mentioned was cited by Zuckerman or not, or who authored it. Cohen's comments are generally pretty vague, and Atheism is a pretty contentious subject--if you haven't looked at the talk page you might give it a quick look. My suggestion would be to see if you can track down Zuckerman and see what his stuff looks like. But if you want to reinsert your material, please feel free, as it seems clear you're willing to discuss the issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that it would be OK to insert it as such, or do you suggest some changes? --Vappuri (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to run down the Zuckerman reference and see if that is a more appropriate source. I'm guessing, not having seen it, that Zuckerman has written an article published in a reliable source, and my hope would be that that article has more complete references as to sources for the claims made. If it is an article published in an academic source, so much the better. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I found a scientifically published article by PZ with same result. I'll use both references, as the results are scattered around in the latter article but the former is much more condensed. --Vappuri (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sound good, should be some interesting discussions. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]