User talk:Nuujinn/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Conversation User:Sgaran
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)]
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- Blocked now...guess who? *facepalm* — Scientizzle 14:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Blocked now...guess who? *facepalm* — Scientizzle 14:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Userfied
User:Nuujinn/Slovaks in Hungary Guy (Help!) 16:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Slovaks in Hungary
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)
Riverside High School (North Carolina)
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)
Re: Tadeusz Jasiński
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)
About eFront (eLearning Software)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Hello Nuujinn. Whenever you have the time I would highly appreciate your feedback on the current structure of this article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Papagel/EFront_%28eLearning_software%29
You may also check some of the comments on the talk page of the article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Papagel/EFront_%28eLearning_software%29
or the general request for feedback at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2010_June_25#User:Papagel.2FEFront_.28eLearning_software.29
Thanks in advance! Papagel (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar. It is appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
Talkback
Message added 00:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Jayjg (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
New draft of Draža Mihailović article
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)
Thoughtful questions
You have asked some excellent questions on "criticism" in the "Article titles" discussion. "They" claim that the answer/solution will appear when "good" questions are asked. You are certainly helping us along with your thought-provoking contributions. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding D.Mihailovic article
Hello. I reverted your changes because we had agreed not to edit the article while the mediation is going on. If we followed you, we will inevitable ended in edit-wars and that is why we agreed not to edit the article in first place. I don´t really understand why did you get the impression of being isent from that agreement. We should leave the article alone for now, and ask the mediator for intervention, if needed. FkpCascais (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- That is fine on your side, but please refrain from editing the article yourself (including reverts). You/we are not "policemens" here. FkpCascais (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- "iset"? Not sure what you mean by that. I don't really think rolling back an edit that is pretty strongly POV is editing per se, but if it bothers you, I'll not do it again. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. It was agreed. FkpCascais (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, at all. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Isent", not "iset" is a latinism for "not included" (Isentum), but it looks that it does not exist in English (that is why I admit my English is level 3). I meant "excluded". FkpCascais (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. FWIW, your english is pretty good. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing "alleged" about his collaboration. It is a fact sourced with numerous scholarly secondary sources published by universities. I think we've passed beyond such biased nationalist nonsense.
- I just noticed this: "under the influence of communists within Britain's MI6"! That nonsense is a Serbian radical nationalist myth laughed at by virtually everyone, esp the MI6.
- --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. FWIW, your english is pretty good. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Isent", not "iset" is a latinism for "not included" (Isentum), but it looks that it does not exist in English (that is why I admit my English is level 3). I meant "excluded". FkpCascais (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, at all. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. It was agreed. FkpCascais (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- "iset"? Not sure what you mean by that. I don't really think rolling back an edit that is pretty strongly POV is editing per se, but if it bothers you, I'll not do it again. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
@direktor, the problem is not the edit, the problem is that we had agreed not to edit, or revert, the article, whatever the edits are. If you have issues, expose them to the mediator. FkpCascais (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Sand pounding
When I am actively discussing something with another participant, it would be helpful to me if you would hold off on comments. In this case, D. and I are just about finished, IMO and I don't think your comment will affect things. However, in other cases, things can go sideways very quickly. Best to let the mediator handle things unless s/he is not around and you have the sense that you can be prevent a meltdown (which is not usually the case in a discussion on a user's talk page). Sunray (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Work on JJG's draft
You proposed moving JJG's draft so participants can work on it. I replied here. Do you want to take that initiative? Sunray (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, glad to. Been meaning to get back to that one, but real life has been rearing its ugly head. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing conversation
Nuujinn, I understand your intervention when asking sources for claims, but the situation there is different from the one in which I asked sources from direktor. When I asked direktor, it was regarding a specifical claim that was already discussed by us months earlier. The situation here is different from that one. What we are doing is just talking with eachother. It is very unfair how you decided to ignore direktors explanations and talk for days, but you decided to interompe the moment I interfered and started responding. Anyway, most of what has been said by all is of general knolledge, and not much polemical. You can allways ask if you find something wrong or incorrect from my words. I think is in everybody´s interess to know as better as posible the story, and you just seem to want to deny me the possibility of further explaining some facts. I´m not sure if is worth asking from you this, but I´ll try anyway: give me some credit, will you? FkpCascais (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
I was away from WP most of the day and was delighted to see your summaries. Thanks for animating that discussion. Sunray (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| For all-around great diplomacy, research, and editing. Noleander (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
{{tlp|Nofeed))
Hi, I responded at the RfF. Oh - and just wanted to tell you something incredibly stupid I just did - when I opened your link to the spinning wheel, I sat looking at it for a while, wondering why the page wasn't loading! Eventually, I realized that that's what you were linking to. |:-)~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·Get Adopted! 01:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ha! Yeah, so 2o years ago or so, once I took a screenshot of one of the machines we used at the help desk, with all of our icons and whatnot. Then I cleared all of those off, removed the icon for the hard drive and renamed it to a space and then put the screen shot in as the desktop pattern. It's funny how much much what you're used to seeing drives your thoughts.... --Nuujinn (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Norse Dwarves
Hi. You placed a cleanup tag in the Norse Dwarves article. Exactly, what changes are you looking for? Haldrik (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Much of the article is unsourced and appears to violate WP:OR, and it could use a good round of copy editing--the language isn't very neutral. I can take a look at the latter issue next week, but I'm on vacation right now, so I don't have much time. I think the better place to discuss these issues, however, would be the article talk page, since other interested editors may well wish to contribute to the conversation. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- By and large, the article has more citations than most wiki articles. The problem is, one of the editors is religiously motivated (an unusual neopagan fundamentalist), who has aggressively, inappropriately, and dishonestly harassed any dispassionate academic point of view. Haldrik (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I will leave these tags up until next week when you get back from vacation. However, their use as a 'badge of shame' violates wikipedia policy. Unless these tags specify which sentences and such need improvement, the tags need to be removed. Other wiki arbitrators have looked at this article, and their view is the article as a whole is acceptable. Haldrik (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I hardly think they are a badge of shame, but rather a call to other editors to help improve them. But you speak of wiki arbitrators, can you point me to those discussions? I'm happy to reevaluate my position based on those discussions. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're a Member of the Guild of Copy Editors, If you feel so strongly about it, why not start by fixing some of the issues yourself? Clean up yes, but the 'Rewrite' tag you have now placed is in any case far to strong.--Kudpung (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- As far as being a member of GOCE, yes, and that's why this article is on my watchlist. I'm currently on vacation, so my time at WP is limited. But again, you said something to the effect that the template had been discussed by wiki arbitrators, I'm not sure what you mean by that, but please do point me to the relevant discussions. Also, please keep in mind I simply restored a template that was removed, and I did so because I do not see recent significant improvements. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're a Member of the Guild of Copy Editors, If you feel so strongly about it, why not start by fixing some of the issues yourself? Clean up yes, but the 'Rewrite' tag you have now placed is in any case far to strong.--Kudpung (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I hardly think they are a badge of shame, but rather a call to other editors to help improve them. But you speak of wiki arbitrators, can you point me to those discussions? I'm happy to reevaluate my position based on those discussions. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Welcome!
Glad to have you on Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue Project! Satisfaction is guaranteed! :-) --Milowent • talkblp-r 05:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I-DEAS AfD
You commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-DEAS. I have revised the article since by removing spammy and unverifiable content and by adding two references. There are more references on google books that could be added to the stub. In light of this, you may wish to comment in the relisted AfD. --Karnesky (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
In terms of User talk:Asik5678
He received a final warning, if you look higher up on the talk page, about an hour ago. Isn't giving him another "final warning" just making it seem like we're all talk and no action? SilverserenC 18:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I almost reported him as a vandal, but he's already been reported at the edit warring noticeboard, so I figured I'd wait and see what happens there, first. In any case, there are enough eyes on this right now that I'm not particularly worried about the reversions. What we should do, I think, is extend the discussion on the article's talk part, esp. in light of the recent events, to make sure we are covering all bases and being accurate. I'll take a look tonight when I get home and have some time. What do you think? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
| Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody!
Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions |
 |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 22:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC).
Thank you
For your great advice and analysis at ORN which helped bring some new perspectives on the issue. I really appreciate it. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Clarification regarding CompuSol and EccoPro
Nuujinn, thanks for your welcome message ...
I am the Owner/President of CompuSol in business since 1985. I was not aware of the recent discussions regarding the EccoPro page rekindled in May of this year. But I was informed of YSWT’s accusations and misleading info regarding my company which started last October. As I am able to fully document, his hostility towards me and our original Yahoo support group “eccopro” started shortly after he - the new child on the block - created a new “ecco_pro” group in February of 2007. I should have expected the same behavior regarding his Wikipedia contributions.
Please take a look at the information I provided and study the extensive resources on our EccoPro site established 1998 shortly after Netmanage discontinued the development of EccoPro. See also the User Testimonials at “http://www.compusol.org/ecco/testimonies.html”.
I did not attempt to edit the main page to prevent any further controversy. Please disregard any sources on the talk page you deem unreliable.
I will leave it in the hands of the Wikipedia editors to make any changes they see fit.
Fdohmann (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fdohmann, the principle challenge I think we face with the Ecco article is lack of third party reliable sources--customer testimonies from a company's web site, press releases, and forums aren't really usable. Reviews or articles in reliable magazines, such as PC World or MacUser, are the kind of thing we really need, but I'll take a look through what you've provided. Also, print sources are acceptable, if they can be verified. I think that you should feel feel to propose edits so long as you are able to maintain a cool head and clear eye. The WP:COI policy discourages editing an article in which you have an interest, but does not forbid it--as long as you adhere to policies it's not a problem. To one extent or another, everyone has a point of view, and the key to our success is taking into account various points of view and welding them into a neutral article. Nuujinn (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I think the real challenge Fdohmann is facing is that ecco is being actively developed (and not by compusol), and the program is freeware. That destroys the saleablity of his 'unofficial' redistribution of the '97 version of the software. No one who knows that they can get the current version of an actively developed software, for free, is going to pay Fdohmann for a bootleg of the '97 version (with y2k bug, no scripting, no folder math, no RTF copy/paste etc.). It is nothing personal against Fdohmann. Attempts to hide the active development, or that ecco pro software is freeware and freely downloadable at the user group, in order to sell a decade old bootleg version, are not helpful to a wikipedia article on the subject of the software.
- (Of course, since reliable sources generally track to a reasonable extent hopefully reality, the reliable sources relating to active development of the software, or official download site for software today, etc., reference the official site, the ecco_pro users group, and not compusol. Hence after much challenge and discussion, the current article text.)YSWT (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey thanks!
Hey thanks for the welcome...I just wanted to check out this signing thing on the talk pages, and see if I add the signature right WrightisRight05 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC) PS, how do i add things to my "watchlist"? WrightisRight05 (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you look at your watchlist page, there's a link to "Edit raw watchlist", you can add the title of a page you want to watch there, one per line. See also Wikipedia:Watchlist for some other ways of doing managing your watchlist. Glad to have you on board! --Nuujinn (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot man! I appreciate the warm welcome! WrightisRight05 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Compusol ?
Hey, realize you may not be up on the history of it. I myself originally inserted a compusol link in the ecco pro article.
Compusol is a pay-to-download (other's software) site. Is this really appropriate reference for a wikipedia article ? (other issues with the insert, on ecco_pro talk) YSWT (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Cebiche
I'm done for the time being, though I might eventually add further information to the other sections. Cheers, and thanks for copy-editing the article.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- lol. Thank you for the beer. You deserve one as well for formatting the refs, which is far less fun than searching for refs. I'll see if I can find some more material for the article. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wow. That's cool! So you were one of the first people in the US to make cebiche. Nice! Well, in regards to the article, the citations won't prevent future edit conflicts. Nonetheless, hopefully they will encourage future contributors to find other sources to further expand the article. Cheers!--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Bruce Harris - 2 malware-infected links
Just a heads-up that two of the cited links are reported as malware by Google and Avira antivirus. Luckily the 1997 one is available at archive.org (safe copy). The 2010 obit is NOT safe, and no safe archive is available, so I had to delink it. Another source will likely have to be found. I left links to the Google reports about the sites. --Lexein (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think delinking is fine--I accessed the site from a mac with a different browser than I regularly use, so I'm not concerned myself. But I think we can leave the a ref in place as a marker since the source is reliable, but leave the url out so as not to link to the site. Does that make sense? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Re your edit summary question, Yes. IMO we should keep RS text, not URLs, with an in-article hidden comment warning to that effect. The server's malware could be cleared up later. Per WP:SOURCES, publication, article title, date, page, author, are enough so that somebody, somewhere, can verify it. URLs are a (highly desirable, for readers) convenience, but are nearly useless on their own.
- In the meantime, could you flesh out that citation with date, author, etc, or even a quote? These aid verification. See WP:LINKROT.
- That particular exploit didn't concern Macs, but there are a growing number which do. Word.
- --Lexein (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, I generally flesh out citations completely but I'm at the beach this week. Regarding the mac, yeah, said to say, and the cross platform browser stuff is getting bad. Figure it's about time to start using ubuntu in a virtualbox for risky work, that way I can fall back to the snapshot. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Re your edit summary question, Yes. IMO we should keep RS text, not URLs, with an in-article hidden comment warning to that effect. The server's malware could be cleared up later. Per WP:SOURCES, publication, article title, date, page, author, are enough so that somebody, somewhere, can verify it. URLs are a (highly desirable, for readers) convenience, but are nearly useless on their own.
Attila
rv. of you is not the original article. please return it the original one.--Finn Diesel (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
i usually discuss it in the talk page, but your edit turns the article to the Richard Keatinge version which is only accepted by Fut.Perf..--Finn Diesel (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I accept that version as well, and agree with them regarding the use of the pictures. There is no "original" article, articles change all of the time. And the version you restored contains unsourced assertions regarding his possible religion and place of death. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
how can you call me as vandal? respect to other users.--Finn Diesel (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Finn Diesel, with all due respect, you are refusing to work with other editors on this article, and displaying what I believe is an attitude of ownership towards the article. You have been asked numerous times to justify the changes that you wish to make, and the consensus is, I believe, clear that the pictures you wish to add to the article are not beneficial. Please feel free to make a case for the changes you wish to make, but please stop pushing your point of view. Nuujinn (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Citation internal format in Bruce Harris
Discuss at Talk:Bruce Harris, please. --Lexein (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Of possible interest
of possible interest --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the head's up. --Nuujinn 11:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Warning
Which I´m already doing, don´t warn me for that.... --93.82.8.124 (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Removing sourced content against consensus is not appropriate. You were bold, reverted, now discuss it. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Jason Altmire
It is political dirt. Trust me, I work in PA politics and it is well known by those in the political inner circle that he microwaved a cat when he was a teenager. Melissa Hart made the mistake of not using it. Unfortunately the info is not easily available on the net. I have access to a file with it but that is not exactly something everyone can check--130.49.7.80 (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but without a reliable source, there's absolutely no way something like that is going to be accepted into a biography of a living person. Even with reliable sources it's not likely to be accepted--one would have to demonstrate relevance, so if there's some major coverage in the news media, perhaps, but otherwise, I think not. If you have reliable sources, I suggest bringing it up on the talk page for the article--just putting it back in will be seen as vandalism. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Windows Phone 7 clensing
You are hereby notified of the discussion involved Windows Phone 7 at WP:AN/I#A call to cleanse Windows Phone 7 Illegal Operation (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Prod and Soft sell
I hit this article with AFD instead of the prod. Feel free to comment. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Draža
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)
Thanks again!--Свифт (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
For Your Interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Armageddon_theology WritersCramp (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
David Barrett page
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
- 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)
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)
Thank you re: ENSCO location dispute
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
- 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)
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
- 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)
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
- 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)
I decided to file Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Using_maps_to_determine_locations WhisperToMe (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
GPal
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)
New article review?
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)
- 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)
Red Hot Chili Peppers
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Fastflow
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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)
Alex Frecon re-created
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)
Hairy moment
|
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
| In thanks for your judicious reconsideration of Hirsute POTUS. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC) |
September 2010
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)
- 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)
Atheism
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- ^ Societies without God are more benevolent, The Guardian, 2 September 2010