User talk:Ninly

Welcome!

Key Fiddle

I hope she sees the picture. It came out well. I should have gotten her last name. I fyou can add more the New York State Sheep and Wool Festival please do. Their website doesn't have much information.

Do you go to the Maryland Sheep and Wool Festival?

Image copyright problem with Image:TobyGoodshank.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TobyGoodshank.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Daniel Akaka Frank Lautenberg Clinton Hill, Brooklyn Jack Reed New Lots, Brooklyn Karl Plagge Chuck Hagel Mill Basin, Brooklyn Teledyne Daniel Inouye Victoria Tower The Mansion (book) John Warner Ocean Hill, Brooklyn Manx Loaghtan A Fable (novel) Brome-Missisquoi Regional County Municipality, Quebec Jared Sandberg Christopher Dodd

Cleanup Rahm Emanuel Nuclear option Makam Merge Parliament-Funkadelic Arthur Whitten Brown Taiko Add Sources Silent key Johnny Isakson Joe Montana Wikify Stephanie Pace Marshall Michael McClure Worksop College Expand Roger Martin du Gard Education in New York City Federal Housing Administration

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Transliteration

Since you ask, the nagari form may be correct for modern (Hindi) pronunciation, but in classical pronunciation a consonant without attached vowel has a default a, so it would be pronounced ninali. unfortunately I lack the computer expertise to show you how to deal with that. Peter jackson (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm OK with some slight differences in pronunciation, where it's more or less unavoidable or a compromise (like the Chinese "ren" character in my Chinese/kanji version) – as long as it doesn't just look silly/impossible to people who know the script. I guess my next question would be: is there a way (classically, perhaps with another diacritic) to denote the lack of a vowel in that location? Or would that just be unlikely to happen in Skt? If you have any input, I can figure out the computer side of it. /Ninly (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a way. 2 actually. But as I said I don't know how to show you. Maybe you could look @ an appropriate article. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OM

yay...you got it :) Andi 3ö (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sentient being (Buddhism)

Regarding the recent discussion that yielded the stay on the deletion of the article "Sentient being (Buddhism)", could you please place a link to this discussion to the chittychat page of the article Sentient beings (Buddhism) for probity? I would be very appreciative if this could be done. I would do it myself if I knew how to find it. How may I nominate that this process, that of papertrail probity, is done for all such cases in the future? I hold stock in an easily discernable papertrail. People may want to track debate and decision with ease in future.
Thanking you in anticipation
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument

Hi. FYI...changing the name of the image doesn't actually change the name. Instead, it changes it to a nonexistent file which results in no image at all. Please always remember to preview your edits. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops; I thought I was changing the caption rather than the filename. Thanks for the notification. /Ninly (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your copyedit of Assumption of Moses

Thank you for your copyedit of Assumption of Moses. A ntv (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Nice work! /Ninly (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you like to copyedit, would you have a look to Apocalypse of Abraham I've expanded?. Thanks a lot!!. A ntv (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ! A ntv (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing suggestions

Sorry, not too sure if it's correct to reply on my own talk page or on yours, but I answered your point (talk). I didn't realise US spelling allowed (or insisted!) on practice as a verb. SpaceLem (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Astor Piazzolla

Hi Ninly

Re: Astor Piazzolla's two children with Dedé Wolff

Piazzolla married Dedé Wolff in 1942 and from this marriage he had two children: Diana in 1943 and Daniel in 1944. (http://www.piazzolla.org/biography/biography-english.html)

When they went to Paris in 1954, this would (by my estimation) make Diana (the eldest) 11 and Daniel (the youngest) 10.

Duckinatree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckinatree (talk • contribs) 11:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CTM election notice

WikiProject Contemporary music



Hi and hello! We are currently electing our first coordinator, see Election: Coordinator for 2010. If you are interested in being a candidate, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. Nominations are open until Sunday 3 January. You can see more information about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Coordinator.

P.S. You are currently listed on the project participants list. Are you still active on the project? If so, please reconfirm your name on the Members list. Thanks and good editing!

CTM scope review

Following on from this discussion, I have started to review the scope of WP:CTM's coverage on WP. There are two main possiblilies, so far:

1. We refine our scope according to the "written in the last 50 years or so" statement agreed upon a few months back and included in the Overview - Scope section on the main page.
2. We redefine our scope to include only living people and their works (while retaining the other relevent articles such as contemporary classical music etc).

The former position was agreed by consensus, of course, so redefining our scope to the latter position is a radical shift that needs full discussion and consensus. In essence, the question of redefining arises from the recent mass sourcing drama:

1. It has been suggested that CTM take full responsibility for all composer BLPs.
2. If that goes ahead, WPComposers may wish to unbanner composer BLPs and leave them to CTM (see here for example).
3. Therefore, CTM simply focusses in on those people relevent to our project but not bannered by other projects eg composers with BLPs.
4. Other articles on people are then treated in a similar way ie we would then cover BLPs only and their related articles (plus any other contemporary-music-related articles, as appropriate).

The full review and discussion is found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Scope.

I am also looking more generally at our project's focus, especially as regards the notability criteria etc: User:Jubileeclipman/CTM. Thoughts on that are also most welcome!

Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 13:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CTM guidelines regarding infoboxes

In the wake of the proceedings at the Composers project, I am reviewing CTM's guidelines regarding infoboxes: at present we simply follow all the other CM-projects on this issue. I propose that we simply leave it to editors to use common sense and avoid policy-violations. Thoughts welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#CTM.27s_advice_to_editors_regarding_Infoboxes. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 23:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What?

The past does not exist outside study??? I'm an historian. You are simply confussing history with historiography... --Againme (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on whom you ask. I am familiar with the distinction between history and historiography. The way I put it in the edit summary is certainly an oversimplification, but there has definitely been scholarly discussion along those lines (historians cannot see the past itself, they can only see the evidence, the archive, and draw conclusions from it). On the other hand, the sense of history as referring to the past itself is definitely in common usage, much as the word psychology may be used to refer to an individual psyche. In any case, I'm not an expert (far from it), and don't feel too strongly one way of the other; I just saw a potential conflict with consensus and raised it. If you feel strongly that yours is an accurate and referenceable definition, I'm fine with that. /ninly_(talk) 20:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ninly! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 736 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Pak Chi-eun - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Musical form

Please contribute to discussion at;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_21#Category:Musical_forms

Thanks Redheylin (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History i

Why do you think this addition is out of place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaledtareq (talk • contribs) 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It just seemed to me like an overly prominent place in the article for one book's/writer's assessment. Cutting the content entirely may have been excessive, it may be a good thing to include. /ninly_(talk) 05:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your reverts to the Chinese Martial Arts article

You made a revert of 5 edits due to vandalism to the Chinese Martial Arts article, but missed one. I screwed up the revert that I intended for reverting that last, 6th, edit and reverted your reversions. Then I (hang on to your pants! :-) reverted the reversion of your reversions (never thought I'd write THAT!! LOL) and manually added the edit to restore the article to prior to the 6th vandalism edit...

Sorry about that Bruno talk 05:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hah, don't worry about it! I've found myself in similar brambles many times. Thanks for the heads-up, though. Not sure why Twinkle didn't "see" that 6th vandalism edit, but I'll keep an eye out for that in the future. /ninly_(talk) 14:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sport Jujitsu/jujutsu

Hello Ninly,
I have replied to your post on the Jujutsu Talkpage about the name issue. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 11:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

12 Nidanas or nothing (just kidding... no, seriously)

You had a look at this article, raised in the wikipedia articles mentioned (and now slated to merge), but did you take the time to read it?

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/01/27/unpopular-facts-about-one-of-buddhist-philosophys-most-popular-doctrines/

It is based (squarely) on primary sources.

There's a list of the author's other works, here: http://profiles.tigweb.org/EM0

Simply, the ones that have been peer reviewed and published on paper aren't available on the internet. So, yeah, blogs can be more influential because they're more easily accessible.

While you're correct to complain that a blog isn't a "real" publication... the other "interpretations" being quoted here often do not come from "real" publications, either (certainly not scholarly ones).

You can contact the author in question through the e-mail address written out here: http://www.pali.pratyeka.org/#Mazard

You're correct that a better published source should trump a blog... but if there is no better published source available, you should give due consideration to a blog that so extensively proves its case through primary sources (and, indeed, enough secondary sources to keep you entertained). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.253.185 (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Religion meeting and Buddhism articles

Just letting you know that when I was first thinking of this idea, I was very definitely considering the possibility that the topic might be large enough to require being broken into several pages. I as an individual certainly wouldn't mind you including links to the specific articles which you believe are most in need of reliable secondary sources, possibly based on their overall "importance" to Buddhism as a topic. As an individual, I tend to think the articles which are considered for inclusion or included in the various release versions of wikipedia are probably the ones which should receive attention first, for instance. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sources

different sources should have separate citations, no?

In best practice, no. See WP:CITEBUNDLE and WP:CITECLUTTER. When a source is used once to cite the same material, it is best to bundle them to preserve readability and avoid clutter. In lead sections alone, the material in question should be a summary of information already cited in the body so citations aren't needed. I'm not at all clear why you restored the multiple cites to the lead. I had properly formatted the citations using a semicolon per how to group cites, which is common practice. Excessive use of citation tags is also considered a typical red flag for other issues, such as trying to reinforce a disputed point. This is why, as an article moves up the assessment chain, from B to GA to FA, you'll find few, if any articles, using citations in the lead or multiple citations in the body. Viriditas (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I had read the bundling link, but for some reason I thought it applied to repetition of a single source, not inclusion of several. On rereading, I'm not sure where the short circuit was. Probably just too much late-night editing! Thanks for pointing out the clutter link, too; good info there. /ninly_(talk) 17:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Refs at Buddhism

Yeah, thanks, I kind of suspected that would be the case. Why else have 19 references after one sentence?! :) I was just passing by, so don't intend to get involved with any ongoing debates there, but I tend to agree with you that that stuff is better just cleared away until it can be sorted out cleanly. Having all those refs after a number of sentences/paragraphs just makes the article look like a joke. I was nearly going to slap a copyedit tag on it though because it could really do with a cleanup, but on the other hand I'm not sure I'd want to dump an innocent copyeditor into the likely maelstrom they may face. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)