Jump to content

User talk:Nuujinn/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Nuujinn! I'm CordeliaNaismith (talk), another Wikipedian. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! CordeliaNaismith (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the talk page.

Please see Talk:St James railway station, Sydney#Copyright Violation?. Bidgee (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:St James railway station, Sydney

Hi. I have just been through the St James railway station, Sydney article. It reads very well now and is a lot better than what it used to be. Good stuff. Have you seen Trams in Sydney. Cheers ***Adam*** 02:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to take a look at the trams article Nuujinn (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fry-Wagner Moving & Storage

Hi my article Fry-Wagner Moving & Storage was nominated for deletion. I really appreciate your feedback and wanted to ask a few questions. Here were the notes you left:

To establish notability, you need to use verifiable references, and in this case all of your references appear to be from Fry-Wagner and UVL. Also, the article appears to be an advertisement more than anything else, see WP:NPOV for what you should strive for. The timeline is done as a list and I think that would be better rendered in prose, and fleshed out with more details. Nuujinn (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm really interested in getting this article approved and up to Wikipedia standards. I tried very had to make it be a neutral point of view. I only mentioned facts that could be verified and didn't list services or praise the company. Is there a specific part that sounds like an advertisement? Also there were several notations from other sources - the Better Business Bureau and the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle. If I add a few more sources and delete the timeline, would this article meet your standards? Thanks!

Kristy860 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be clear, it's not my standards, this is all community based, and I didn't mark it for speedy deletion or delete it. First thing to do is review WP:SD and request that it be restored to your user page until you can bring it up to speed. That may be a hard row to hoe though if you're involved in the company--it's considered bad form to write articles for commercial enterprises if you work for the company.
I'm new at this, but it seems to me that what you need to do is to show that Fry-Wagner has some historical significance that makes it notable. Knowing nothing about the company, I have no idea whether it does or doesn't. Google news can be a help there, I did find this:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-356615471.html
But that's pretty minor. I think you might also do some research in newspaper archives. BBB articles I think don't carry much weight, nor would any sort of local standard business booster articles. You might go check out the archives for the kansas city star if you're local, references don't need to be web based, just verifiable from a reliable source.
But above all, the question you need to answer is why do you want this article to exist? Most articles about companies are generally promotional, and that's not what an encyclopedia is about. Nuujinn (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Opium and Romanticism

Hi there! I have done another round of edits on Opium and Romanticism if you want to have another look. I'd also be interested in hearing about your thesis and what you found out :) Thanks! Aoleson88 (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! By the way, how do I move it into real space, or does it have to be officially reviewed first? Aoleson88 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
No idea, I'm new at this, that's why I asked for someone else to take a look. Probably happen in a day or so, and if not, I'll ask someone... Nuujinn (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Athard/dice.com

Hi, Nuujinn. Thank you for commenting at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Athard/dice.com. Would you point out specific examples of promotion so that I can fix them so that the article can be moved to mainspace? Best, Cunard (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Virtual disk image

{{helpme}} Hi Nuujinn, Thanks for reviewing my article. When I search for [Wikipedia:Virtual disk image] in Google, I see the following articles instead [Wikipedia:Virtual drive] and [Wikipedia:Disk image]. Could you please help me understand why this is happening? Google should have indexed this article by now. (Barnet.Herts (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Try searching for it this way: virtual disk image site:wikipedia.org
It's been indexed, but it won't rise in the ranks until folks start to hit it. Nuujinn (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)



The Silver Star Families of America

Thank you my friend for reviewing my article

I think I have corrected most of the mistakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steven1969/The_Silver_Star_Families_of_America

Could you check it one more time?

Oh by the way I dont know if it is my computer of if I messed up The first picture does not display all the time.

God bless

Steven1969 (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


Aww

Understood

I think the image would fall under exemption.

Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law, It's used for a purpose that can't be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created), The usage of the non-free media complies with the above and the rest of the Non-free content criteria, and It has a valid rationale indicating why its usage would be considered fair use within Wikipedia policy and US law

I think

Smile

Steven1969 (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Machine to Machine AfD

I responded in the AfD. SilverserenC 01:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Glad to see new faces at the squadron!

Here to help articles tagged for rescue!

Hi, Nuujinn, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, which can be fixed and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

If you have any questions, feel free to post a question on the talk page.

And once again — Welcome! Okip 23:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just want to say thank you

Thank you very much for your support and reply to my feedback post on Baggataway, and I have replied to it. It is, frankly speaking, the first constructive specific feedback I have gotten on that page. If there are any recommendations you have, please let me know. I will try to address it. Scchan (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just rolling on the floor laughing. Ha ha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.150.188 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference for Susan Blakely

I noticed you asked for reference, which confirms that she is born 1952. Well, there you have it NNDB confirms it, including multiple other sites even Imdb, which says that her birth certificate and passport say 1952, not 1948. Thomas100000 (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Question?

No, you did not state it was sporadic, you were responding to a a post by FkPCascais. You wrote "If you have sources that assert that his collaboration was 'occasional and oportunistic' [sic], please cite them." [1] So I responded "The collaboration of Mihailović's Chetniks was "opportunistic" as a whole, but it was certainly not "sporadic". Details can be found in the fully sourced "Axis collaboration" section of the Chetniks article." --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I also think the Yugoslav Front is a surprisingly interesting and unique theater of WWII. I am from ex-Yugoslavia myself (Croatia, I'm a Croat), but from the perspective of an outsider I think it still retains its "allure" (if that term can at all be applied to a devastating ideological and ethnic conflict costing 1,100,000 lives). That said, it is relatively insignificant when viewing WWII as a whole, combined with the complexity of the region and its history, its not an area many people get into.
This current dispute, however, is neither interesting nor complex. I'll give you a quick rundown:
Croats and Serbs are extremely similar nations (probably one nation, but don't quote me on that- its a very unpopular notion ;) that dislike each other quite intensely now, though this was not always the case. Each had their own nationalist movements that collaborated with the Nazis during WWII. For the Croats these are the genocidal fascist Ustaše and Croatian Home Guard (of Ante Pavelić), and for the Serbs these are the treasonous Chetniks of Draža Mihailović (among others). Both Serbs and Croats fought in the socialist/republican Partisans (of Josip Broz Tito), however, who alone propagated pan-Yugoslav tolerance.
Serbia is currently rehabilitating the WWII Chetnik movement, and there is a lot of denial over there regarding their involvement with the Axis - which we positively know was profound (logistics, ammo, supplies, orders), and very widespread. The same is happening over here in Croatia with the Croatian Home Guard. More nationalistically oriented Serbs generally like to defend Mihailović since he pretty much became an icon of Serb nationalism during the '90s wars, his collaboration conveniently forgotten.
Its a case of half a country fervently believing something is not true, when it most obviously is. A relic of the '90s. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

...apologies

...apologies if I misinterpreted your role. I thought you were our mediator - and, in fact, I think you are doing a very fine job of it. You should be our mediator. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the compliment. I really don't have the experience here to perform that function, mainly I do copy edits. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your feedback on Behavior Change Communication at 'request for feedback' page.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on this article. --Alok Mishra (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Britannica

Have you tried to edit the Britannica? --BoDu (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and my edits were generally successful, if conservative. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you edit Britannica like Wikipedia, or you have to wait for approval? --BoDu (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits must be approved, if you look at the article history for their Draza article, you can see who approved my edits. But I don't consider that a significant difference, since it's about the same as here (since, as you well know, people monitor the changes and we have a process for catching errors.) And the online version of Britannica is about as accurate as wikipedia, see Reliability of Wikipedia. Neither is reliable as secondary sources. To be blunt, Wikipedia is easier to verify since we are required to cite sources, and Britannica doesn't, at least online--we don't know where they are getting their data for specific statements, so we can't check on their accuracy or precision like we can on wikipedia articles. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If the Britannica's edits must be approved by experts, than I consider that a significant difference. --BoDu (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I would point out that we do not know what sources their editors rely upon, nor do we know that their editors are experts. In any case, wikipedia's policy on use of Britannica as a source is quite clear, and we do not seem to lack good secondary sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia's policy on use of Britannica as a source is quite clear:

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries

The secondary sources you are talking about, do not contradict what Britannica says. Those secondary sources confirm that some historans dispute Mihailovic is innocent. If you find a secondary source which claims that there is academic consensus, then, in that case, you would have a secondary source that contradicts the Britannica's statement. --BoDu (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

All of the secondary sources I've seen claim that Mihailovic collaborated with the Axis. Do you have any secondary sources that claim Mihailovic did not collaborate? And you left off half of the sentence you quoted: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." We have secondary sources that assert he collaborated, and none (that I know of) that assert he did not collaborate. Secondary sources trump tertiary sources, and the sentence in Britannica is vague, and unsourced, so we don't know where it came from. Can you provide any secondary sources? If you can, please do. To me, this is a very simple issue, and I do not care what the outcome will be--it's just a question of what the secondary sources claim. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

True, I left off half of the sentence I quoted, but that is irrelevant as a lead section of a Wikipedia article is not detailed discussion, but overview or summary. Also, the rules say this: "Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be indentified as those of particular named sources". Can you provide a reliable source which claims there is academic consenus? If you can not, the lead section of Draza Mihailovic article must contain statement some historians dispute Mihailovic is innocent. --BoDu (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You're misreading the sentence in the britannica article, apparently willfully. All historians aren't interested in Mihailovic, so it will never be the case that all historians will say anything about Mihailovic. I've only said that Mihailovic, according to sources, collaborated with the axis. I think you're also misinterpreting policy--we may use britannica for overview, but we don't have to, and in the presence of good secondary sources, we don't need Britannica. Can you present any secondary sources that assert that Mihailovic is innocent of collaboration? You keep getting asked this question, and you never come up with any sources. I'm sorry, but you're boring me, and you're not going to change my mind unless you come up with some decent 2ndary sources. Please don't come back here until you do. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if you are right regarding the Britannica - I think you are not - the rules are clear: "Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be indentified as those of particular named sources". This means that without a reliable source that claims consenus exists, it would be against the rules to have statement that there was collaboration between Mihailovic and the Axis without emphasizing it is opinion of some scholars. Can you provide a reliable source that claims consensus exists? You keep getting asked this question, and you never come up with any source. I am sorry, but you are borring me, and you are not going to change my mind unless you come up with some decent source. Please do not answer until you do. --BoDu (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll AGF on the basis that english is apparently not your best language. I'm not saying, and I don't believe I have ever said, that we should state "there is a consensus among historians that Mihailovic collaborated with the Axis." That would be wrong. We can, however state "Mihailovic collaborated with the Axis" and provide references supporting that statement. We cannot, on the other hand, state that "some historians dispute that Mihailovic collaborated with the Axis" unless there is a reference for that statement. Britannica's article does not provide that reference, Britannica says that some historians dispute his innocence. Indeed, they do, we have sources for that. What you need to find is a source that disputes his collaboration--so far, I haven't seen one.
Now, if I'm boring you, please, by all means, go away and find something interesting to do. You're coming to me, not the other way around. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never said that you insist we should state "there is a consensus among historians that Mihailovic collaborated with the Axis." I have never said we should state "some historians dispute that Mihailovic collaborated with the Axis". What I propose is statement "according to some historians Mihailovic collaborated with the Axis" and provide references supporting that statement. The "according to some historians" is very important here because it is following the principle expressed in the rules: "...individual opinions should be indentified as those of particular named sources" unlike your proposal "Mihailovic collaborated with the Axis". And do not tell me ever again "go away". Understand? It can be said in polite way. I am coming to you because I want to defend my argument. BoDu (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with all of your points, and I don't think you have a valid argument. In my opinion, you certainly haven't provided any sources supporting your argument. The article is up for mediation, we can deal with this there. FWIW, I think I'm being pretty civil all things considered. Please go away, this is a waste of my time. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I told you not to say "go away". Are you stupid? --BoDu (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, certainly sometimes I feel stupid. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive

Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Miranda Rumina

The article at MMC RTV Slovenia [2] says the following:

Miranda Rumina has published a new book that reveals a new value system. The artist is known after her unusual performances and exhibitions and her long-year relationship with the musician Dalaj Egol. Years ago, Miranda upset the public with her show A Woman Saint and a Madam and was also known after wearing solely white clothes. Currently, Miranda lives at the Coast (Slovenian Littoral) with her partner Dalaj Egol and manages an art gallery.

Regards, --Eleassar my talk 17:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bekim Bejta

Hello Nuujinn, and thank you for the star. I appreciate your constructive and thoughtful comments at this AfD discussion. Have a good day. Antonín Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, that's the best AFD I've seen. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

What are the two best reliable sources you'd cite for this? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
ASI was founded by Gohar Shahi, see the reference MFI was founded by younus.--116.71.8.146 (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, that link is problematical in that it claims to be from Dawn International, but doesn't come from their web site, do you have a link to the article on Dawn's website?
But in any case, that article says nothing about the MFI. Younas did found MFI, but claims to have done so under the guidance of Shahi. The link you provided above does not dispute that. Do you have any that do? --Nuujinn (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, –xenotalk 15:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Feedbackreply

Hi.

When you use the template {{Feedbackreply}}, please could you use {{subst:Feedbackreply}}. For one thing, transcluding it messes up the edit link for the section. See Template:Feedbackreply#Usage. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  14:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance, will do. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
No worries; all fixed up; I just noticed it on one page, and it only took a short time to fix with the autowiki browser. I noticed this problem with it, was all. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Orlady

Hi, I just replied to a comment you left on my talk page. --Orlady (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

MEET page - Middle East Education through Technology

Hi Nuujinn, just wanted to say a huge thank you for helping to organize my MEET page - Middle East Education through Technology. Your help and guidance are much appreciated!! Lbeana

Glad to help, good luck! --Nuujinn (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nuujinn/Archive_1&oldid=1146310435"