User talk:Nuujinn

GOCE Invitation

There are currently 2,519 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today!

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

November copy edit drive

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue. Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Referencing

I've been looking over your referencing. A piece of advice: when referring to the same page of the same publication more than once, it is advisable to use <ref name="" />. The references will not stack in their section. Exempli gratia:

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
Notes

References

• Tomasevich, Jozo (1975). War and revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945, Volume I: The Chetniks. San Francisco: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804708576. Retrieved 23 November 2011.

Thus we can avoid numerous "Tomasevich (1975), p.169" references cluttering their section. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the method you suggest is more difficult to manage, since we'd have to have a named reference for each page referenced. In cleaning up the Milhailovic article I found that many of these names refs with the page numbers pointed to page numbers that didn't support the referenced materials. I find the Notes and References as separate sections much cleaner and easier to manage. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you disagree (its me after all :)), but that is not at all what I am suggesting. "Notes" and "References" should of course be separate sections as this is the recommended format. You tend to forget this is my fifth year as editor 'round these parts - I am fully acquainted with the proper method of sourcing. I'm trying to help you perfect yours, since I've noticed there are numerous double or triple notes in the Chetniks article. You misunderstood, I think, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. All I am saying is that it is not necessary to list each reference to the same page of the same publication separately, as using <ref name="" /> allows you to refer to the one note several times. Have a more careful look at the example. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and I simply disagree. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So you think it is necessary to have four Tomasevich's p.258 notes instead of one? Or four notes pointing to page 259? Five p.171 notes, three p.170 notes, and two notes for Malcolm's page 175? When we can have one Tomasevich p.171 note? One p.171 note? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I find it makes it easier to keep the references pointed to the correct sources, and it avoids the problems that occur when the primary named reference is inadvertently deleted. But I see no point in discussing these minor points when you are accusing me of edit warring and censoring content. I ask you once again to cease making these claims, as I believe them to be unfounded. Disagreements between editors on sensitive topics are certainly to be expected, but your recent repeated accusations are, in my opinion, very corrosive and make editing in good faith nigh impossible. I ask that you to retract those comments. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, even IF your method were preferable, (and that's about the most you could even claim) it would not merit the insulting and patronizing stuff you wrote above. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@North8000, please report any insults on WP:AN/I immediately, waste no time.

@Nujjinn. I am sorry, but you did delete, without replacement, large amounts of well-sourced text and supporting images - that's an indisputable fact, call it what you will. You also did engage in edit-warring (as defined by policy) with myself. These are not "claims" or "accusations", they're statements of obvious and easily demonstrable fact. What do you want me to say? "I apologize for stating the obvious"?

Nuujinn, rather than blaming me for a lack of good faith in discussion, as you do frequently and to whomever might listen, please review your own actions for a change. You forced major changes into the article without real consensus and against opposition. Adherence to WP:BRD is very basic in helping to achieve a more defused discourse. You call upon the mediation frequently, yet you reverted me numerous times when I restored the "status quo ante bellum" version of disputed text - as defined by Sunray himself. The same version that was considered the original state of affairs throughout the mediation process, and which stood in the article for months and years before the mediation even began. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you've taken me to ANI about this, and for other issues, and so far no one has supported your view of the matter. You are welcome to haul me before whatever board you wish if you think I've acted inappropriately, but your continued accusations in every venue in which we have interaction is tiresome and not conducive to discussions about content. I am willing to work with you, but your incivility make that virtually impossible. During the mediation we achieved what consensus we could, and it was your choice to refuse to work with me and the other involved editors on the draft, not mine. What I see is you regularly attacking and bullying those who disagree with you, and I feel that your actions have driven off some good editors and created much more heat than light. I'm willing to move forward, but only if you will make an honest and obvious effort to be civil always, consider the points made by others, and work toward real consensus. I have tried to do that with you for almost two years, and I will continue to do so. Consider the number of editors with whom you have conflicts, consider the number of times you've been to ANI in the last few years--can you not see that those are indicative of problems? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of Sea foam

Hi Nuujinn, I've see that you've reverted edits to Sea foam and marked is as an AGF case. It's actually the work of an IP serial vandal - see User talk:EncMstr. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up, I was assuming good faith... --Nuujinn (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification

You have been named an interested party at a request for clarification, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal

I was just reviewing the discussion on your proposal at Talk:Draža Mihailović/collaboration drafts. I noted comments by Peacemaker67 and Jean-Jacques Georges between 9-12 November, but I can't see any adjustment to the text or discussion beyond that. I am wondering where you wish to go with the draft. It seems to have some support. Would it be appropriate to ask editors for final comments? Let me know if I can assist in any way. Sunray (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've taken some time to think about it, and yes, I think that would be a good idea, so long as the net is broadly cast. Would you be willing to contact whomever might be appropriate? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas Ice

I have removed the prod tag you placed on Thomas Ice, as it has been discussed at AfD in the past and per policy is permanently ineligible for prod. I only did this to comply with policy, and have no comment one way or the other on the merits of deletion. If you still wish to pursue deletion, you are welcome to open another AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the head's up. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

invitation

You are invited to help solve a problem. [1] (LAz17 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).