![]() | 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 | → | Archive 10 |
If you think the material I removed can be restored somewhere else in the article as it exists, please do so rather than restoring it in the controversy section. A belief that an editor thinks is wrong is not controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.180.101 ( talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on the mess of an article that you rightly sent to AFD. What began as this is already far better NOW and work is continuing. As you know from the discussion, I had pointed out that sources were readily available and I was hoping from assistance from Wikipedians fluent in Spanish and Portugese. That didn't happen... so I have begun translating myself and am adding more even as I drop you this note. Might you reconsider your opinion? Perhaps even a withdrawal considering improvements and potential? Thanks Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It's actually a compliment - a recognition that we have standards, so that having an article here really means something, unlike (say) Myspace. Cheers, JohnCD ( talk) 22:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
yo i think it is valid to say shakspear migh be arab, why would you take that off??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.253.109 ( talk) 00:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
yo i think shakespear might be an arab why would you take that out?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.253.109 ( talk) 00:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, that was interesting. You could bring this up on the article talk page, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate in that article. But, you might consider making an account here, and then poking about a bit to get a feel for the place. I could see an article "Reception of Shakespeare in arabian countries" or something similar. But I'm off to bed for now, best of luck! -- Nuujinn ( talk) 01:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't have time to debate out the telegraph reference now, so i have not re-inserted it. I will catch up with this discussion later. 117.204.93.111 ( talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
see article talk page pls. 117.204.93.111 ( talk) 14:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Even the reference which supported your earlier claim ( [1]) says evidence was found and they are probing the links based on these evidences. 117.201.245.237 ( talk) 15:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (same person as above)
Hello Nuujinn, many thanks for your input into this recent AfD debate! Much appreciated. Malljaja ( talk) 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you help me move my user space User:Houstongal82/ Kevin Warren Sloan to the main space? Houstongal82 ( talk) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Nuujinn, what are your thoughts about archiving the VHEMT Article Talk Page?
“Please” proceed to my
User Talk Page to discuss archiving.
P.S.
Source Link:
“You can always take a discussion to E-mail or to your User Talk Page.....”
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (
talk)
21:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
the original barnstar for coming in and helping remove original research from paraprosdokian Aisha9152 ( talk) 21:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC) |
Please do not remove the comments of other editors on talk pages. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Nuujinn the spelling of the word is 'hottest' not 'hotest'
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hottest
Please look at the edit before you criticize it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.45.173 ( talk) 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The only edit I made on a talk page involved changing the word 'hotest' to 'hottest' but fools that use autobots posted on that talk page. Should I store this nonsense on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.45.173 ( talk) 21:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi...did you want to sign here...I forgot the template for unsigned postings...have a good one.-- MONGO 17:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
It's unclear why you deleted my comment at the talk page. Please be more careful. Thanks. 166.137.136.11 ( talk) 00:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI. See WP:ATHLETE on the Soviet canoeist you want speedy deleted. He competed in the 1980 Summer Olympics and is thus notable. I have protested you CSD as a result. Chris ( talk) 02:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Nuujinn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Blake Knight, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Five minutes of searching would have found enough references for you to save the hassle of trying to get this article deleted. Longer would have found even more. I recommend just asking me for references for older articles in the future, and I'll be happy to save you the time. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The movie in fact does cover those allegation. Check out this small short on the actual movie. You may want to watch iyt all after this. I don't think it'sa all true but if even part of it is it is prety scary. [ [2]] Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 21:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Replied here. Thx. -- Nazar ( talk) 14:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Backlog Elimination Drive!
![]()
We have reached the midway point in our backlog elimination drive, so here is an update. Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join! Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive. Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{ cleanup}}, {{ wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line!
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor ( talk) at 16:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 3.255
e-vanyāya ye nā bhāse, sei jīva chāra
koṭi-kalpe kabhu tāra nāhika nistāra
SYNONYMS
e-vanyāya — in this inundation; ye — anyone who; nā bhāse — does not float; sei — that; jīva — living entity; chāra — most condemned; koṭi-kalpe — in millions of kalpas; kabhu — at any time; tāra — his; nāhika — there is not; nistāra — deliverance.
TRANSLATION
"Anyone who does not float in this inundation is most condemned. Such a person cannot be delivered for millions of kalpas.
PURPORT
The kalpa is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and one thousand such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for millions of such kalpas.
Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Adi 8.38
'caitanya-mangala' sune yadi pashandi, yavana
seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana
SYNONYMS
caitanya-mangala -- the book named Caitanya-mangala; sune -- anyone hears; yadi -- if; pashandi -- great atheist; yavana -- a nonbeliever in the Vedic culture; seha -- he also; maha-vaishnava -- great devotee; haya -- becomes; tatakshana -- immediately.
TRANSLATION
If even a great atheist hears Sri Caitanya-mangala, he immediately becomes a great devotee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.164.173 ( talk) 19:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message; hopefully I'll be able to get something started tomorrow. Rodhull andemu 22:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I am answering them right now in the other thread where he has requested my response. Give me two minutes. I need to check some references. -- LevenBoy ( talk) 01:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nuujinn. This is to notify you that there is a report at ANI where you are mentioned. It does not concern your actions but you may or may not wish to comment. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 05:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Nuujinn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Arthur E. Morris, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I will follow your suggestion and refrain from arguing with Свифт. I hope he does the same. Thanks. Yahalom Kashny ( talk) 01:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You requested an example of how BURDEN can be used by someone deleting a source, without that person being forced to give a rationale on RSN for example. Sorry for coming to your talk page but frankly I am not certain this will help the discussion there. We can bring it there perhaps if necessary?
I recently spent about a month trying to talk to User:Jayjg, first on his talk page [8], and then after that failed, going through article by article trying to find compromises, while he was on a programme he had launched of deleting all use of a particular source from genetics articles. RSN was involved at least twice, once before the discussion even started. Honestly, I think I am right in saying he has no coherent rationale, although a quick perusal might give another first impression.
The first article talk page compromise I found simply involved deleting the mention of the source [9] because he obviously agreed that what was being sourced was bordering on something you do not even need a source for. I still feel bad about having accepted that! Other examples went on and on [10]. He pushed discussions into circles, cited BURDEN at a critical point, and methodically made everything as difficult as possible. This invocation of Burden was obviously a big part of the spirit of his efforts.
Why didn't RSN help? Frankly RSN can almost never help in such cases. People see long discussions with the right policies being cited, and back off. Although he claimed that the source fails RS while he was deleting mention of it, this started not long AFTER taking part on the loosing side in a case on RS/N concerning this same source. He simply claims to interpret the result differently. I summarized everyone's positions at one point to try to get past that: [11]. What's more (I found out later) even though during all the RSN debate he emphasized that he was not involved and kept inventing ways of not counting people he said were involved, this in turn happened not all that long AFTER he had been involved in heavily discussed activities to get rid of this same source, along with any others presenting a theory he wanted out, during events to do with the article Khazars. I do not remember what level it went to in WP's drama hierarchy but if I recall correctly he was trying very hard to get rid of any mention of the apparent Eastern European ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews. Please note that his actions show that he knew I did not know about the Khazars article and not long after I worked it out and let him know he suddenly backed down (05:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)). I do not think he would have otherwise. Calling for opinions on RSN a second time, this time about a very specific point which could have perhaps helped, also did not help at all. (I got one response, in agreement with me, and then several responses posted from Jayjg himself which confused the issue. [12]).
I do not think WP can ever aim to get rid of such things. But what I think it needs to be careful of is creating an environment with more legal technicalities and loopholes. Arguments will always occur, but their nature will be affected by how policies are written.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Variometer#RCDI_.2F_Rate_of_Climb_and_Descent_Indicator.3F, regarding the existence of the terms Rcdi and Rate of Climb and Descent Indicator. You fixed those links recently. If you know of any evidence that these terms are real, please let me know, or I plan to delete those redirect pages. Rwessel ( talk) 05:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Nuujinn!
I am currently referring to inedia and a specific workshop, by Wiley Brook, on which you kindly draw my attention.
On November 21, 2010, you have posted a relevant message, which says (and I quote):
Here is my answer:
Dear Nuujinn!
Thank you for your judicious and relevant comments!
Of course, feel absolutely free to update all of my writings, so that the textual insertions would fit the wikipedian "terms and conditions", in the best possible way!
Furthermore, as my English has a bit fallen into disuse (due to a crucial lack of practice), I’d be more than happy if you could kindly accept to correct any potential inaccuracies, regarding some specific semantic units or any other linguistic elements, which would drastically need to be improved under the guidance of your gracious and celestial majesty, thanks to your precious addenda and/or inserts.
This said, I am sorry if my last symbolic written contribution could have been potentially interpreted as sort of indirect advertising for this seminar, given that this apparent aim would be dramatically located at the extreme opposite side of any virtual intention of mine.
On the contrary, by exposing the "phenomenal" fee amount which is required, as an initial deposit (aimed to pay the access right), together with the unexpected specific requirements, which are supposedly due to remit the whole preliminary fee, I simply wanted to underline the possible contrast, which seems to apparently exude between the following paradoxical dichotomies:
1. The so-called notions of simplicity, poverty, destitution, relinquishment, abstinence, abandonment and/or detachment of any venal or materialistic foundation, which are allegedly linked (as a common cliché) to the notion of bretharianism, respirianism, inedia and so on.
And (as an unexpected contrast):
2. The unreachable – or, shall I say: "hallucinating"? – fee amount, which seems to be required, as a basic preliminary deposit... including the... remaining remittance... which sees the first initial deposit to be multiplied by an even more staggering and utopist coefficient.
Especially if one considers the "non refundable" aspect (the remittance is even less ever refundable, considering that any sort of subsidiary payment – credit card or other secured modes of payment – is ostentatiously banished).
Please, make yourself at home! My idealistic aspiration consists in working all together, for the best possible result, each one of us being utterly in position to enrich, improve and/or correct each former or forthcoming contribution, tinged with the final noble scope of making an all-together common and mutual creation, as a conclusive oblation.
Kindest regards!
Yours truly!
euphonie
breviary
14:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to avoid confusion, you do mean "concur" with what I said, not with what the other editor proposed, right? Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your addition, it may be good material but doesn't belong in this article. My suggestion would be that you create an account here and start a new article in your user space on this person, it sounds interesting. If you need any help, please feel free to ask me, -- Nuujinn ( talk) 05:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I replied to your request for feedback. I hope my comments/suggestions are useful, but if you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Thanks! Chevy monte carlo 14:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Glad to sign for you - thanks for your comments on the talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
![]() Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for you help with the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement "extinctionist" issue. Would you care to comment on the the use of italics for "voluntary" in the lead section? Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I have seen in your writing repeated demonstrations of skill in saying things in a non-controversial way, so I believe it possible that we can work toward consensus regarding WP:TALK:COCNOTC (comment on content, not the contributor)..
An example is the first sentence of the last paragraph of a recent post, whose first letters are Rfatthyunaph. It should seem to be enough to compare those words with WP:TALK:COCNOTC. At the risk of moving off-topic, I draw attention to the benefit of WP:TALK:COCNOTC, because in this sentence behind the WP:TALK:COCNOTC, a third party might look at those same words and see content that could be misconstrued to say "no good faith here". Trying to relate to the scope of the background misunderstanding within policy, though, may just be a distraction; when the background misunderstanding is more related to "condescension". The point remains that I think that these background misunderstandings are constructively removed by applying WP:TALK:COCNOTC. For example, I can't see that it changes the meaning to strike the entire sentence. Another example of WP:TALK:COCNOTC follows in the paragraph with the word, "you", because immediately the thought moves from the content to the contributor. Thanks, RB 66.217.117.192 ( talk) 18:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Backlog Elimination Drive!
We have reached the end of our fourth backlog elimination drive. Thanks to all who participated. Stats ![]()
Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the September 2010 backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering these barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Our next drive is scheduled for January 2011. In the meantime, please consider helping out at the Wikification drive or any of the other places where help with backlogs is needed. Thank you for participating in the last 2010 backlog elimination drive! We look forward to seeing you in January! Your drive coordinators – The Utahraptor Talk to me/ Contributions, S Masters ( talk), and Diannaa ( Talk) |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC).
Hello Nuujinn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Robert E. Jackson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
just posted here what should be done IMHO. Would you be ok to work ASAP on the current version and put an end to this f***ing article ? As I said, I am more than willing to put this article out of its misery and achieve something worthwile, with or without mediation. If you agree with my proposal, just let me know. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 22:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's a source (this is to Google Books, so let me know if it refuses to reveal itself) that I found interesting, pp. 4–6 being all I've looked at: the approach to the "encoding" of classical texts. It's also an example of rejecting the use of the "exact words" in order to focus on reception and the active making of an imaginative model rather than defining the highly fluid term. This would be a relatively minor source, but helpful in the Renaissance section, which I'm happy to work on in the near future, though I'm not much for philosophy and hope somebody else deals with Ficino. Cynwolfe ( talk) 14:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Your great feedback, assistance and willingness to help. You rock! Houstongal82 ( talk) 16:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Did you mean to support this viewpoint? Because you have [13]. It is not clear from your summary which view you think is strange. Polargeo ( talk) 18:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I wish you luck getting a real answer, because this clearly wasn't one. How serious of a situation is this discrepancy? Reasonably interpreted as a slip-up?— Kww( talk) 13:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Spark (fire) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spark (fire) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GDallimore ( Talk) 19:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
You just beat me to it, this is the discussion related to the desired change, I don't think a couple of people is a policy changing discussion either. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Please check references before removing changes to wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.252.225 ( talk) 03:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Ϣere
SpielChequers is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.
Hi there, I have made some expansions to this article and added some appropriate references. There are a great many potential reference sources but sadly many are in academic journals and won't be accessible to the average reader - I will try and find the most accessible sources I can. My redraft isn't finished, but I wanted to make a start to demonstrate that there is something notable to talk about - could you have a look and, if you agree it's improving, would you agree that removing the PROD is reasonable now? I will continue adding more material and references either way. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for the lovely message. Have a wonderful holiday season and take care! (
Omirocksthisworld(
Drop a line)
09:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC))
Three phrases that sum up Christmas are: Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men, and Batteries not Included----"Happy Holidays Nuujinn!!"
And, "Thank You" for your Holiday greeting at my User Talk Page.
Happy Wiki Year,
Skyeking (
talk)
18:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran. Thank you. - Krakatoa Katie 08:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Remove inappropriate content. Please see edit history and content removal per WP:TPNO, and User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran, specifically no personal attacks, and do not misrepresent other people. It might also be considered vandalism. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 17:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, first of all, I'm curious as to why the size comparison interests you, and why you are asking for my opinion in general. Secondly, I would suggest if you suspect a sock, reporting the issue to SPI would make the most sense. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 03:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Marcus Qwertyus 19:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
<font=3> Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2011! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
![]() |
---|
Season's Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
![]() We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report.
Get your copy of the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report here
On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. See you in 2011!
– Your Coordinators: S Masters (lead), Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
You calmly admit you are NOT a chemist, yet you presume to comment on the contributions of a particular chemist to the study of kinetic isotope effects, intramolecular or otherwise? With respect, let's leave editing of articles related to science and scientists (other than simply copy editing for grammar and punctuation) to the scientists who contribute here, and leave the copy editors in their place: to edit copy for factual, grammatical, or punctuational error. You have no more business indicating what is good science, bad science, notable science, or even useful science, than I have directing a film or conducting an orchestra! Further, the continued insistence on counting citations - no matter that the searches for same are often superficial at best, as journals list authors in many different naming conventions - as a substitute for genuine scholarship - again, by copy editors, it would often appear, who are experts in their fields I am sure, but darned straight not necessarily in mine - is highly problematic.
As this is, of course, a talk page, you (or anyone)can delete this comment at will. I do suggest, with respect, some thinking take place as you do. Some of the scientists you all have selected for deletion of recent have been nominated for the Prize more than once, despite relatively scanty publication records measured against the science factories that often produce high volume at the expense of insight or quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.22.222 ( talk) 23:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | 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 | → | Archive 10 |
If you think the material I removed can be restored somewhere else in the article as it exists, please do so rather than restoring it in the controversy section. A belief that an editor thinks is wrong is not controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.180.101 ( talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on the mess of an article that you rightly sent to AFD. What began as this is already far better NOW and work is continuing. As you know from the discussion, I had pointed out that sources were readily available and I was hoping from assistance from Wikipedians fluent in Spanish and Portugese. That didn't happen... so I have begun translating myself and am adding more even as I drop you this note. Might you reconsider your opinion? Perhaps even a withdrawal considering improvements and potential? Thanks Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It's actually a compliment - a recognition that we have standards, so that having an article here really means something, unlike (say) Myspace. Cheers, JohnCD ( talk) 22:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
yo i think it is valid to say shakspear migh be arab, why would you take that off??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.253.109 ( talk) 00:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
yo i think shakespear might be an arab why would you take that out?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.253.109 ( talk) 00:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, that was interesting. You could bring this up on the article talk page, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate in that article. But, you might consider making an account here, and then poking about a bit to get a feel for the place. I could see an article "Reception of Shakespeare in arabian countries" or something similar. But I'm off to bed for now, best of luck! -- Nuujinn ( talk) 01:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't have time to debate out the telegraph reference now, so i have not re-inserted it. I will catch up with this discussion later. 117.204.93.111 ( talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
see article talk page pls. 117.204.93.111 ( talk) 14:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Even the reference which supported your earlier claim ( [1]) says evidence was found and they are probing the links based on these evidences. 117.201.245.237 ( talk) 15:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (same person as above)
Hello Nuujinn, many thanks for your input into this recent AfD debate! Much appreciated. Malljaja ( talk) 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you help me move my user space User:Houstongal82/ Kevin Warren Sloan to the main space? Houstongal82 ( talk) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Nuujinn, what are your thoughts about archiving the VHEMT Article Talk Page?
“Please” proceed to my
User Talk Page to discuss archiving.
P.S.
Source Link:
“You can always take a discussion to E-mail or to your User Talk Page.....”
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (
talk)
21:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
the original barnstar for coming in and helping remove original research from paraprosdokian Aisha9152 ( talk) 21:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC) |
Please do not remove the comments of other editors on talk pages. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Nuujinn the spelling of the word is 'hottest' not 'hotest'
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hottest
Please look at the edit before you criticize it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.45.173 ( talk) 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The only edit I made on a talk page involved changing the word 'hotest' to 'hottest' but fools that use autobots posted on that talk page. Should I store this nonsense on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.45.173 ( talk) 21:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi...did you want to sign here...I forgot the template for unsigned postings...have a good one.-- MONGO 17:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
It's unclear why you deleted my comment at the talk page. Please be more careful. Thanks. 166.137.136.11 ( talk) 00:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI. See WP:ATHLETE on the Soviet canoeist you want speedy deleted. He competed in the 1980 Summer Olympics and is thus notable. I have protested you CSD as a result. Chris ( talk) 02:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Nuujinn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Blake Knight, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Five minutes of searching would have found enough references for you to save the hassle of trying to get this article deleted. Longer would have found even more. I recommend just asking me for references for older articles in the future, and I'll be happy to save you the time. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The movie in fact does cover those allegation. Check out this small short on the actual movie. You may want to watch iyt all after this. I don't think it'sa all true but if even part of it is it is prety scary. [ [2]] Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 21:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Replied here. Thx. -- Nazar ( talk) 14:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Backlog Elimination Drive!
![]()
We have reached the midway point in our backlog elimination drive, so here is an update. Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join! Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive. Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{ cleanup}}, {{ wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line!
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor ( talk) at 16:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 3.255
e-vanyāya ye nā bhāse, sei jīva chāra
koṭi-kalpe kabhu tāra nāhika nistāra
SYNONYMS
e-vanyāya — in this inundation; ye — anyone who; nā bhāse — does not float; sei — that; jīva — living entity; chāra — most condemned; koṭi-kalpe — in millions of kalpas; kabhu — at any time; tāra — his; nāhika — there is not; nistāra — deliverance.
TRANSLATION
"Anyone who does not float in this inundation is most condemned. Such a person cannot be delivered for millions of kalpas.
PURPORT
The kalpa is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and one thousand such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for millions of such kalpas.
Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Adi 8.38
'caitanya-mangala' sune yadi pashandi, yavana
seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana
SYNONYMS
caitanya-mangala -- the book named Caitanya-mangala; sune -- anyone hears; yadi -- if; pashandi -- great atheist; yavana -- a nonbeliever in the Vedic culture; seha -- he also; maha-vaishnava -- great devotee; haya -- becomes; tatakshana -- immediately.
TRANSLATION
If even a great atheist hears Sri Caitanya-mangala, he immediately becomes a great devotee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.164.173 ( talk) 19:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message; hopefully I'll be able to get something started tomorrow. Rodhull andemu 22:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I am answering them right now in the other thread where he has requested my response. Give me two minutes. I need to check some references. -- LevenBoy ( talk) 01:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nuujinn. This is to notify you that there is a report at ANI where you are mentioned. It does not concern your actions but you may or may not wish to comment. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 05:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Nuujinn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Arthur E. Morris, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I will follow your suggestion and refrain from arguing with Свифт. I hope he does the same. Thanks. Yahalom Kashny ( talk) 01:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You requested an example of how BURDEN can be used by someone deleting a source, without that person being forced to give a rationale on RSN for example. Sorry for coming to your talk page but frankly I am not certain this will help the discussion there. We can bring it there perhaps if necessary?
I recently spent about a month trying to talk to User:Jayjg, first on his talk page [8], and then after that failed, going through article by article trying to find compromises, while he was on a programme he had launched of deleting all use of a particular source from genetics articles. RSN was involved at least twice, once before the discussion even started. Honestly, I think I am right in saying he has no coherent rationale, although a quick perusal might give another first impression.
The first article talk page compromise I found simply involved deleting the mention of the source [9] because he obviously agreed that what was being sourced was bordering on something you do not even need a source for. I still feel bad about having accepted that! Other examples went on and on [10]. He pushed discussions into circles, cited BURDEN at a critical point, and methodically made everything as difficult as possible. This invocation of Burden was obviously a big part of the spirit of his efforts.
Why didn't RSN help? Frankly RSN can almost never help in such cases. People see long discussions with the right policies being cited, and back off. Although he claimed that the source fails RS while he was deleting mention of it, this started not long AFTER taking part on the loosing side in a case on RS/N concerning this same source. He simply claims to interpret the result differently. I summarized everyone's positions at one point to try to get past that: [11]. What's more (I found out later) even though during all the RSN debate he emphasized that he was not involved and kept inventing ways of not counting people he said were involved, this in turn happened not all that long AFTER he had been involved in heavily discussed activities to get rid of this same source, along with any others presenting a theory he wanted out, during events to do with the article Khazars. I do not remember what level it went to in WP's drama hierarchy but if I recall correctly he was trying very hard to get rid of any mention of the apparent Eastern European ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews. Please note that his actions show that he knew I did not know about the Khazars article and not long after I worked it out and let him know he suddenly backed down (05:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)). I do not think he would have otherwise. Calling for opinions on RSN a second time, this time about a very specific point which could have perhaps helped, also did not help at all. (I got one response, in agreement with me, and then several responses posted from Jayjg himself which confused the issue. [12]).
I do not think WP can ever aim to get rid of such things. But what I think it needs to be careful of is creating an environment with more legal technicalities and loopholes. Arguments will always occur, but their nature will be affected by how policies are written.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Variometer#RCDI_.2F_Rate_of_Climb_and_Descent_Indicator.3F, regarding the existence of the terms Rcdi and Rate of Climb and Descent Indicator. You fixed those links recently. If you know of any evidence that these terms are real, please let me know, or I plan to delete those redirect pages. Rwessel ( talk) 05:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Nuujinn!
I am currently referring to inedia and a specific workshop, by Wiley Brook, on which you kindly draw my attention.
On November 21, 2010, you have posted a relevant message, which says (and I quote):
Here is my answer:
Dear Nuujinn!
Thank you for your judicious and relevant comments!
Of course, feel absolutely free to update all of my writings, so that the textual insertions would fit the wikipedian "terms and conditions", in the best possible way!
Furthermore, as my English has a bit fallen into disuse (due to a crucial lack of practice), I’d be more than happy if you could kindly accept to correct any potential inaccuracies, regarding some specific semantic units or any other linguistic elements, which would drastically need to be improved under the guidance of your gracious and celestial majesty, thanks to your precious addenda and/or inserts.
This said, I am sorry if my last symbolic written contribution could have been potentially interpreted as sort of indirect advertising for this seminar, given that this apparent aim would be dramatically located at the extreme opposite side of any virtual intention of mine.
On the contrary, by exposing the "phenomenal" fee amount which is required, as an initial deposit (aimed to pay the access right), together with the unexpected specific requirements, which are supposedly due to remit the whole preliminary fee, I simply wanted to underline the possible contrast, which seems to apparently exude between the following paradoxical dichotomies:
1. The so-called notions of simplicity, poverty, destitution, relinquishment, abstinence, abandonment and/or detachment of any venal or materialistic foundation, which are allegedly linked (as a common cliché) to the notion of bretharianism, respirianism, inedia and so on.
And (as an unexpected contrast):
2. The unreachable – or, shall I say: "hallucinating"? – fee amount, which seems to be required, as a basic preliminary deposit... including the... remaining remittance... which sees the first initial deposit to be multiplied by an even more staggering and utopist coefficient.
Especially if one considers the "non refundable" aspect (the remittance is even less ever refundable, considering that any sort of subsidiary payment – credit card or other secured modes of payment – is ostentatiously banished).
Please, make yourself at home! My idealistic aspiration consists in working all together, for the best possible result, each one of us being utterly in position to enrich, improve and/or correct each former or forthcoming contribution, tinged with the final noble scope of making an all-together common and mutual creation, as a conclusive oblation.
Kindest regards!
Yours truly!
euphonie
breviary
14:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to avoid confusion, you do mean "concur" with what I said, not with what the other editor proposed, right? Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your addition, it may be good material but doesn't belong in this article. My suggestion would be that you create an account here and start a new article in your user space on this person, it sounds interesting. If you need any help, please feel free to ask me, -- Nuujinn ( talk) 05:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I replied to your request for feedback. I hope my comments/suggestions are useful, but if you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Thanks! Chevy monte carlo 14:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Glad to sign for you - thanks for your comments on the talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
![]() Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for you help with the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement "extinctionist" issue. Would you care to comment on the the use of italics for "voluntary" in the lead section? Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I have seen in your writing repeated demonstrations of skill in saying things in a non-controversial way, so I believe it possible that we can work toward consensus regarding WP:TALK:COCNOTC (comment on content, not the contributor)..
An example is the first sentence of the last paragraph of a recent post, whose first letters are Rfatthyunaph. It should seem to be enough to compare those words with WP:TALK:COCNOTC. At the risk of moving off-topic, I draw attention to the benefit of WP:TALK:COCNOTC, because in this sentence behind the WP:TALK:COCNOTC, a third party might look at those same words and see content that could be misconstrued to say "no good faith here". Trying to relate to the scope of the background misunderstanding within policy, though, may just be a distraction; when the background misunderstanding is more related to "condescension". The point remains that I think that these background misunderstandings are constructively removed by applying WP:TALK:COCNOTC. For example, I can't see that it changes the meaning to strike the entire sentence. Another example of WP:TALK:COCNOTC follows in the paragraph with the word, "you", because immediately the thought moves from the content to the contributor. Thanks, RB 66.217.117.192 ( talk) 18:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Backlog Elimination Drive!
We have reached the end of our fourth backlog elimination drive. Thanks to all who participated. Stats ![]()
Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the September 2010 backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering these barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Our next drive is scheduled for January 2011. In the meantime, please consider helping out at the Wikification drive or any of the other places where help with backlogs is needed. Thank you for participating in the last 2010 backlog elimination drive! We look forward to seeing you in January! Your drive coordinators – The Utahraptor Talk to me/ Contributions, S Masters ( talk), and Diannaa ( Talk) |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC).
Hello Nuujinn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Robert E. Jackson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
just posted here what should be done IMHO. Would you be ok to work ASAP on the current version and put an end to this f***ing article ? As I said, I am more than willing to put this article out of its misery and achieve something worthwile, with or without mediation. If you agree with my proposal, just let me know. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 22:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's a source (this is to Google Books, so let me know if it refuses to reveal itself) that I found interesting, pp. 4–6 being all I've looked at: the approach to the "encoding" of classical texts. It's also an example of rejecting the use of the "exact words" in order to focus on reception and the active making of an imaginative model rather than defining the highly fluid term. This would be a relatively minor source, but helpful in the Renaissance section, which I'm happy to work on in the near future, though I'm not much for philosophy and hope somebody else deals with Ficino. Cynwolfe ( talk) 14:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Your great feedback, assistance and willingness to help. You rock! Houstongal82 ( talk) 16:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Did you mean to support this viewpoint? Because you have [13]. It is not clear from your summary which view you think is strange. Polargeo ( talk) 18:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I wish you luck getting a real answer, because this clearly wasn't one. How serious of a situation is this discrepancy? Reasonably interpreted as a slip-up?— Kww( talk) 13:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Spark (fire) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spark (fire) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GDallimore ( Talk) 19:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
You just beat me to it, this is the discussion related to the desired change, I don't think a couple of people is a policy changing discussion either. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Please check references before removing changes to wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.252.225 ( talk) 03:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Ϣere
SpielChequers is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.
Hi there, I have made some expansions to this article and added some appropriate references. There are a great many potential reference sources but sadly many are in academic journals and won't be accessible to the average reader - I will try and find the most accessible sources I can. My redraft isn't finished, but I wanted to make a start to demonstrate that there is something notable to talk about - could you have a look and, if you agree it's improving, would you agree that removing the PROD is reasonable now? I will continue adding more material and references either way. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for the lovely message. Have a wonderful holiday season and take care! (
Omirocksthisworld(
Drop a line)
09:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC))
Three phrases that sum up Christmas are: Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men, and Batteries not Included----"Happy Holidays Nuujinn!!"
And, "Thank You" for your Holiday greeting at my User Talk Page.
Happy Wiki Year,
Skyeking (
talk)
18:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran. Thank you. - Krakatoa Katie 08:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Remove inappropriate content. Please see edit history and content removal per WP:TPNO, and User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran, specifically no personal attacks, and do not misrepresent other people. It might also be considered vandalism. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 17:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, first of all, I'm curious as to why the size comparison interests you, and why you are asking for my opinion in general. Secondly, I would suggest if you suspect a sock, reporting the issue to SPI would make the most sense. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 03:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Marcus Qwertyus 19:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
<font=3> Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2011! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
![]() |
---|
Season's Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
![]() We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report.
Get your copy of the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report here
On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. See you in 2011!
– Your Coordinators: S Masters (lead), Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
You calmly admit you are NOT a chemist, yet you presume to comment on the contributions of a particular chemist to the study of kinetic isotope effects, intramolecular or otherwise? With respect, let's leave editing of articles related to science and scientists (other than simply copy editing for grammar and punctuation) to the scientists who contribute here, and leave the copy editors in their place: to edit copy for factual, grammatical, or punctuational error. You have no more business indicating what is good science, bad science, notable science, or even useful science, than I have directing a film or conducting an orchestra! Further, the continued insistence on counting citations - no matter that the searches for same are often superficial at best, as journals list authors in many different naming conventions - as a substitute for genuine scholarship - again, by copy editors, it would often appear, who are experts in their fields I am sure, but darned straight not necessarily in mine - is highly problematic.
As this is, of course, a talk page, you (or anyone)can delete this comment at will. I do suggest, with respect, some thinking take place as you do. Some of the scientists you all have selected for deletion of recent have been nominated for the Prize more than once, despite relatively scanty publication records measured against the science factories that often produce high volume at the expense of insight or quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.22.222 ( talk) 23:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)