User talk:Nasnema/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Nasnema, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! CargoK ^{user talk} 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} how do I actually warn a user of possible breaches. A new user gets no clues.

Hi Nasnema, try place a warning template on their user talkpages. Check out WP:WARN for details. :) Blodance (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks - I'm still learning how this site works for active content.

{{helpme}} OK - I've put a warning message on a page for a registered user - fine. However, there is an IP for a university that has already received it's final warning and vandalised Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia (205.214.198.1) - do I need to be an admin to block or do you need to do it?

Hi Nasnema, you might check out WP:AIV for admin intervention. Hope this helps. :) Blodance (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for the praise. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

World domination/New text

Please explain yourself in talk:World domination. - Altenmann >t 22:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No thanks

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Harry Aleman article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the "Help Desk". You can also leave a message on my talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

RE:Norman Wisdom

It's because it's an article about Norman Wisdom, not about the mistakes of journalists in citing the article that it is, if that makes sense. Also, the source is a little inappropriate in criticising a Wikipedia editor, as if there's some sort of grudge. Bob talk 20:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No matter, it caused an incident that is relevent that may stick. This is why it is important to keep it in the article. Who cares if some anon vandal caused it in the first place. Nasnema  Chat  20:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we must stick to the subject at hand so you're right Bob Nasnema  Chat  21:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Brenda Cowling

Excuse me but there is something seriously wrong with your editing practices. You had the gall and audacity to revert back 22 edits -- not all by unregistered users -- on the Brenda Cowling page because, according to your edit summary, and there was nothing on the talk page, you disagreed with a few words (re whether or not she had a stroke). Are you serious?? While it is pitiful that no one else caught this, fortunately I watchlisted the article. I will be reviewing your edits and will not hesitate to file an official complaint with WP:ANI over any future incidents remotely resembling the abusive nature of this one. I may file one anyway. Outrageous. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

it's a simply matter of following WP:BLP - there must be reliable sources presented and it is insensitive to report someone dead or having a stroke when they may not be. This is an encyclopia, not a rumour mill. Thank you. Nasnema  Chat  20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Listen, I have been on Wikipedia since 2006 and I know perfectly well that rumours have no place on an encyclopaedia (not "encyclopia") and I do not need such advice from you. However you do not seem to comprehend that you are not supposed to revert 22 edits wholesale without a valid reason or a talk page notation simply because you contest a portion of text or because you are too lazy to simply correct the section which is erroneous and leave what was/is correct. Your refusal to leave talk page comments when engaging in such reckless behavior shows a disregard if not contempt for other editors. You are a relatively new user and have already been asked to explain yourself (on your own talk page) by one fellow editor and gotten into a colloquy with another in which you defend the use of information proffered by anonymous vandals. Be advised that this has not gone unnoticed. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

why don't you go back and read WP:BLP where it says there need be no discussion when reverting unsourced, or poorly sourced, claims. Those 22 edits I reverted fitted the bill perfectly, because they were all about her being dead, which may well be, but we need proof. We know nothing about this person and I have my doubts that the reference to the birth is for the same Brenda Cowling, where all the other sites take 10 years off. Nasnema  Chat  06:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

On vs. at, question

Greetings, fellow Mensan (presuming that's what your username means -- forgive me if I'm wrong). Regarding Carter being "at" vs "on" a faculty -- are you sure about that? I've been in academia in the U.S. and have a doctorate, and "on a faculty" is the only usage I've heard, here. Googling a bit, I wonder if it is a difference betwen U.S. and UK/Australian usage. Every time I think I've got all the differences down, I'm surprised by a new one. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You're at a doctor's not on one. Hopefully. And, very astute, you're the first Nasnema  Chat  00:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"At" a doctor's, yes, but a doctor is not "at the staff of a hospital". Antandrus is correct: in America, at least, a professor is "on" the faculty.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can see it could be US usage in that a faculty can mean on staff. However, the university can be the faculty and we say at university here in the UK. The oddities of the English language, eh? Nasnema  Chat  14:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that there may be a better way of dealing with this particular case. Would the conflict of regional English not be avoided by saying "he is a member of the faculty of the …"? Or does this just postpone the problem ("… of the faculty at the …")?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

AIV

Hello

This is to let you know that I have denied your request at WP:AIV to block the IP. The reason it was declined is because the IP had only been warned 3 times so has not had the level 4 final warning. Also the warnings were issued 3 days ago so would therefore be stale and warnings would need to start fresh again from level 1. Any questions feel free to ask me on my talk page.--5 albert square (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

English

this is what is wrong with wikipedia, you people follow this guidelines without any common sense. I said his nationality is British, however he has referred to himself in many radio shows (as do most English people) as English. In the introduction it would not be incorrect to state he is a English....

Every comedian/writer from Wales or Scotland is referred to as Welsh or Scottish. May I ask where you are from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.175.71 (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's very simple really: he's British but born in England. You can't get any more plain than that. Nationality is British, county England. Nasnema  Chat  00:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what country your from but you don't seem suitable to comment. He has claimed in many shows as being English. Isn't this article supposed to be about Gervais not your opinion of him. Judging by the other comments on your page it seems you have a habit of making unhelpful edits. Maybe you should see this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeBlGiqSlc8. Ricky Gervais's guide to the English, He refers to himself as English throughout the whole thing. 194.66.175.71 (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm English and you from Staffordhire Uni should know something about nationality and countries. If you are native then you are British born in England. Nasnema  Chat  00:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you bother checking out my source? Or is it just a case of ignore all evidence and stick by your own opinion. Seems you do that alot as many people have been on here complaining about your edits. Also don't insult my knowledge. I'll think your find the OED still officially recognises English as a nationality. 194.66.175.71 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Now I think you are a drunk Staffordshire Uni person. Go to bed. Nasnema  Chat  00:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Again making a claim with no evidence, you are really good at this!! You just ignore anything that doesn't back up your personal views! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.175.71 (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ricky Gervais. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Breakout characters

Re this: I'm not reverting it, but I normally let things like that stay in the article initially because they at least make an argument for the character that meets the definition. And actually, there was a talk page discussion a while back in which it was agreed that Ben Linus does meet that definition, as his original presence in the show was intended to be limited to about three episodes. I'm sure there's a source for that somewhere. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Deaths in 2011

Sorry, I can't see your explanation to the editor. Do you have a link to it? Thanks. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

why are you replying to the moron in that thread? - just delete it. Nasnema  Chat  23:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How do you know he's a moron and why should his ignorance of our ways not be taken seriously? That's a good way to drive off good-faith editors, as far as I'm concerned, and education to me is better than rejection. Sure, he may be a troll, or a moron; but why not just answer the question? For one thing, it makes the answer available to other editors who might pose the same question. Maybe I'm just too soft-hearted. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Moshi Monsters

Hi Nasnema, and thanks for your efforts in patrolling recent changes! Your help is really appreciated. I was just wondering about this edit you made to Moshi Monsters - I can't really see why you reverted it. Is there something objectionable about the word "hare" that I didn't spot? All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

a rabbit is not a hare. The edit was not explained so I reverted it. Nasnema  Chat  22:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough - I didn't really mean to preach, and I can definitely see the problem with the edit. It's just when I looked at it yesterday it looked a bit WP:BITE-y, as the next edit was the IP blanking the page in (what looked like) frustration. Looking at it again today, it doesn't seem so clear-cut. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Jagannath Temple, Rohini, New Delhi

Thanks for tagging this page, you just beat me to it! It also appears to be a copyvio of http://shrijagannathrohini.com/ (Moot point as it has been deleted!) Happy editing (and tagging!) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 09:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks, it better than mowing the lawn trying to keep wiki sane. Some might say I'm insane though. Nasnema  Chat  17:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Bharat Matrimony

This is not an attack page. Please apply the correct CSD tag. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

how would you cat this then? I thought attack was appropriate since it libeled an establish business. Nasnema  Chat  07:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Free or unfree

Perhaps it was a mistake, but regardless the other issues with this user, this wasn't vandalism, so I removed your warning to them. —DoRD (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

OK I'll try to be more careful on reverting edits - this one slipped though because it was to a talk page and I didn't notice. Nasnema  Chat  17:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It probably won't surprise you, though, that they weren't here in good faith anyway.[1] —DoRD (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks. It doesn't. Nasnema  Chat  18:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sulfonamide edit

My edit was an elaboration of the original text; if the drug disrupts folate synthesis it logically follows that the microbe will be deprived of folate, however, I will add a citation as you wish.The Talking Toaster (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do. we need citations. Nasnema  Chat  21:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Baseless Accusation of Vandalism and Unjustified Reverts

Hello, Nasnema,

You left a "warning" on my user talk page notifying me that you had reverted my correction here on the alleged ground "(WP:ENGVAR - please don't just change the wording to suite your local dialiect [sic] (HG))." I also note that the Huggle is an application for dealing with vandalism -- supposedly mine -- with respect to all the reverts you've made of mine to these pages -- all of which you are in complete error about, both substantively and as to my intentions.

First let's educate you on this all too common English usage error, which has nothing at all to do with "local dialect." Given that you are evidently British and have displayed over your history of edits here a very marked preference for your own "local dialect," I refer you to the entry for "enormity" in the highly respected (British) Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

enormity

1 [mass noun] (the enormity of) the great or extreme scale , seriousness, or extent of something perceived as bad or morally wrong:a thorough search disclosed the full enormity of the crime

(in neutral use) large size or scale:I began to get a sense of the enormity of the task

2 a grave crime or sin:the enormities of war

Origin:

late Middle English: via Old French from Latin enormitas, from enormis, from e- (variant of ex-) 'out of' + norma 'pattern, standard'. The word originally meant ‘deviation from legal or moral rectitude’ and ‘transgression’. Current senses have been influenced by enormous

Usage

Enormity traditionally means‘ the extreme scale or seriousness of something bad or morally wrong’, as in residents of the town were struggling to deal with the enormity of the crime. Today, however , a more neutral sense as a synonym for hugeness or immensity, as in he soon discovered the enormity of the task, is common. Some people regard this use as wrong, arguing that enormity in its original sense meant ‘a crime’ and should therefore continue to be used only of contexts in which a negative moral judgement is implied. Nevertheless, the sense is now broadly accepted in standard English, although it generally relates to something difficult, such as a task, challenge, or achievement

The sentence in the Kathantara entry that I'd edited did not use "enormity" to relate "to something difficult, such as a task, challenge, or achievement," so its usage to apply to to an object -- a city -- was incorrect as a matter of standard English, even in its least prescriptive BRITISH application.:

The ride from Howrah station to the hotel in a taxi (which does not have a meter!) fails to capture the essence of the big city; it is left to the lead characters to speak about its enormousness and monotony instead.

I do not wish to waste my time on Wikipedia in ridiculous edit wars, but I take the keenest offense at your utterly baseless accusations of vandalism, and I shall contest those -- if necessary -- to the bitter end. Ravinpa (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I might have been a little quick to revert the sudden change to dozens of pages that appeared to be a matter of local preference, but I would do the same for any editor who changed the spelling from British to US or US to British or other such idiosyncrasy. In your case it flagged up you were doing a changes that looked like an WP:ENGVAR issue since either word is used depending on where in the world you come from. Nasnema  Chat  07:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You were most certainly far too "quick." -- especially with the unwarranted charges of vandalism -- as I have both explained and demonstrated. My edits could not reasonably "have looked like an WP:ENGVAR issue , because, as I have now both explained and demonstrated, above, your repeated claim that "either word is used depending on where in the world you come from" is demonstrably false, however you may resist acknowledging that fact, and this is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You also paid scant attention as you reverted my edits to how varied and particular they were to the individual articles. In this one, for example, I had not changed "enormity" to "enormousness," but rather to "significance," because that word was the more accurate one. And in this one, you reverted my correction of two typos! How on earth are those not "disruptive errors" on your part?

I have asked you to undo these false accusations of vandalism yourself and have waited patiently all day for you to do so after having explained and demonstrated the myriad errors on which you had based them, but you have completely ignored that request, even though you have been on Wikipedia for several hours today, just as you have ignored the fact that the usage question has nothing whatsoever to do with "where in the world you come from." Nothing. Ravinpa (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, nowhere did I accuse you of vandalism... Nasnema  Chat  07:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The tool you used to revert my edits states that "Huggle "is an application for dealing with vandalism, written in Visual Basic .NET." The specific warning you left on my Talk page is also described as the "first level warning for vandalism." Are you saying that it doesn't actually mean that? That it's just an innocuous, friendly notice of a perceived error in editing?Ravinpa (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

of course it's used for vandalism, just like the browser is when I click undo. However, not in this case: they were good faith edits but mistaken and this was reflected in the standard first warning message that stated the edit was not constructive, which it wasn't. I then undid all the others in the queue that looked similar without escalating the warning level. Nothing wrong with that. Nasnema  Chat  07:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

...secondly, you were changing a word en masse because it didn't suite your sensibilities for others to use the more colloquial form of enormity to mean big. As you can see from the dictionary definition you kindly supplied, enormity is used in the modern sense, vis.: you changed Spring Fire to add [sic] when quite clearly the text followed the usage as per you own definition. I think you should self revert that and any others you made that I didn’t get round to where the modern usage allows for it. Nasnema  Chat  07:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You are now changing your original justification for reverting my edits -- which you'd stated multiple times -- based on the dictionary citation I'd provided, but that is not the one I had been relying on originally, only an example of a British one that -- even with the most liberal application -- nonetheless completely confirms the objective correctness of the majority of my edits of "enormity," which is why I still object to your characterization of those edits -- even those you disagree with under the most liberal guideline -- as having been "disruptive." That you hadn't understood till now that the basis for these edits was a matter of still standard worldwide usage rather than "local dialect" does not mean my edits were "disruptive" to anything other than your previous misunderstanding, for which you have yet to acknowledge your error. I was not in any way attempting "turn back the tide of the evolution of the language," and I have nowhere insulted anyone, although you have now insulted me repeatedly. Ravinpa (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

they were smelly changes that you ended up confirming to be wrong with that dictionary definition. Thank you for that. Nasnema  Chat  07:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they're not "smelly" at all (which is not exactly a cordial characterization), and had you been civil enough to discuss that Oxford Dictionary usage note with me before charging off to revert yet more of my edits, I could have explained that the Dictionary's usage notes are an extremely terse summary of the more detailed discussion in Oxford's companion usage guide, which is an update of the esteemed classic [British] A Dictionary of Modern English Usage by Henry Fowler, and which is what I had been relying on when I'd made the edits, as I'd told you yesterday. You were mistaken to go revert more of my edits the next day on the basis of that usage note alone without any prior discussion with me. I had linked to the Dictionary entry for you only the first night only because I believed I couldn't link directly to the usage guide itself, although I found a copy online at Amazon.com U.K. today that I've now linked to below.Ravinpa (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

on second thoughts I am not going to wait as some edits are clearly questionable and even insulting to the person who made the original form. Nasnema  Chat  19:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the use of [sic] is not "insulting" to the person who created the nampeage, but in fact quite the opposite -- see below. Moreover, with this you have now violated the WP:BRD guideline.Ravinpa (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree in this case. Nasnema  Chat  07:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Manual of Style reflects the consensus as to how a matter like this is to be handled so if you disagree with the MOS, the proper thing to do is to submit a criticism and ask for it to be taken into consideration before the MOS's next revision, not to revert other people's edits based on your own personal preferences.Ravinpa (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record I believe you have been entirely right in your actions here. Best Wishes S a g a C i t y (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't like to think I'm squishing toes for nothing, but this seemed too much like trying to turn back the tide of the evolution of the language and insulting people in the process. Nasnema  Chat  19:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted what I think is purely a style issue and not clearly an error, like talking about elephants. I have to commend Ravinpa for discovering and correcting the compliment/complement mistakes, but even with these the origin of the word is from the same source, although it seems to me to be a correct change.Nasnema  Chat  19:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I write and edit professionally (and internationally); it is most certainly a correct change, although after this experience I'm wondering how much more of my time I should waste applying my professional skills and training to improve Wikipedia.Ravinpa (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Be careful when putting [sic] in quotes as this can and is usually intended to offend. Nasnema  Chat  20:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not "intended to offend," and it does not in any way imply a criticism of the editor who had used the quote containing the incorrect usage when creating the namepage or who later inserted it as an edit. In fact, it signifies quite the opposite, as per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, in order "to show that the error was not made in transcription." Given that you are now indisputably aware that I was not engaged in vandalism, you have therefore also now violated the WP:BRD guideline that requires at least an attempted discussion of such a difference of opinion on the namepage's Talk page concerning a "questionable edit" before making a reversion, which is not even remotely "collegial". If you had done that I would have explained the meaning and use of [sic] to you, but instead you have continued to mistreat me. You've been consistently high-handed and unilateral even when I have patiently demonstrated your misunderstandings in an effort to avoid edit warring.Ravinpa (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I was dealing with a mass change that appeared to me to be out of order so there was no need to go to individual discussion pages.You did the right thing in stopping and avoiding dragging this further and saving a lot of time. Nasnema  Chat  07:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There was no need whatsoever for you to have rushed off and targeted what were by then my older edits before discussing this issue with me further, and your doing so was in contravention of WP policies and guidelines -- your personal preferences and convenience don't trump the procedures that all editors are required to follow in a disagreement, and which I've been trying very hard to do without any cooperation from you so far. If you had said to me, "Well, I think some of your other edits violate the usage note in that quote you posted, above," I would have explained that such usage notes are usually too brief to adequately explain the issue (which had had nothing to do with your original concern), so that one should then turn to the usage guide, which I always do and was doing when I made those edits. FYI,

This invaluable reference work offers the best advice on English usage, drawing on the unrivalled resources of Oxford's English Dictionaries program and language monitoring. This second edition of the "Pocket Fowler" harks back to the original 1926 edition of A Dictionary of Modern English Usage by Henry Fowler, widely regarded as the finest such guide in print.

Updated with the use of the Oxford English Corpus, a database of over two billion words, and with up-to-date entries on the language of emails and the Internet, the new edition answers your most frequently asked questions about language use. Should you use a split infinitive or a preposition at the end of a sentence? Is it "infer" or "imply"? "Who" or "whom"? What are the main differences between British and American English? Over 4,000 entries offer clear recommendations on issues of grammar, pronunciation, spelling, confusable words, and written style. Real examples are drawn from classic and contemporary literary sources, newspapers and magazines, and the Internet.

Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, Second Edition is an indispensable companion for anyone who wants to use the English language effectively.

This most recent edition was done for Oxford University Press by Robert Allen, a "A former Senior Editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, [the] Chief Editor of the eighth edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary and an Associate Editor of the Oxford Companion to the English Language.

Now, to the point: after explaining the traditional differences in meaning and usage between "enormity" and "enormousness," the usage guide then explains:

This distinction continues to be defended by many advocates of careful usage in most contexts.

2. Because enormousness is such an awkward word, and alternatives such as hugeness and immensity are not much better, enormity is beginning to compete with it again in contexts that have nothing to do with wickedness, depravity, and suchlike, but these usages are likely to attract disapproval: A wide-angle lens captures the enormity of the Barbican Centre, London's new arts complex--Times, 1982 / The enormity of such open spaces momentarily alarms her-- Susan Johnson, AusE 1990 / He didn't have much time to think about the enormity of what he was taking on--Express, 2007.

3. In the examples that follow, enormity is used correctly according to the criterion given above: Hanging would seem quite a lenient sentence considering the enormity of his crime in those harsh old days--R. Long, 1990 / I did not know then that one frequently fails to live up to the enormity of death--Anita Brookner, 1990 / The word arrogance is almost too small to contain the enormity of the offence here--Scotsman, 2007. There is a practical point to be made, that generalized use of enormity, given its special meaning, can lead to ambiguity in contexts such as We all recognize the enormity of their achievement, when the achievement in question might anyway be open to different interpretations. However, meanings legitimately overlap in sentences such as the following: She tried to be a strength for her daughter, but was overwhelmed by the enormity of what was happening to them all--R. Black, 1992.[2] Allen, Robert. Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage (Oxford Paperback Reference). 2d (2008). pp. 217-218

What that means is that although one can correctly use "enormity" to mean "hugeness," one should only do so (concerning a task, challenge or achievement) when there's little risk of confusing the reader in that it also mean "monstrous," which the shorter usage note in the Oxford Dictionary doesn't make quite as clear.

In addition, a 2010 American survey of leading usage guides and experts, The Accidents of Style: Good Advice on How Not to Write Badly, by Charles Harrington Elster cites an equally influential British usage expert:

Don't Use enormity to mean enormousness

"Isn't it just like Americans," writes Barbara Wallraff in Word Court, "to want to trade in one of the very few words we have to denote real, unmitigated atrocity for yet another word that means large size?" Ms. Wallraff is referring to our lazy use of enormity, which properly refers to something monstrously wicked or outrageously evil, in place of enormousness and other words denoting something very big. "If we are moral people," she concludes, "we should strive to retain enormity as one of the few words adequate to decry historic events on the scale of the Serbian slaughter of Albanians in Kosovo in 19999, the mid-1990s genocide in Rwanda, and Hitler's Holocaust."

I'm with Ms. Wallraff all the way, and so are almost all other modern authorities on usage....

Another well-respected usage expert, Theodore Menline Bernstein, fully concurred in his usage survey, The Careful Writer: a Modern Guide to English Usage:

'Authorities on usage are virtually unanimous in reserving enormity for the idea of wickedness or outrageousness and in employing enormousness to mean great size'. Here is a common misuse: "The sobering scientific appreciation of the enormity and complexity of the problem in manned orbital flight was reflected in the statement of the head of the Space Task Group."

If I had had the opportunity to explain that to you before you'd rushed off to track down and revert every edit I'd ever made concerning "enormity," neither of us would have had to waste so much time, and you would have understood that I was making appropriate, constructive, properly sourced edits.Ravinpa (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I just wish you will accept that the language is evolving and only alter and tag what is clearly a mistake, like compliment and complement.Nasnema  Chat  07:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm very well aware that "language is evolving," which I have no problem accepting it when and how it's appropriate to do so: I own over a dozen recent English dictionaries and usage guides that I consult regularly because this is an area of professional interest and concern for me. You have made yet another unwarranted assumption about me in this.Ravinpa (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I now consider this matter closed. Nasnema  Chat  07:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

We are supposed to be following the required procedures on the individual articles' talk pages, though.Ravinpa (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You put a link to my talk page and everbody knows my position. Unless there are others who wish to follow you by voting for the change then the articles should remain as before. Nasnema  Chat  08:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Cosmos fundation

Greetings. Regarding your revert [3], I added back my blurb, this time with references.

There is nothing wrong with those folks running the foundation being Turkish per se, although recently there's been some articles in New York Times and elsewhere which say that those folks prefer Turkish contractors for their jobs even when they have offers from other contractors with lower bids. 158.140.1.28 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's one of the five pillars to provide references and to show a WP:NPOV. Nasnema  Chat  20:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused - please explain

I don't get it. Simon Milton is more significant because he was an openly gay Conservative politician than if he had just been a conservative politican. There are thousands of conservatives in local government who don't have a page on Wikipedia because beinga conservative in local government is not, in itself, that significant. Why is it vandalism to point this out? 86.130.234.96 (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No one is saying it's vandalism for a start, it's just a good faith edit that doesn't need to be in the first paragraph. He didn't get his knighthood for being gay, which is a minor thing in the whole context of his life. So you don't put his orientation in that paragraph as if it means anything and in front of all the other achievements he has made. I hope that clears things up for you. Nasnema  Chat  21:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion everyone. Clubot and I both got hung up on it. You made a good faith edit and I was unsure of it at first, so I reverted. When someone is looking for vandalism on the wiki usually any reference to homosexuality in such a prominent location is a red flag. It's not a reflection of your edits, just a reality that pranksters pop on and put "Is Gay" on inappropriate articles. In your case I wasn't sure, so I reverted it and wrote you a personal note asking about the edit. I reverted again when you didn't respond, but followed up telling you where to find my talk page. When I had confirmation that you were making a valid edit I apologized and moved on. Clubot, an automated script for removing vandalism on the wiki then reverted you again. You didn't do anything wrong. If you'd like to continue to contribute wikipedia you might consider making a named account instead of using an IP address. Many of the methods we have in place to keep the wikipedia free of vandalism take registered status into account. It would also help your edits not get confused for someone else's if you're on a dynamic IP. Either way, I apologize again and didn't mean for you to feel attacked. People on wikipedia are generally friendly and we want to help. Now that you know how to use talk pages you should feel free to ask questions anytime. Thanks for helping mediate this Nasnema.--Torchwoodtwo (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Good work patrolling talk page, many thanks Free Bear (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Dariuspinkston

I think you might be a little over aggressive in calling this edit vandalism. He's trying to add information. It looks legit, although it's not cited. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 14:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

maybe - we'll see, but this stuff was just dropped into the text and didn't make sense. Perhaps I shouldn't have issued the warning and just reverted. Nasnema  Chat  15:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He's a new editor. If you look at the text of his edit, he has the data spaced out so that one might (wrongly) think it would form a table. I don't think he's trying to vandalize, he just doesn't know how to create a table (or cite a source for info). Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 15:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that. I should have just reverted to make the page sane. It's hard to know what is real and what is pure vandalism when dealing with hundreds of edits. Nasnema  Chat  22:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

Nasnema, this change that you did was actually the reason Theman81 was reverted. Its a gross unreliable source, with a copyrighted video. Won't you please revert your edit? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

is Jackroot.com review not reliable? I watched the show but can't recall if the figures given are right. Anyway, if you don't agree I'm not saying you shouldn't revert. I was using Huggle and it was automatically reverting on my behalf for some unknown reason. Nasnema  Chat  10:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid its not, and consensus suggests that random numbers announced by show hosts are not to be added to any musician article, because its very much possible that the record company gave them those numbers, and hence totally manipulative. I saw that your Huggle was mal-functioning, but then I did not wanted to revert you before notifying you actually. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you I agree - have reverted. Nasnema  Chat  10:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Nasnema, nice to know you. :) — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)