User talk:Nigelj/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Test-driven development, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Null (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I did that on purpose, as several of those articles linked on the disambig page could be relevant to a reader, depending on their context, i.e. what type of project they're using TDD for. --Nigelj (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sexual intercourse#Wording

Nigelj, do you mind commenting on the above, since you have helped out with this article for as long as I have? Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Flyer. Sorry about the delay. I have been following the edits and discussions involving the above much more closely now, so thanks for the heads up. I'm afraid I haven't yet been able to find a way to step in that would really add anything or actually help. You and a few others do seem to have the situation pretty well under control. I'm very much against any subtle and slow degradation of these articles, and can see (some of) what's afoot here now, I think. I'm right there and will do my best whenever I can. --Nigelj (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nigelj. Yeah, the matter is currently resolved. I say "currently" because one can never know if a subject on Wikipedia may come up again. Often, it's "when," not "if," as I'm sure you know. I'm just glad that you're still around and are often willing to help out, even if you can't always for whatever reason. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Regarding [1], no one has suggested anything like this. aprock (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Where do they teach when to 'take someone outside for a quiet word' during discussions? I'd like to plot a graph of the prevalence of people wanting to transfer their debate over to my personal talk page, I'm just not sure what the axes should be. --Nigelj (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Sorry for being one of the ones bringing their debate to your talk page. I couldn't help myself. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, a completely different case! Yours was a heads-up about something I hadn't noticed going on. --Nigelj (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Good to know. It would be understandable, though, if it had been the other case. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment

I would be grateful if you could take a look at Talk:Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States#Definition of "Accident" and "Nuclear Power Plant" and offer a comment please... Johnfos (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Johnfos. I've done so, and watchlisted the page. I'll join in with improvements if I can. Thanks also for the heads up. --Nigelj (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Greenhouse effect

I hope you can now see that a blanket does not make a person warmer but rather the persons ability to cool slower enables them to make themselves warmer.

The cold atmosphere cannot warm the warmer surface in the way you were wanting that to read. The IPCC description is misleading Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Repeating your point doesn't make it more true. What we need is references that say that, specifically linked to stating that the IPCC have it wrong (to avoid WP:SYN). The place to discuss it is not here but on the article talk page, where other editors are more likely to see the points made too. I'll copy this there, to keep it all in one place. --Nigelj (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

World-nuclear.org

Hi Nigel, I really am concerned about the reliability of info from this website. It seems largely promotional and over the top. This is some material from Nuclear power by country recently sourced to world-nuclear:

China, South Korea and India are pursuing an ambitious expansion of their nuclear power capacities. China is aiming to increase nuclear power generation capacity to at least 60 GW by 2020, 200 GW by 2030 and 400 GW by 2050. South Korea is planning to expand its nuclear capacity from 20.7 GW in 2012 to 27.3 GW in 2020 and 43 GW by 2030. India aims to have 20 GW nuclear capacity by 2020 and 63 GW by 2032.

These figures seem remarkably speculative and very high to me, especially after Fukushima and the increased presence of the anti-nuclear movement. Do you think World-nuclear.org should be accepted as a reliable source or not? Johnfos (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The World Nuclear Association runs that site, and it is clearly an advocacy organisation - the bottom of every webpage says, 'Promoting the peaceful worldwide use of nuclear power as a sustainable energy resource'. I would say that puts them in the same sort of category as, say, the Discovery Institute - we should only quote them with full attribution, like, "According to the World Nuclear Association, China is aiming to increase nuclear power generation capacity to at least..." and never in Wikipedia's own voice. If we can't verify their figures and statements from some other independent source (i.e. one not funded by the nuclear industry), then we may be in the territory of them only being reliable as statements of the association's opinion (WP:RS), at which point, WP:DUE kicks in and we have to ask if the opinions of this association are encyclopedically relevant to a given article. But then, I have to say, I am not the reliable source noticeboard, and I'm no authority on any of this! I wasn't previously watching that page, but I've added it now, and I'll try to join in where I can. Thanks for the heads up. --Nigelj (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the improvements you have made. Looks much better. Johnfos (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Russian publication

Hi Nigel, I am sorry to be calling on you again so soon, but I find that you are very knowledgeable about nuclear issues, and wonder if you could look at Talk:Chernobyl disaster#Russian publication please, when you have time. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Nigelj. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation!

I invite to look at this. I liked your comments here by the way. Brendon is here 22:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand

I understand why you cut off email communication with me. I assume you're suspicious of me. Looks like ArbCom is too. I was going to send you details about my email exchanges with ArbCom regarding my sister's case. User:PhilKnight said "there was a range of views amongst the committee members, however, overall there wasn't a consensus to unblock."

I'll try not to bother you anymore. 31.193.139.40 (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at all suspicious of you, and I didn't mean to cut off any communication either. The time I can devote to Wikipedia is limited and always tend to get involved in whatever seems most urgent when I'm here. I'm so glad to see your sister back communicating again. Phew, that was a real worry for a while. I think you, she and the rest of us will just have to swallow another petty injustice from the powers that be here at Wikipedia. It attracts all kind of people - clever people, brilliant people, hardworking people, wonderful people trying to do a great job; but also various wastes of space and many wastes of time. It's impossible to manage such a huge entity, especially when using the very same hodge-podge mixture of volunteers to do so. Having to put up with various bits of incompetence and sometimes idiocy as we go is just part of the price of the whole thing existing for free, I think. Keep well yourself, and maybe one day find and carve out your own area of interest and expertise here somewhere. --Nigelj (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Current/Past Members of the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think I found a good solution to the template issue, take a look at the proposal now, it might satisfy everyone's concerns. — GabeMc (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Asexuality as a main sexual orientation

Nigel, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Asexuality as a main sexual orientation about the validity of User:Pass a Method adding that asexuality is "a main category of sexual orientation" to the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. Obviously, comments on the matter are needed. Flyer22 (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. Will do. --Nigelj (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Selective superfluity

Your uploaded picture of St. Teresa in the "Mastubation" article is not only a non-sequitur in itself (another issue), but far too obscure to be considered useful. Take your biases elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.95.96 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 7 May 2012‎

Accuracy of Vagina article

Mind commenting at Talk:Vagina#Changes about anatomy and sexual activity? I know that I'm always coming to you about such subjects, but I trust what you have to state about these things a great deal. Even if I were to disagree with you on a matter, I know that I can count on the fact that you have assessed the sources, have thoroughly weighed both sides and have commented objectively with regard to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is another one of those anatomy/medical/sexual articles that could use you looking after it. I have asked Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality to weigh in, but, as shown in this diff, requests for help from the projects that are there to help on topics like these can be ignored. They often are ignored, I've found. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22. Thanks again for the heads-up. Please don't worry about coming here for a chat about any article, text, edit or anything at all that's worrying you. Things have changed since I started editing WP. Most of the articles I watch (especially the high-profile, high-readership ones) are now pretty well 'complete'; there isn't much that I can add: there's not much that I know is right and that I know where to look for good sources to support, that isn't already in the text. Therefore, most of the work these days is reverting vandalism, improving grammar, improving citations... all a bit dull. If there are legitimate changes to be made, or dubious changes to be undone, or any article text to be discussed... I'm up for it! I'm only glad if I can help in any way. Best wishes as always, Nigel. (Nigelj (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC))

Thank you, Nigel. Don't complain if I start coming to you for everything, LOL. No...I won't do that. I won't abuse your invitation, and I will usually only contact you about fields you have edited in often enough (the sexual field, for example). Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Please see Talk:Nuclear power in Japan#Lead section... thanks... Johnfos (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(",)

• Thank you regarding your contribution to Talk:Global warming (see related Talk:Climate change). Please see wp:Tea. 99.119.131.192 (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No. That's just some people who need to get out more screeching at each other. I don't want any of them to start stalking me. --Nigelj (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Working on articles

I'm going to try to make myself work on a few articles this month or the next, or during both months -- the Sexual intercourse, Anal sex, Orgasm and Clitoris articles. Besides these articles needing work, although the Sexual intercourse article is a little ways away from WP:GA, I figure that significantly improving them is the best way to keep misguided edits from being made to them. If the articles are good or are at their best, editors generally won't feel that anything needs improvement and therefore there will be less "well-intentioned but faulty" edits.

When I start the improvement process, will you let me know when you think certain things in these articles need improvement? I already know that if you feel that I am wrong to have made any edit or reverted someone, you'll let me know. So it's just a matter of getting your opinions on any improvements when the process begins. Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, what do you make of User:Gulpen/sandbox? Would that be able to stand as an article here? Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The sandbox article is a difficult one. There are some compelling ideas there, and we do seem to have several articles specifically about Reich and his theories. I would say two things: First, the whole article is undoubtedly about things that are specific to Reich and his thinking in between the wars. Second, for example, the orgone article begins, "Orgone energy is a discredited, fringe science theory originally proposed in the 1930s by Wilhelm Reich." I think that both of these points need to be made a little more clear in the sandbox article. Once this is done, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't take its place alongside all the other Reich stuff on WP. It's nicely written and Gulpen seems to have put a great deal of effort into it - it certainly shouldn't go to waste.

Good luck with your planned work on some of the other key sexology articles. I shall certainly help, add and support wherever I can, but I have to say that I have no real experience of GA achievements. It would be great to get some through. --Nigelj (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Nigel. And I'll inform Gulpen about your thoughts via email. We've already talked via email when he wanted more of Reich's theories in the Orgasm article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nigelj, thanks for taking a look at my sandbox article! (Flyer referred me here) As regards your second point, that was already included that in the introduction ("Reich's work in the field of natural sciences is generally regarded as discredited"). As regarding your first point, I will try to rework the introduction a bit to take that into account. Kind regards --Gulpen (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've nominated the Clitoris article for GA. I likely didn't have to tell you that, since I believe that you are now watching the article. But, anyway, I already know who the GA reviewer will be and some suggestions have already been made, which I carried out in this edit. So, of course, whatever you can help out with during the GA review, if you have the time, please do. And thanks again for helping out earlier. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nigelj. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I never found that e-mail. Did you send it? Did my spam filter eat it? Please send again. --Nigelj (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The mail that I sent you was about the anal sex/lubrication matter, which, as you know, has been resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems that we might have a new problem to deal with at the Sexual intercourse article. Currently, an editor is objecting to the main image,[2][3] calling it "currently offensive to all english-speaking cultures" and asserting that "It is definitely not necessary to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter." I haven't had to revert the editor yet, but, given, how strongly this editor feels about the image, I may have to do just that and weigh in on the talk page (if the editor takes the matter there). I know that you are still likely watching this article, so there is no need for me to alert you of this issue, but I'm confused as to what the editor's problem with the image is...since he or she has said that it's not a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT issue. At first, I figured that maybe the editor feels that the image is heterosexist in the context of the article and wants an image of a gay or lesbian couple in the missionary position to accompany it or stand as the only image, but the editor has yet to state that. Also, the editor clearly isn't as new as he or she seems to be...considering knowledge of the WP:IDON'TLIKEIT argument. Flyer22 (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I didn't even pay much attention to the links I provided you, LOL. As seen in those links, the editor is actually objecting to the anal sex image. I still wonder why he or she considers it "currently offensive to all english-speaking cultures." Or do I even have to wonder? Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Should I ignore the user at Talk:Adolescence#Definitiom of Childhood? Should I bring more editors in on it, even though WP:Consensus has already been formed and the sources are clear on the matter, or should I archive the talk page? I doubt you feel that I should keep replying. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Flyer. Sorry I haven't kept up with your rather rapid experiences and communications in the last few days. I got your e-mail, and it spurred me on to go ahead and make a few more everyday copy-edits at Clitoris. There have been a lot of improvements there, and it must be getting pretty good by now. Don't forget, even after it gets GA status we can still continue to tweak and update it, so details will continue to improve regardless of what exactly happens now. As for these irritating people that you run up against every now and then, you're right, I find 'less is more' is a good motto in dealing with them. Usually they get bored quite quickly and whatever they've done can be put right quietly after they've gone. Failing that, other people soon move in and pick up the debate or fix the edits if you leave them for a short time. I'd be wary of bold actions that could later be misconstrued (like archiving challenging talk page discussions that you've been heavily involved in). I've seen very excellent editors end up being pilloried at Arbcom and even driven off the project for what later gets called 'battleground behaviour'. The top-level 'ruling class' here at WP are above mere facts, intellectual honesty and truth (i.e. what they call 'content disputes'). All they are interested in is good behaviour, collegiate editing, civility, welcoming newcomers and suchlike. If A can end up looking like they wanted to help and that B was a bit rude to them (even if on the grounds that A had no idea what they were talking about, and that their stupid ideas were a serious offence against reality) then B will be topic banned and maybe even blocked by the powers that be, whatever the sources say. It's good to (a) have other articles to go and work on, (b) have other things in real life to do outside of WP, and (c) never to take any particular content dispute too seriously (let alone any talk page argument where the actual article isn't even getting degraded) - especially if you want a long a fruitful career editing here. Never take any article or edit too seriously, and never feel that you have to fix or save any WP article singlehandedly or now - we're all here to help and we'll all weigh in at some point. There'll always be irritating loonies - let them come and go. Unexpectedly, that's how we get the text to real excellence and stability here, I've learnt. --Nigelj (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Nigel. But when it comes to damaging edits like the one I just responded to at Talk:G-Spot#It's a bit shocking, I can't help but take it too seriously; I'm now tempted to ask an administrator about this editor's edit because it so obviously goes against how Wikipedia is supposed to work and it makes me think that this editor is doing this kind of thing at other articles. This is sending out misinformation to people that can be damaging. Often times, in my opinion, accuracy is something that we should take very seriously. It shouldn't only be the WP:BLPs that we're so worried about in that regard. Oh, and I of course understand what you mean about updating and not archiving challenging discussions that I've been heavily involved in so that the discussion ceases. To be clear, I've only archived like that a couple or few times thus far and only when an editor has been trolling and/or the discussion has been similarly unproductive, as has been done at the Pedophilia article. Others there have archived when trolling was going on and/or the discussion was going in circles and the opposing side was only arguing with opinions and not reliable sources. I only recently archived the Adolescence talk page (not just that particular discussion) because the discussion had been there since nearing the end of April, with the opposing editor not deferring to reliable sources and eventually leaving in May...but deciding to come back in July to argue again while still only expression opinion. As made clear, there was nothing left to debate. That discussion should have been archived already, really. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've discussed the G-Spot incident with Dennis Brown at Boing! said Zebedee's talk page.[4] From what has been stated there, this matter -- the way the user likely edits at most articles -- has a chance of being taken to WP:ANI.

Anyway, thanks again for all your help. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have found an exception to my rule with this editor! It appears he recently took some random pot-shots at a climate change article too. I guess it's a personal thing - I just prefer working on article text, and there are people who are more interested in policing the scallywags. --Nigelj (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, on Boing! said Zebedee's talk page, I mentioned his problematic editing on the Climate change denial article as well. And, as seen, Dennis Brown also commented on it. I, too, prefer working on article text, but I must revert when I see something like this. I don't doubt that you would as well. It's not like I was following him. He showed up at the G-Spot article, which is an article I have significantly contributed to and look after, and made that asinine edit and then I reverted it as soon as I saw it. After replying to him on the talk page, I took another look at his contributions and saw that, as I suspected, this isn't the only article he has taken his "Ignore the reliable sources" attitude to. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah...it seems that the editor is quite possibly not intentionally disruptive and simply needs a lot of mentoring (if mentoring will help). Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nigelj. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Flyer22 (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops. And sorry about calling you the wrong name in my email. Flyer22 (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounding board request

Hi Nigelj,

Awhile back you kicked off a thread on List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming about the tense we used in various spots in the text. The result was that we changed the text from

• "Scientists in this section have concluded that...." to
• "Scientists in this section have made comments that...."

When that caught my eye it suddenly occurred to me that the very same logic seems to go to the title "List of scientists opposing......." Opposing Strong. Definitive. Present tense. That seems like a long way from "have made comments that". Since my musings are a close parallel to your archived thread I'm writing to invite your thoughts to help me decide what, if anything, I might do next with this observation. If I post about this, one response will probably be "that's why we have to stay on top of things and ruthlessly purge additions to avoid BLP". Your thoughts will be welcome... is "opposing" overreaching?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. You're right that, apart from deciding what is actually the best title, there is the question of what other editors will say. In the 2011 discussion, Kim said, "previously the list was checked regularly, ie. often checked/verified against new statements by the scientists". The fact that the change went ahead seems to mean that at the time at least, consensus was that the list is/was not checked that regularly any more - nobody stepped up and said, "I check it all, all the time." I would say that the heat has gone out of 'the great global warming debate' even more since then if anything.

So based on that, I would say yes, we should try to move the title into the past tense too. In a sense that is also future-proofing the article - 'putting it to bed' in a way - so that, on the assumption that people are going to be checking it even less in the indeterminate future, it will still remain more verifiably true. Which is very important per BLP.

So what is a more suitable title to propose? List of scientists who have opposed the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming? --Nigelj (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Past tense we agree on. But there was another component you did not address: equating a single statement with outright rootin' tootin' opposition. Some of the statements do seem to read that way. But it seems a stretch to say in all cases any single statement somewhat at odds with the mainstream means someone is (or was) outright rootin' tootin' opposed. Doesn't it? I mean, I've said all sorts of stupid things I totally did not agree with five seconds later. Statement = opposition in every case where other criteria are met..... is that not a bit of a stretch? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I did look at that, but couldn't really get anywhere. The verb structures we use in the article are "have made statements that conflict with" (in the lede) and "have made comments that" (in each section). I can't imagine a title like List of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming getting a realistic consensus. On the one hand it really is too long, one the other hand, while true, it is so tame that it serves mostly to emphasise the uselessness of the whole article. I think that proposing that as a title is really tantamount to opening another AfD debate, as with that title most sane people would surely see that the article ought to be deleted. However, you're right: It is indeed, strictly the best possible title for the article as it stands, and I for one would support a proposed move to it. --Nigelj (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. List of scientists who have made comments that conflict with the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is even further along the same road, and actually even more true, as some of what we quote is little more than a comment quoted by a newspaper. --Nigelj (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for articulating what I was thinking so clearly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Internet Explorer". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 23:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on compromise proposal ("Proprietary, requires Windows license") is needed in DRN discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dmitrij. I agree with that proposal, and have commented so on the DRN page. --Nigelj (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Zoophilia and unsourced and/or irrelevant material

Any thoughts on this? I certainly don't believe that a section should be devoted to zoophilia in the Sexual intercourse article, seeing as it's not as prevalent and is rarely ever referred to as sexual intercourse. So I moved the information to the section that already touched on it. The edit took away some of this new user's other edits about the sexual activity, but there shouldn't be much about zoophilia in the article anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I also left a message for the user, but he or she apparently doesn't respond much on talk pages and has been involved in disruptive editing. Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I really don't know what to make of this user. See here and here. This user is clearly very inexperienced with Wikipedia editing. And I don't think English is his or her first language. Flyer22 (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, I reported him to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.[5] Flyer22 (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Along with Wikipedia:ANI#User:Oxycut, it seems like s/he is now being kept under control. It was either complete incompetence regarding WP policies, or trolling. I'll keep an eye too. --Nigelj (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Dennis Brown blocked him.[6] I concluded that there is a language barrier, in addition to WP:Competence issues. Because even with a language barrier, as I mentioned before, I don't see how he could think that adding "human" in front of "college students" makes any kind of sense. You watch this article already, so I knew that you'd spot the matter eventually. But since I was the one there at the time, I had to take care of it then and there. Thank you for your continual help. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't already, see this. The user is definitely far from new or that inexperienced with English. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Good grief! And Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oxycut is linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71/Archive. Some people are such a waste of space, and time. Good spot. --Nigelj (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse#Risks

I see that your eye had also been drawn to the Sexual intercourse#Risks section! I just spent the last couple of hours almost completely rewriting it. I got an edit conflict and found that it was a couple of edits of yours. I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead with my rewrite. Have a look and see what you think. --Nigelj (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I made these changes, [7][8][9] (the first one being the change that most counts, with the other two just being tweaks due to that change), it's a good rewrite. Like I stated in the first linked edit summary, thanks. I usually prefer prose to bullet points anyway. And just so you know, I didn't write most of what was there. I can't even remember if I wrote any of that, besides tweaks to it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I saw you took out the statistics sentence. I only put that in because the pprevious version was quite heavy with facts and figures, so I thought somebody somewhere might like it like that. I'm glad the safe sex link is back in, and prominent too. As always, it's pleasure working with you :-) --Nigelj (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd added back the statistics sentence after you'd removed it, Nigel. That's why I stated: "Oops. Didn't mean to add that portion back, although some of the material should probably stay." As you've likely seen, I've added it back, but to the Safe sex, contraception, and prevalence factors section (previously titled Prevalence, safe sex, and contraception). I moved it to that section because other information dealing with statistics for sexually transmitted infections is mentioned there. I moved the safe sex text there as well, because, besides the fact that it already mentioned safe sex practices, it obviously fits better there. Since it's clear from the heading that this is the section that goes over safe sex practices, we don't have to mention those precautions in the Risks section of the Health effects section as well; the latter can just serve as information for the risks that are involved. I'm conflicted about the placement of most of the sexually transmitted statistics information, however. Although it could be argued that it is best to keep the statistics regarding safe sex/contraceptive use in the "Safe sex, contraception, and prevalence factors" section, while having the statistics regarding sexually transmitted infections in the Risks section, they fit fine combined where they are.

Also, regarding this, I thought you also meant that the ref name needs to be changed, since different references with the same ref name will show up as one, but you seem to have only been referring to the full duplication of the reference. Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I'm not being clear. I did write that little bit about the STI and HIV prevalences, based on WHO stats. I have no clear opinion as to whether it goes best in Safe sex, contraception, and prevalence factors, where it is now, or in Risks, where I originally put it. It's fine in either. It's a lot of work, but one possibility is to have a Risks and safer sex section, and a Contraception and prevalence factors one. I'm not sure if that would really make anything better. Regarding the ref, when you removed this little bit at 15:44, 8 September 2012, the ref definition went with it. AnomieBOT added the ref definition back ('rescued' it) at 16:03. Then when you added the little bit back at 17:00, we suddenly had a duplicate. I removed the duplication at 18:04, and all is well at the moment. It was the full text of the {cite web} template that was briefly duplicated - with the same name in the <ref> tag. (Are those times local times for me? Or UTC? Do you see UTC in 'History', or your local time? I don't know) --Nigelj (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm trying to keep all the practices under the umbrella heading Practices, I'd rather keep the safe sex material under the Practices heading as well. There also isn't much to state about contraception and the prevalence of it in today's society by itself (besides a lot of repetition, commentary, or confusing statistics), which is why I'd combined that material with safe sex/the prevalence of safe sex material some time ago. Not to mention, some people consider contraception to be safe sex. But I may do as I suggested above and have the statistics regarding sexually transmitted infections go in the Risks section. And then remove the "prevalence factors" part of the "Safe sex, contraception, and prevalence factors" heading...so that it's just Safe sex and contraception.

As for the reference formatting issues, yeah, I'd noticed that one of us got rid of a reference that the bot was then signaled to restore because the ref name had been left in without its body anywhere in the article. And I'm not sure about the times you speak of either.

On a side note, thanks for separating this discussion from the one above; I was thinking of doing that, just like I elaborated on that previous heading, but this is your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What you suggest here about Safe sex and contraception sounds very good. --Nigelj (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, and I now remember that the main reason I'd added "prevalence" in the heading, which used to be placed first in the heading for that section (before today), is because I started that section off with a line addressing how many adults have engaged in sexual intercourse and how many partners some sexually active people (teenagers specifically) have had. Of course the sentence is no longer first, but I'm reminded that I may want to add more material about just how many people have engaged in sexual intercourse or other sexual activities at what age. And I'll likely make it its own subsection instead of lumping it in with the safe sex and contraception information. And since just having it titled Prevalence could be seen as vague in this case, unlike its use in the Anal sex article, it would be best to title it Prevalence of sexual intercourse' or Prevalence of sexual activities. This is one instance where WP:Manual of Style allows for the title of the article to be used in a section heading. I'd go with the the latter heading, though, since the term sexual intercourse is still usually restricted to penile-vaginal penetration or that and penile-anal, and fellatio/cunnilingus. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that I'd added more about prevalence of sexual activity in that section as well. For now, I've left the information there, since there's not a lot of information there about it, while having added the "prevalence of sexual activity" wording to part of its heading. Flyer22 (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A new class will be editing the Adolescence article

Care to help out at times? Last time, I was by myself directing a teacher and a class on Wikipedia formatting. If you have the time, it would of course be good if you could help out so that I'm not by myself this time. If you can't or simply would rather not, I'll hold no hard feelings about it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm away at a transition conference with only my phone, so I'm not much use for a few days, I'm afraid. --Nigelj (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Well, if you find the time and are willing... As the teacher stated on the talk page, they "should finish this in late October 2012." Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Negative feedback, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stability and Self-regulation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Environmental Sciences

Regarding: [10], UVA has a "Department of Environmental Sciences" [11]. I'm not motivated to actually care whether it is capitalized or not, but your edit comment seems to assume it is not a department, when in fact it is. Dragons flight (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's all about exactly what is said. As we already discussed, mentioning Professor Singer is quite different (in terms of capitalisation) to saying Singer is a professor. Similarly, if it had said he was a professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences, that would have been different to saying that he is a professor of environmental sciences. One is naming the department, the other is naming the subject area. Departments have proper names, subject areas don't. That's the way I see it at the moment, anyway, but thanks for the extra info. --Nigelj (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solar variability (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your revert

"I don't agree with either of these changes: 'sections' are not instructions; hardware architecture can easily be a c..." I simply provided context and added a link, what is there not to agree with? If you don't agree please fix rather than revert. I'm an experienced assembly programmer for Hobby operating systems and as far as I'm aware data sections are produced by pseudo-ops, which are instructions. Please discuss.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilKeyboardCat (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 November 2012‎

I have copied your comment to Talk:Assembly language#I disagree with your revert where we can all discuss it together - there are more than just you and me involved in that article. Please continue any discussion there. --Nigelj (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

So you don't know how to read

Care to explain to me what your edit comment is insinuating? You think I'd just make up "FUD" like that? This is the first time I've heard someone say Time Magazine is a blog. Next time watch your mouth and read the source before you do something like that. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL. --Nigelj (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Try assuming good faith before calling someone out on civility; you think you weren't being rude? - M0rphzone (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

M0rphzone I can vouch for Nigelj being one of the more NPOV and civil folks on the board. Nigelj although M0rphzone did give a fly off the handle reply I looked at the Time ref at the very tail end of the paragraph and sure enough it did support the text you took out of the start of the paragraph. What we have here is a simple misunderstanding caused by a dangling reference. M0rphzone generally I like to put any new ref in the first sentence it supports. You can give refs nicknames to easily add them to any subsequent points also. That runs the risk of overlinking (esp in the lead) but it does eliminate this sort of head-bumping. In my opinion you would be wise to apologize for applying unfounded emotion to a reasonable edit summary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The relevant sentence was on Page 3 of a four page article, so clicking the given URL and searching for the key words does not help. You have to find the page links and click on through. Perhaps we could give a more precise URL for the first part, but on the other hand, I'm not sure that Time is a good source for a summary of current state of climate science in such a tricky area that is then reported in Wikipedia's own voice as actual fact. It's getting late here - I may have some time for this tomorrow. --Nigelj (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello..

Original:" SVG dosyalarının içeriği taşınabilir dir. Yani katman halinde. Diğer dosya türlerinde ise öyle bir şey yok. O resim bunu anlatıyordu. "

Google Translate: " SVG files are portable content. So if the layer. Other types of file is no such thing. That picture tells it. "Aguzer (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've created a new section at Talk:Scalable Vector Graphics#Removed image and copied your comments there. That is the correct place to discuss a proposed content change, not here, so that other editors can join in the discussion. --Nigelj (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay..Aguzer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Windows RT Edit War (sigh)

Please contribute to the poll on Talk:Windows RT. (You are being asked because you commented on Linux.) Tuntable (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thermocouple

Note that copying tables like this [12] is not a copyright violation (such data are not copyrightable). I don't know whether this table fits in the article though. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? The page where it was copied from certainly says "© 2011 - 2012 Pelican Wire Company, Inc. All rights reserved." I would be surprised if someone spent a lot of time gathering all that information, and just because they published it in tabular form, there was no copyright protection for their company. Such information certainly needs wikifying though: what is the point of that column headed 'PART #' here? I'm sure there's something in WP:MoS about presenting info in ALL CAPS too. Anyhow, this isn't about me - the proper place for this discussion is the page's talk page, not mine, so that other editors can join in. I'll copy all this there. --Nigelj (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tea Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI

This may be interesting NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, people are baffling. I noticed that that article called it 'global climate change' when it was trying to be 'neutral'. I remember a comedy sketch from many years ago in which people impersonating leading members of the British Labour Party were at a meeting to discuss 'the annual re-naming of the Member for Bristol South East'. He was at various times known as Viscount Stansgate, Sir Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Anthony Benn, and finally Tony Benn. Maybe we'll have to keep re-naming GW to stay ahead of the nay-sayers. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

See Frank Luntz on "Global warming" terminology. 70.168.88.100 (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's true. Things are rarely completely baffling. If they seem to be, it always may be that there's a political strategist working away behind the scenery. --Nigelj (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Responses to your comment at the article Talk page

Hi Nigel, as I mentioned at the at the article Talk page, we appear not to be meeting each others' points. I wanted to address them, but because they are off-topic for the article Talk page, I am bringing them here. You made a number of factually incorrect statements in this comment that I wanted to address:

• Elsewhere that Talk page, I demonstrated that most reliable sources treat circumcision as a medical procedure using Google Scholar (not restricted to only medical sources), so I am not defining 'reliable sources' by medical standards in coming to that conclusion. Also elsewhere on that Talk page, I have already addressed that the article already covers historical, societal and other viewpoints using WP:RS but not necessarily WP:MEDRS sourcing. The (unanswered) question back to you was--if you'd like to add more subject areas to the article (social memes, aesthetic, etc.) what research can you do to show that the content will be added with due weight?
• Regarding edits "per MEDMOS or MEDRS", three of those edits were reverts with edit summaries that referred to those guidelines because they undid edits that made purely biomedical content changes (one also added poorly-sourced duplicate material); one was changing the inappropriate use of the word 'should' because we cannot be appearing to give medical advice. It's unclear why referring back to the appropriate guidelines would be seen as problematic.
• I do not regularly tell the WP:NEWBIES that for this article all sources must meet these requirements; actually I regularly tell everyone (new or not) that all biomedical claims must have WP:MEDRS sourcing (this is a Wikipedia guideline), I have never said that about non-medical claims, see for example [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. It is possible that my wording isn't clear enough; it is possible you are not reading what I have written carefully enough.
• I am also not sure which "newbies" you are referring to. Sugarcube has over 1,000 edits over more than two years, and I personally have been trying to work with him for months to pay attention to Wikipedia sourcing guidelines. Tumadoireacht has even more edits and has been here for over five years. Frank Koehler only has 95 edits but has been around for over three years and most (72%) of his edits are to the circumcision article and the Talk page (nearly all the others are to circumcision-related subjects) so he should know Wikipedia standards in this area by now. So who are you referring to?

Appreciate your consideration, cheers... Zad68 21:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Counterculture of the 1960s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Brown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Cycling a CFL on and off greatly reduces the lifespan of a CFL

Hi Nigelj, I changed the sentence on the CFL Lamp page to refer specifically to CFLs because the frequency of cycling a CFL on and off is a crucial factor that affects the lifespan of CFLs. Your comment that the previous version of that sentence was about the lifespan of all lamp technologies is true. However, the CFL Lamp page is focused on CFLs - not on all lamp technologies - so I still think that my change is valid. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compact_fluorescent_lamp&diff=531315315&oldid=531309743 May we change it back to my version so it shows that the frequency of cycling a CFL on and off greatly reduces the lifespan of a CFL. Happy 2013. Greentopia (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather not, because, having altered the meaning there, it appears that you then went on to use the uncited sentence you had made, in a way that it was never intended, in this edit. At the moment, because I am trying to research, read and cite reliable references for all these points, I am having trouble keeping up with the changes you are making. Secondly, per the note at the top of this page, if you want to discuss these edits, it would be more helpful all round if you did so on the relevant article talk pages, rather than here. if you want to help, you might look for some citable sources and use actual facts and figures from them, per WP:V. --Nigelj (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources

You recently removed one of my edits claiming it was unsourced. Here is a direct quote from the Yale paper- ...the medians of BWRs, PWRs, and all LWRs are similar, at approximately 12 g CO2-eq/kWh. Ctrl-f to your hearts content. Once satisified that the sentence is indeed in the paper, could you put that quote back into the article please? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x/full

Boundarylayer (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As I say in the note at the top of this page, "If you want to discuss my recent edit to a particular page, the proper place is on the talk page of that page, not here." I'll copy your comment above to Talk:Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources and reply there. --Nigelj (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)