User talk:Hqb/2008

Thanks for the warning, Hqb (and I honestly do appreciate it). My recent cleanups were made using AutoWikiBrowser, which for some reason has this "unconventional" setting for the interwiki links' position. I figured that the program had the most appropriate settings in regards to article syntax; I will have to look into why that would appear to not be the case. In the future, I should try to be more careful to balance AWB's automatic settings with what is in fact tried-and-true convention. Alekjds talk 12:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

help pls

There really is the Pinsky Phenomenon in mathematics. I am not making it up. Refererences provided. So many researchers use it. Help me keep this. It is mathematically imprortant. AmeliaElizabeth (talk) AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Taylor (actress)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Kelly Taylor (actress), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kelly Taylor (actress)

An editor has nominated Kelly Taylor (actress), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Taylor (actress) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologize that I misunderstood your part in the article in question. I mentioned you and the others who had improved the article only to refute a blatant allegation that the article was edited only by Kelly Taylor and sockpuppets. I agree that if found non-notable by consensus that the article should be removed, but disagree with de-constructing an article to make it non-notable prior to nominating it as non-notable, or in making false statements in order to sway support.. as both these methods can be themselves interpreted as being self-serving and contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:COI. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re janet reno article

hi, i certainly accept my 3RR warning. my question though is this - how does one aggressively keep defamatory information out of a BLP, just as jimbo states, when faced with the sort of POV push the user in question is attempting? i'm at a loss. i've reported it on the BLP noticeboard, but this is really frustrating. we're supposed to be aggressive in reverting this kind of stuff - but 3RR becomes a problem in that case. Anastrophe (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Janet Reno#"The Butcher of Waco". Hqb (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Please make sure you don't add duplicate entries to WP:AIV as you did with Garrettanderson983. Thanks - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, sorry. Didn't read the edit-conflict report carefully enough. Hqb (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello Hqb, I noticed you do good work with vandalism-reversion. I was wondering, would you like rollback rights to help make vandalism-reversion easier for you? Acalamari 21:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted. :) Just remember it's for vandalism/blatant spam-reversions, and not for use in content disputes or to revert good-faith edits. For additional information and practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :) Acalamari 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck in the middle.

You: Gee, what can I say? Me : Wel, I decided to introduse the article to see how I can create a new one, but Now I am unable to find out how to delete it until I've finished the article. IF you know how then i'd be grateful to know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armaghanj (talk • contribs) 10:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Thornberry Animal Sanctuary

An article that you have been involved in editing, Thornberry Animal Sanctuary, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thornberry Animal Sanctuary. Thank you. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diophantine equation

I was just about to self-revert myself . . . I had mistakenly read the statement to have pertained only to the following equation. — Myasuda (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Hqb (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sagrada familia

OK, sorry. I hadn't read the discussion page. Kadellar (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Samuel Newth

I have now added the references - I have not long written the article (which I have researched over a number of years) so intended to add them anyway but thanks for the prompt. 1952mgyb (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your all your help with editing - looks really good now. 1952mgyb (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes

Your fag army's edits to Iraq appear to be war crimes, unfortunately they cannot be reverted.

By the way, where are the weapons of mass destruction? Do you have a reliable source who can attest that they ever existed at all?

--64.180.248.212 (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your Talk page. Hqb (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has everything to do with war crimes. If you truly were against the war, you would support protesting it by any means necessary, including adding lulz to Wikipedia at the expense of the US army. --64.180.248.212 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks! κaτaʟavenoTC 20:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goliath Awaits

Thanks for answering my query at the entertainment Reference desk way back in March... I've finally started the article. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 talk 05:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Hqb (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beta decay

Thanks for fixing my error on Beta decay. Huge difference between 1.2779 and 1.277×109!! (EhJJ)TALK 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Thanks for all the help in fixing up my article; apologies for the deletion of your comment, was trying to revert to a post-vandalized state and must've erased your contributions in the process. Would appreciate advice on how to prevent future vandalism - can users be ip banned from editing certain articles? (As opposed to a wikipedia-wide ban).

Wiki fighter99 (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Wiki_fighter99[reply]

Jeff Bates - Thanks

I apparently am horrible at creating wiki pages, as my original Jeff Bates post got marked for deletion twice! Thanks for fixing all the links up, and even linking back from the Rob Malda page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtabraha (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for pointing me to MOS:TITLE in regards to Death in the Clouds. I wasn't aware of that style rule and will ensure other Christie pages are changed in accordance!--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! (I also didn't realize there was such a convention for quite some time, until another editor pointed it out to me in an edit summary.) 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:SubatomicParticle

As the creator of {{SubatomicParticle}} template, could you explain to me please why "{{SubatomicParticle|charmed Xi+}}" creates a horizonal scroll bar in the List of baryons page? Thanks!--Crzycheetah 22:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening inoccent users

If you continue to threaten innocent users as you did to User: Skinnydipping you'll be blocked.--FiserQueen (Talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinnydipping (talk • contribs) 20:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. Replied on your talk page. Hqb (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

There was a discussion a while back on the Harry (name) talk page, where it was determined that listing all the people whose first names are Harry is unhelpful. The page that I redirected had no content, except a partial and arbitrary list of articles beginning with Harry. This list is linked to from the given name template; thus, a full list of Harrys [1] is probably redundant; certainly, having separate articles for Harry and Harry (name) is redundant. Feezo (Talk) 21:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a long, random list of people with the given name Harry is not very useful. However, you recently removed all further links from Harry (name), including ones like Harry (album) and Harry (TV series), that definitely should have their own entries in a dab page. Also, prominent people widely referred to as just Harry, such as Prince Henry of Wales, and possibly Harry Potter (character), should be mentioned explicitly. I don't have a strong opinion about whether Harry and Harry (name) ought to be separate pages, but that seems to be current practice for other popular names, such as John or Peter. Hqb (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course, the album and TV series should be listed at Harry — I was mistaken to remove them. Anyway, I took out the partial list of people named Harry, and I think it's fine now. Feezo (Talk) 22:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jughead And Friends Digest

Your recent edit to Jughead And Friends Digest was incorrect. Please don't do this anymore.--Oldsunnygirl (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I merely redirected a nearly empty microstub to an existing page with actual information, the edit was entirely appropriate. Hqb (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Structurae

Is it possible to add a parameter to Template:Structurae so that we can add a last accessdate like most citation templates such as {{cite web}}.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please let me know if you experience any problems. I'll probably update {{Structurae person}} soon as well. Hqb (talk)
Thanks for the prompt reply.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Höfer

Speedy deletion is what you desire? How about a little patience? Or doing research within Wikipedia first, so see whether the person is already mentioned elsewhere? Frankly, I'm very much annoyed by such trigger-happy "patrols". -- Matthead  Discuß   13:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Matthead#Notability of Karl Höfer. Hqb (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Helen Pauling

It is negative speculation, of no statistical significance, where most books concede that AHP lived longer and more functionally than most stomach cancer victims. It is SOAPBOXing negative editorials into what should be a simple bibliography, listing the books. There are far more important summaries for many books than that. I would appreciate it if you remove it without additional discussion. Thank you.--TheNautilus (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the AHP case is anecdotal evidence at best; I was mainly reacting reflexively to the edit summary, which implied that the quote itself was uncited. I removed the quote, and also moved the book to the Criticism section; I have no idea why it was ever listed under Support. (Confusion with Gertz?) Hqb (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isotopes of Samarium

My contribution to Samarium had an error in it and you were correct in rejecting it and I offer my apologies. But the subject of the contribution was the reported Alpha instability of EE62Sm146 which I notice that your previous contributor had managed to not discuss during his discussion on the isotopes of 62Sm. So in the interests of the subject matter wouldn't you think it reasonable to include something about 62Sm146 in that section of the article?WFPMWFPM (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can include anything reasonably relevant to samarium, if you give a proper citation for it from a reliable source. But stick to reporting the facts as found in those sources; Wikipedia is not the place for original interpretations or analysis of published data. If in doubt, discuss the proposed addition on the Talk page first. Hqb (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I cant contribute about Samarium or speculate and in the meantime the information in the referenced Los Alamos source must have been changed to correct the errors in your isotope section, and a discussion of a Supposedly "synthetic" isotope, EE62Sm146 has been omitted. I understand that encyclopaedic articles dont have to be correct, just well referenced. But I thought maybe the wiki system mught be sufficiently agile to overcome that deficiency, particularly in the fields of science, which is pretty dynamic these days.WFPMWFPM (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Wikipedia articles should reflect current scientific knowledge. If you have found something in an article that is incorrect or out of date, by all means correct it, citing a proper source for your revision. If you want to include some verifiable material about Sm-146 specifically, either in the main article or in Isotopes of samarium, again feel free. Just remember that the no original research policy is non-negotiable. Hqb (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your data shows 3 long lived alpha emitting isotopes od Samarium and calls 62SM146 a "synthetic" atom. But your article still talks about only 2 longlived radioactive isotopes and doesn't mention 62Sm146.WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)I had asked about 62Sm146 in Talk Samarium on 8, April,2008.WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC) I have an idea. Maybe you could take the 14,April contribution to Isotopes of samarium that you threw out and put it into Talk Samarium. Maybe we could get some discussion about that.WFPMWFPM (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In t2.lanl.gov/data/nuclides/map7.html there's a chart showing the stable nuclides from 61 to 80. Please take a look at that and see if you think that the 1 line reported alpha instability of 62SM146 is worth talking about.WFPMWFPM (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explicit mention of Sm-146 to Isotopes of samarium, since it's listed in the table on the main page. I don't see what else could or should be said: notes about its supposedly surprising instability should only be included if this has already been remarked upon in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, otherwise it falls under WP:SYNTH. As for re-instating your deleted comment onto the Talk page (instead of the article itself), feel free to do so yourself, to avoid confusion about who said what. Hqb (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groupoid page

Hqb--

Hi. You replied to my reversion of the page, saying: "(ftr, I think bolding the hatnote is inappropriate, but I added a comment directing potential editors to the relevant section of the Talk page)"

You may be right that bolding the warning that the other meaning of "groupoid" is under "magma" is nonstandard. I admit that it's an ad hoc solution. On the other hand, the "groupoid" folks don't seem to want a disambiguation page. So what should I do? DavidHobby (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, given the hornets' nests just waiting to be stirred at Talk:Groupoid#Disambiguation revisited and Talk:Magma (algebra)#Groupoid vs magma, I think I'd better stay out of this one. I added the hatnote comment mainly as a warning to other editors that the the issue is more delicate than a simple WP:HAT style violation. Hqb (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Face Leroy - Merging references

Thanks for that - I haven't figured out how to do that yet. Taking notes! Brunton (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! If you prefer working from more formal documentation instead of (or in addition to) examples, you can also take a look at WP:FOOT. Hqb (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Olsen (speedway rider)

Thanks for fixing the template. Was about to do it but getting food at the same time. Will change all the redirects soon but have asked for AWB as there are so many. Waterden (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World of Archie

Please stop vandalizing this page.--Oldsunnygirl (Talk) 7:07 PM —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

My previous message on this topic still applies. Hqb (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Horror

Hi. You PRODded Celebrity Horror, but its author has contested it. I've sent it to AFD. Thought you'd might like to have your say there... The JPStalk to me 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I somehow forgot to add it to my watchlist after tagging it. Hqb (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Artistic Yoga

Hi, The Artistic Yoga article got tagged for reading like an advertisement. I have removed a lot of content so that it sounds more objective. Have also added inline citations. Thanks!Divya Sivaramakrishnan (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Structurae

Could you comment at Structurae_(2nd_nomination). This doesn't look like an un-useful site to me, but I have no knowledge of the area. Shenme (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depleted zinc oxide

Thanks for the help! --Stone (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]