Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. PeterSymonds | talk15:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question regarding your edit to Kin selection article
Hi. Originally, the text of this article read:
From the time of antiquity field biologists have observed that some organisms tend to exhibit strategies that favor the reproductive success of their relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial insect colony, with sterile females acting as workers to assist their mother in the production of additional offspring. Many evolutionary biologists explain this by the theory of kin selection.
The concept was formalized by JBS Haldane (1955)[1] and W. D. Hamilton (1963)[2], while the actual term "kin selection" may first have been coined by John Maynard Smith (1964)[3] when he wrote "These processes I will call kin selection and group selection respectively. Kin selection has been discussed by Haldane and by Hamilton. ... By kin selection I mean the evolution of characteristics which favour the survival of close relatives of the affected individual, by processes which do not require any discontinuities in the population breeding structure."
And you deleted the 1955 Haldane reference AND the 1963 Hamilton reference, and replaced them with a link to Hamilton 1964, which post-dated both of these. On what basis do you claim that neither Haldane's 1955 nor Hamilton's 1963 works formalized kin selection? Just because Hamilton's 1964 paper is more well-known does NOT mean that it was the first paper on the topic. Please don't make edits like this without some sort of detailed explanation. Dyanega (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that Hamilton's 1964 was not the most THOROUGH or most IMPORTANT discussion of kin selection. What the original text stated - and this is correct, as far as I can see - is that Haldane was the FIRST to delineate the concept explicitly, and Hamilon 1963 was Hamilton's FIRST paper on the topic. "First" and "most important" are not the same thing, and there is nothing preventing you from stating that the 1964 paper was the most important. The point remains that Hamilton did not invent the concept, as much as people might want to believe he did - Maynard Smith, you will note, gave due credit to Haldane's work, so why don't you? Just because it does not include all of the math does not mean it was not the first formal expression (I don't think the term "formalized" means "expressed as mathematical formulae"). Furthermore, you are evidently confusing "kin selection" and "inclusive fitness", as pointed out by your use of Grafen's quote. By all means, if you wish to cover these points in the inclusive fitness article, please do so. Just be warned that the editor who "owns" that article will probably jealously prevent you or anyone else from editing it into anything even marginally objective or scientific. If you did manage to edit it, that would be a significant accomplishment, for certain - and it would be a true boon to Wikipedia, where right now, that article is a complete embarrassment. Dyanega (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the Fisher article was truly the first, then go ahead and add it. I think you will agree that it is a disservice to Haldane to ignore his contribution, as well as ignoring Hamilton's 1963 paper; they DO merit inclusion, they DO pre-date the 1964 work, and all we really need to do is find wording that is agreeable as to giving them credit where it is due. My "tone" is from dismay that you would simply delete these works from the article, as if no one prior to Hamilton 1964 ever made a worthwhile contribution. That does not seem in keeping with NPOV. Dyanega (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, including the Grafen quote (or a detailed summary thereof) itself may be the best approach to this. It at least recognizes Fisher and Haldane, and expresses what (at least in Grafen's opinion) their contributions amounted to. My basic point is that there is a history to the concept that pre-dates 1964, and simply deleting it does not seem to me an acceptable approach. Dyanega (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, the last edit I performed is acceptable? Again, if you would like to quote or paraphrase Grafen, that would be fine; I'm just asking that the citations to Fisher, Haldane, and Hamilton 1963 be left in the article, even if you feel they must be placed into context better. I would also be interested in your opinion on the inclusive fitness article and what might be done with it. Dyanega (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I had reverted my edit on human sex ratio before you left the massage to me. And thanks for your information about J. Arthur Thomson. I am sorry. And I encourage you to use edit summary when you edit. It will avoid misunderstanding and confusion. Thank you. Best wishes. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Read WP:PROF. If he meets a criteria, say so in the article, add the hangon template, and back it up with a source. Don't remove the db template again or you'll be well on your way to a time out. Erechtheus (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:RS and WP:NOTE. When you write an article, you need to tell us why the subject is important and include reliable sources to back up what you say. The issue here is that you essentially originally wrote "X is a professor". That's not enough per WP:PROF. There are professors who are clearly notable, but not every professor is notable. You have to show us which type somebody is. Erechtheus (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can use his CV as a source. You have established notability. The template now applied just shows how the article can be improved. Is there a news article about his fellowship? That would be a great source that wouldn't be a primary source (something he created). That's what the article needs to be better. You can also improve it by adding additional content, of course. Erechtheus (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, clearly written by a creationist, scientists have long since moved on to investigating the question of which assumptions were violated by the model, while the creationists remain stuck at "model makes odd predictions, ergo evolution must be false". Not worth my time to fix... Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Darwin-Wallace Medal, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.linnean.org/index.php?id=344. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Darwin-Wallace Medal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 20:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 20:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 20:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 20:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, WP:AGF, and second, I hope you have evidence to support that claim, otherwise it is no better than an uncivil person attack. Regardless of what you feel about the warnings, he had no business removing them from his own articles. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 21:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collectonian was on a spree tagging articles created by this editor, all of which had at the very least sources highly suggestive of notability, and including at least one Fellow of the Royal Society. I agree he should have used hang on, but in the circs, I think that Collectonian's behaviour (including a report to AIV for what is essentially a content dispute) is questionable to say the least. DuncanHill (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of CSD templates by the article creator is not a content dispute. He was warning at least five times before being reported. For the articles themselves, I disagree they were "highly suggestive of notability," hence their being tagged. I must have missed one saying they were FRS, but none of the rest were and I disagree that a listing in what appears to be a single listing in what appears to be a very specialized encyclopedia in anyway meets WP:BIO. It appeared he simply created a glut of articles for an entire family where only one or two members might actually be notable. I CSDed the rest. You also went a spree, removing all of the CSD templates with promises to "expand" the articles. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 21:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Darwin-Wallace Medal. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - DiligentTerrier(and friends)21:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Darwin-Wallace Medal, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
I declined a request to block you a few minutes ago based on your removal of CSD tags. Your articles are notable, but you should avoid removing the CSD tags and instead place the hangon tag on any of these articles. In the mean time, you are getting yourself into some 3RR territory which can also warrant a block. I would advise you take a couple of minutes away from the computer and let some of this sort itself out. A number of editors and admins have noted that your articles should not have been speedy deletion candidates, and are looking into the matter. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just need you two to leave each other alone. :-) A number of the articles are now up for debate on deletion, which is more fair than the speedy tags. Just stay calm, gather your sources, and go enter those deletion debates to calmly defend your articles. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People are now aware of the situation, and will be watching to see that good articles are not attacked. If anything should be speedy deleted without apparent justification, let me know if I can be of any assistance. Frankly, I have no explanation for what's been happening. Less rational than even the usual around here. Just continue to write good articles, and let others defend you. Avoid personal fights, especially if you think the opponents are fools.
It may help a little to follow some of our conventions. Please go to the trouble of using full formal references. When you use the ODNB, you should give the full citation information that the online version provides at the bottom of the page as part of the link. When you use JSTOR, you should add the full information on the article, so it can be found by people using the paper versions of the journals also--and in these cases, it is usually the paper versions which are the authoritative voucher versions--JSTOR itself is just an electronic reprinter & distributor.
There's a device for marking incomplete articles: add the tag {{underconstruction}} to the top -- its supposed to be good for 5 days. Some of your articles are, after all, rather scanty. I have made some comments at some of them which I hope you will understand as friendly hints for necessary expansion.
You'll excuse me, I hope, for some frank advice, but your email is not enabled. I think we might have some interests in common. DGG (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on Bicentenary Medal, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 68.197.16.37 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hi. When you recently edited Junie Hoang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vietnamese (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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplex plot until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
