This is an archive of past discussions with User:Scientizzle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Commercial ad in image on Saccharomyces boulardii page
I don't know how to deal with it, but someone snuck a commercial ad onto the Saccharomyces boulardii page. It is in an image pretending to be a scale of some sort.
And it definitely looks like a product rep wrote the article. Thank you for taking the time to do what you have done, I'm in rural Paraguay and it is hard for me to keep up an Internet connection long enough to do anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.16.237.207 (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
On November 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hookworm vaccine, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On December 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ruth L. Kirschstein, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello Scientizzle. The thread about Mccready may need to be refocused. To clarify matters, I am thinking of making an entry in WP:RESTRICT to record the current status of the (unexpired) topic ban that was imposed in May, 2008, per a discussion that you closed back then. Please comment on this draft entry:
Mccready is placed under a topic ban. He is indefinitely banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed. He must explain all reverts except blatant vandalism on the article's talk page and he is warned against further disruption, such as ignoring consensus or edit warring.
His probation on pseudoscience and alternative medicine was only for one year, and it expired in May, 2009. I'm not 100% sure what the following sentence is supposed to apply to: "He must explain all reverts except blatant vandalism on the article's talk page and he is warned against further disruption, such as ignoring consensus or edit warring". If you think that applies to ALL articles, then maybe a separate restriction should be added to the table. Unless anyone sees a mistake in this version, I am planning to go ahead and add it to the table. If the current AN thread lifts or modifies his restriction, the entry can be modified then. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I'd drop the last sentence as it applied specifically to the "probation on all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics, broadly construed".
If it needn't be quoted verbaitm, the whole thing could read:
Mccready is indefinitely banned from all acupuncture- and chiropractic-related topics, broadly construed, except reversion of blatant vandalism.
OK, how's this? I believe that verbatim is not always followed literally in this table, except that the actual text of any restrictive clauses ought to be kept. The clause about vandalism may not be needed, and it may have been part of his expired probation, anyway.
Fine with me. The vandalism clause would just be common sense, however, as a topic ban shouldn't preclude the correction of blatant and obvious vandalism. Then again, that just basic common sense and shouldn't even need to be spelled out... — Scientizzle13:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I am an employee at the community renewal society and I would like to post a history of our organization on the wikipedia. some of the content is based on our website history and a community renewal society 1882-1982 100 years of service, a book published by the Chicago review press. Here is the content i would like to publish: does it meet wikipedia guidelines?
Community Renewal Society formally known as the Chicago City Missionary Society was founded in December 14, 1882 by Caleb F. Gates, Silas M. Moore, Robert E. Jenkins, F.S. Hanson, William E. Hale, Fredrick G. Ensign and Burke F. Leavitt. The laypersons and clergymen wanted to promote religion and morality in Chicago.
Since its creation, Community Renewal Society has adapted to the changing needs of Chicago and it continues to offer innovative approaches to deeply rooted urban problems.
Today, Community Renewal Society provides leadership and support in several areas including: public housing, education, criminal justice, youth advocacy and senior issues.
“To me there is greater pleasure in the power to relieve the wants of the truly needy than in aught else I know of,” said Gates, first president of the Community Renewal Society.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Community Renewal Society helped create and shape the religious infrastructure for newly arrived immigrants through the founding of churches, schools and settlement houses.
During the great depression of the 1930s, Community Renewal Society's network of congregations and communities worked with the politicians to create solutions to deepening social and economic problems of that time.
In the 1960s, as the demand for an end to segregation gathered momentum, Community Renewal Society trained thousands of clergy and lay persons in the Civil Rights Movement to promote racial understanding and urban ministry, both locally and nationally.
For the last 38 years, Community Renewal Society has provided investigative reporting on issues of education, politics, housing, crime, social justice and economic conditions through its award winning publications: The Chicago Reporter and Catalyst Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.perry.t (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Well...here are a few considerations:
Article subjects should meet general notability guidelines: you should be able to demonstrate coverage from independent reliable sources. The book is a good example, but you should find maybe some news coverage about it.
The content must be informative without reading like an advertisement. What you have above isn't appropriate for an encyclopdia. All content here must demonstrate a neutral point-of-view. It should also be free of copyrighted text.
As an employee of the society, please be aware of Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines. While this won't preclude you from participating, you should exercise caution with how you proceed.
Question? The book referenced isn't enough? So what your saying is that I should find actual news clippings that reference the organizations historic context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.perry.t (talk • contribs) 21:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I see that on 20 Nov 2009 you put a Notability tag on this article. I've just found 12 other references to the book in Wikipedia, to which I've added links. Does this satisfy your criterion for notability? I see you've also put an 'original research' tag on this and am a bit puzzled by it. The only research I did, apart from reading the book, was to follow up one of the references. Could you explain what needs to be done? There are 3 references in what is yet a quite short article. Chris55 (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
While incoming Wikipedia links are good, the don't satisfy notability guidelines. What the article needs is some citations of media coverage from reliable sources--book reviews or news articles about the topic, for example. Given that the author & publisher are clearly notable, I think it's very likely that appropriate sources can be found (and, thus, deletion seems wholly unnecessary).
The original research tag is a reminder that things like a book synopsis can benefit greatly from seconday sources, reducing the possibility of a Wikipedia editor making erroneous or potentially biased statements. I'd say the content looks like it's probably a fair & accurate account of the subject, however I've not read the work and don't honestly know. If some reliable secondary source has published a synopsis, it would be very useful in overcoming this issue.
Finally, I think the article could be better if there's any sourced material that discusses the impact, if any, of the book on larger aspects of religious scholarship or popular culture. Cheers, — Scientizzle16:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added a short appraisal from the NYT review which I hope satisfies both your first and last points. The original research criterion is a little more difficult when applied to book reviews. Is it better to quote the original or people's reactions to it? I was rather hoping other people would add to the article and maybe since the cross-links people will do so. But I will try and add a summary of some of the reactions to the book. Chris55 (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The NYT cite is excellent. Directly quoting a couple salient passages of the book is a good way to get the message of the work across without messing with anyone's interpretations. However, it's perfectly reasonable to lean on the NYT or other reviews for breaking down the message(s) within the book. Kudos, though, on your work--I think it's a good article. — Scientizzle15:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
deletion of "Building with Concrete"
My new article "Building with Concrete" has been deleted, apparently because there is already an article on concrete on Wikipedia. The latter covers concrete in general terms, with sections on history, composition, production, properties etc. "Building with Concrete" deals specifically with using concrete as a construction material for homes and buidings, comparing it with other materials. It should be undeleted and linked to the general article on concrete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skifree11 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Tell you what, I'll undelete Building with Concrete and move the contents to User:Skifree11/concrete. There you can work on the content. To be honest, I don't think there needs to be a separate article on this particular function of concrete, and whatever citable claims should simply go in the main concrete article. Furthermore, the content of your article plainly reads like an advertisement (e.g., "No matter how one looks at it, concrete is the ideal choice as the construction material for homes and buildings. It is superior to wood and steel for safety, climate change issues, sustainability, energy efficiency and recycling.") and contains a number of unsupported assertions. — Scientizzle15:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
Hi, thanks for the notification. But I've tried talking to those vandalists like a dozen times. I've requested them on their talk pages to discuss their dispute and difference in thoughts, but they never seem to reply and always go on about establishing the "truth" and that they are on the "right" path. They make unconstructive and innecessary edits to the Messiah Foundation International and Younus AlGohar articles because of some sectarian issues and lack to provide reliable and complete information on Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi on the article of his subject. Thus, I took out time to re-do the Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, did some homework on him and related subjects and have constructed a sourced and well-kept article. Just waiting for support on the issue on the talk page.-- NY7 ☆19:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
There's been plenty of edit warring in addition to vandalism. The revert wars are not appropriate. I left notices to all the parties that had been active in the last couple days on Younus AlGohar, but there are others, too. The notices were left not to accuse anyone of wrongdoing, but for edification and to spur contrcutive dialogue and solutions. — Scientizzle21:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the notification. Most of my reverts were of an IP who was changing pictures on the article to that of a dog and general POV wording, but I'll watch myself. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 20:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you've locked Messiah Foundation International after an edit Falconkhe made. He has changed the 'Leader' of MFI from Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (which is cited around the article) to Younus AlGohar which is not cited nor correct according to organization itself, and this edit cannot be reverted as the article is locked, so if you could kindly make the change, it'd present correct information as well as cited information.
I'm concerned about the possible use of sock puppets in this and related articles. I have some edit differences which use the same phrases, such as "Stop preaching self-made teachings" and "Xyz you are again lying", but I'm not sure if it is permissible or desirable to add these here.
As for adding behavioral evidence to the SPI -- that's perfectly appropriate. However, if a clerk has already endorsed a checkuser request, it's not as necessary. — Scientizzle14:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I've replied there and at the article talk page. Please feel free to provide further feedback. Thanks for your hard work. — Scientizzle15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Scientizzle, thanks for setting up bot archiving at Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and for your other tidying up. I wonder, though, could there be a glitch? Content has been archived (-20kB) but /Archive 1 is a redlink. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk10:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
RAGS Article
Can you do me a favor revert all edits done by Omi & Nasir from this article and restrict them any further editing on this article and give me a week to get all reliable sources pertaining to my claimes about MFI & Younus?--Newatwp (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. Sorry for the hassle. Have started another AN/I thread here and, in fairness, I have added Nasiryounus to the thread and left a mildly-worded notice about possible COI on his talk page. The edit war won't stop until both sides stop mutually exclusive editing and pushing POV. Esowteric+Talk13:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for resolving the problem. I got confused because i was already banned recently because of an edit war and i was thinking -what did i do now- :). I don`t think i never edited an Pakistani-related article. I understand what was the problem now. Thank you again. Greetings.iadrian (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Scientizzle, an IP has raised an AN/I about SPS concerns at the Iamsaa-related articles here. Perhaps you'd like to comment. Many thanks, Esowteric+Talk10:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
your recent deletion of TTAP Method page
you recently deleted a post I made regarding the TTAP Methodology, for reasons that you said it seemed like a copyright violation, and that it read like an advertisement, however, as the material was created by the creator/developer of the TTAP method, a published author, researcher, college professor, doctor and fullbright scholar, the material could not have violated any copy right laws. Furthermore, with regard to your opinion that is seems like an advertisement - this is information on a methodolgy as well as information on how others can take advantage of the educational and practical aplication of the program, there is at no point in the article any mention of price and/or payments, thus eliminating it from being considered an advertisement.
Kindly advise as to what changes would be necessary in order to re-post this information.
On March 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Noncoding DNA, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On March 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pyridoxamine, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
It's hard to assume good faith about people who block first and engage later. It's equally hard to win a arguement by arguing with others offering only vague threats under [[1]] IAr or disruptive editing. Not one of the people addressed the defense about templating a regular. If you wish to mark it resolved go ahead, I won't object but it is no where near being solved. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I won't claim that there were no mistakes--perhaps better considered "sub-optimal" editing choices--made on the part of the side with whom you're at issue. However, what's clear is that that particular thread was spiralling out of control due to one editor losing the plot and making accusations that were not justified; Ryan's particular transgression was, if anything, fairly minor...It's also clear from your talk page that you've some issues with Ryan Postlethwaite and some of the others from today's ANI discussion, but the present topic ("homophobia" thread at UT:Jimbo) doesn't appear to be directly related to those issues. Maybe there are specific problems that need to be addressed, but picking fights fueled by animosity (if that's an even somewhat accurate interpretation of what seems to be going on) isn't helping anyone. I would advise disengaging as much as possible... — Scientizzle17:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Precisely why I have not pushed this furthur. You are quire correct, this is out of animosity. I have the same contempt for Ryan p that he has towards me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I closed down the thread...I think that's best for everyone. Consider taking a break; have a beer, if it's to your liking. If your issues are solvable, it won't occur when worked up. Cheers, — Scientizzle17:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted page
I just created a new page, which name is Prewriting Phrase: How to Analyze, Adapt and Anticipate. I just began doing this page, and I haven't finished it yet, but you delete my page. I really need to finish this page!!! hope you can let me finish.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comm212 JMSB (talk • contribs) 19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have presented this article as a reliable source pertaining to above mentioned disputed articles. Now, I would highly appreciate, if you kindly discuss the reference is reliable or not.--119.160.14.43 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Lead paragraph requirements also don't allow weasel words like powerhouse and the BCS/AP ratings. This belongs below elsewhere too. If you're going to edit lead to remove something notable like potential sanctions, you might as well trim the rest of the paragraph to meet lead. Otherwise as per the first paragraph of lead, including any notable controversies like Reggie Bush's alleged violations should be covered. --Morenooso (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
So, let's review: you make a factually inaccurate claim cited to a source that does not support it; when I point this out and remove said claim you revert and add two more sources that also don't support the claim; instead of further edit-warring, I engage you on your talk page, explaining your error and further trying to discuss a proper place and presentation of the new information; I ultimately rewrite the information to a properly-sourced subsection with considerably greater information; in response I get humorless snark about not being a "leader" and because I didn't fix some problem(s) you perceive in the article lead before my editing day was over. Thanks for stopping by. — Scientizzle13:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
You might like to know that this article which you PROD2ed is now being taken to AFD, because the author (after logging out) removed the PRODs. Check out the talk page for his rationale...! Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This war is not going to be end, how long would you be able to protect pages? Not for life time! This is why better is to wikify this and all related article and purify this article from edits of Omi/Nasir, if you want this war to be concluded.--119.160.46.242 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not a war. You're just a lying vandal. I'll be happy to protect articles as long as necessary. When will you stop acting like a petulant child? It's really quite sad... — Scientizzle20:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
You made this a war, its better to comply with above instructions, either block both parties and do whatever you think is justified, otherwise, don't block one party only, which suspects that you are a party.--116.71.15.206 (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not a war. You're a lying, block-evading, banned editor. You won't even admit that you've lied repeatedly. How can anyone take you seriously? Even children will do that...
Hi and thanks for your advice. I did take notice of SGGH and Atama, thereby withdrawing from the dispute but I see Mr IP dragged it all up again even after it had been archived. Thanks for finally resolving it while I have resolved in future to simply maintain without comment any page I find under attack. If it becomes a multi-revert thing I'll go straight to ANI. All the best. ----Jack | talk page21:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Good plan. There's that ol' saying that goes something like: Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it. — Scientizzle22:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I assumed you didn't under the situation because you claimed you were giving him a second chance. He'd already head one. So if you claimed to be giving him a second chance it would seem as though you weren't fully aware of the situation. If you'd said you were giving him a third chance then I might believe you understood the situation.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
There's an old sayin': when you assume you make an ass of u and me. One could pedantically count the 24 hour block and the indef as two separate instances, but it seems to me like it was all one big incident that snowballed due to some poor choices by the editor in question. In any case, the unblock occured quite a while ago and I'll be happy to pull the trigger and reblock at the first sign of any disruption. — Scientizzle00:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The second chance was upon the removal of the logout link, he replaced it with goatse. He first tried to edit war over it and then when he was shot down for that he tried to replace it with a shock image. That's tw o separate incidents to me, and that was his second chance. And he flat out admitted his intention was to come here to disrupt, which an editor pointed out he tried to cover up when I raised that. So you've got inappropriate action, inappropriate follow up and admission of intention to disrupt, that is more than once chance, and as you can see he's already getting back into it: User_talk:TheClerksWell#Warning--Crossmr (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you please help me understand why you closed the review I created for the 9/11 Truth Movement page? It is different than my previous review, because that was in regards to the Judy Wood page being deleted. Now, I am asking for a review that information about Dr. Wood gets added to the 9/11 Truth Movement page. Please help me. Can you please check out the following information and explain to me why it cannot be added to the 9/11 Truth Movement page?
Seeing as Dr. Judy Wood is the only person to have filed her evidence with the courts in pursuit of truth and justice, and also considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court, I think it is fairly obvious that the following information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia Page:
2. I also think that her name needs to be included in the Adherents of the 9/11 Truth Movement, especially considering she is the only person to actually take legal action, in addition to scientific research, in pursuit of 9/11 truth.
3. I also think that her legal efforts, especially the Supreme Court case, needs to be included in the History of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as it was the only court-case ever filed in pursuit of 9/11 Truth, and it made it all the way to the Supreme Court.
In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the National Institute of Standards & Technology's (NIST) contractors for science fraud, and legal requests that NIST’s fraudulent data gets reexamined. [2] The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act [3], and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. [4] Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth.
These are obviously supposed to be on this Wikipedia page, so I truly question the motives of those who are deleting this information. Her effort speaks for itself, and this information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia page for the sake of honesty and accuracy.
You told me to post it in the Deletion Review, but then you went and closed it. She is the ONLY person to have ever filed evidence with the courts to bring about the truth, and that alone is information enough that it should be discussed on the 9/11 Truth Movement page in my opinion. No one else has done that. One of her cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court in October 2009. That is very significant, don't you agree? '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC).
Like I said, the deletion review is to review the deletion of the article Judy Wood. Inclusion of Judy Wood-related material in, say, the 9/11 Truth movement article would be accomplished by presenting a properly sourced claim for evaluation at Talk:9/11 Truth movement. Given that you're still learning about sourcing on Wikipedia, I'd say wait a bit before doing that...learn more about what is acceptable and what is expected. You've dived into the deep end with nary a swimming lesson thus far... — Scientizzle13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, but I looked at the definition of Secondary Sources you provided, and I assure you, there are plenty of them. Please look:
1. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on the very popular radio show, 'We Ourselves', hosted by Ambrose Lane. The radio station is WPFW 89.3 - Washington, D.C. The interview is all over the internet, but a direct link to it is here: http://www.weourselves.org/wpfw/052308.html
3. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on a very popular radio and TV show known as "Edge Media TV" See the interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_4NrRioRPU
4. Dr. Wood recently was presented her research on 'The Power Hour' radio show hosted by Genesis Communications Network. This is a very large radio show. The interview happened just a few weeks ago.
Link #2 is not broken. I just went there again and clicked play and it is working just fine. Try it again, and then just click play on the player.
#2: Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on the very popular radio show, 'We Ourselves', hosted by Ambrose Lane. The radio station is WPFW 89.3 - Washington, D.C. The interview is all over the internet, but a direct link to it is here: http://www.weourselves.org/wpfw/052308.html
Every time I click on it, the page reads "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage"...I don't know what's up. — Scientizzle16:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
How is that possible? I use Internet Explorer too, which is why I am so confused. Here, I will provide direct links to the mp3s. There are two parts.
The two reasons given for the deletion of the content was: 1. She is not notable. 2. Copyright violation.
I have copy right permission from her personally, and I was going to have her email the permissions list until all this happened.
As for a notability, Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher ever to file her evidence in a court of law, and her court case made it all the way to the Supreme court. She discusses her research and the court cases on the very popular Washington DC Radio Station WPFW 89.3, on the Ambrose Lane 'We Ourselves' show. There are many other places she has presented, but this is one of the most mainstream and credible places.
Considering that Dr. Wood has done more to bring about truth and justice regarding 9/11 than many other 9/11 researchers who are mentioned in the 9/11 Truth Movement, I think some information about her should be added to the 9/11 Truth Movement wikipedia page.
...well. I see you've now been blocked. I can't say I disagree with it, either. You spammed a number of pages with the same notability claims above, broadly accused editors here of working for some nefarious purposes, and you don't really seem like you want to listen to the advice that would have helped. In short, your editing was tendentious and not appropriate. — Scientizzle12:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you appear to have put a block of the Tristan Tzara page regarding Tzara's demand to piss in different colors. Can you explain why you have taken the side that you have; a side which suppresses the pissing in different colors demand? I am dismayed regarding the inability of editors to communicate on this issue. There seems to be a refusal to recognize blatant verifiable facts. Despite my attempts to resolve the issue on the Tzara discussion page, there is no willingness of editors to address the issue in a fair-minded way. The false accusations of vandalism are very dishonest and manipulative. The pissing issue is not original research. Is there a voice of reason anywhere on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.154.138 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't "taken the side" of anyone on that page. At best, I protected the page on the WP:WRONGVERSION. Simply put, there's been a long-term edit war over the inclusion of the material you allude to. This is disruptive. If you cannot gain consensus for inclusiuon on the talk page, you need to drop the issue. I'll happily undue the protection if everything gets hashed out in the appropriate forum, namely Talk:Tristan Tzara. — Scientizzle23:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't argue with the description of "edit war" but as you can see from the Tzara history page there are frequent accusations of Vandalism and Original Research. Does the content of a Wikipedia article reflect logic or merely mob rule? I am in minority therefore my input appears doomed because I do not have mob rule on my side. I have attempted to discuss this issue on the Tzara discussion page but there was no reply to my recent comments left on March 12th 2010. Instead of a reply user Dahn simply persisted in reverting my edits and falsely accusing me of vandalism. This issue seems to be mainly with Dahn. I suspect Dahn has friends in high places within the Wikipedia hierarchy, and those friends simply take his side without looking at the facts of the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.234.17 (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Content is required to meet policies on verifiability, neutrality, and original research; said content is the product of consensus, which incorporates policy, guidelines, and editorial discretion. I left a comment on the talk page asking for the issue to be addressed. Make your best, most neutrally-worded case. You should also be willing and prepared to discontinue your push to include the content you want if you cannot garner consensus for its inclusion. Thanks, — Scientizzle00:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd also like to add, that it might be helpful if you'd register an account. It would make communication with you easier, since your IP address changes so frequently. It's not required, but it's free and painless... — Scientizzle00:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
As I say... I think my lone voice of logic is doomed. Thankfully my voice is only doomed within Wikipedia. When I first contributed to the Tzara article I was simply being helpful adding important information that strangely was absent; the issue has now become something of a cause for me and I will fight on for justice. Consensual validation has no bearing upon logic. If two million people think it is good to drink poison or to believe in pixies, this doesn't make such actions or beliefs worthy, right, or wise. One day I will beat them at their own game. It may take a good few years but eventually I will ensure, via publicizing the pissing issue in mainstream media channels, that the world knows the truth about Tzara's demand to piss in different colors and then one day I will have mob rule on my side. Thanks for taking to the time to reply. Your feedback has been helpful. PS. I don't see any need to register for a Wikipedia account because it is very easy to edit and communicate without one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.234.17 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Some of your comments here and at Talk:Tristan Tzara don't sit comfortably with me...I see some statements that indicate a lack of good-faith interpretations of other editors' motivations and methods, and it appears that you view this as some sort of competitive enterprise. Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it the place to right great wrongs. If this bit of triviality is some sort of crusade for you, I suggest you need to realign your priorities. Please do not disrupt the encyclopedia to make some sort of point. I'm happy to offer help towards ending this dispute, but don't waste my time if you're just going to perseverate over this issue in a disruptive manner should things not go your way. — Scientizzle01:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Some of your actions don't sit comfortably with me because your actions seem to indicate a lack of good faith. I resent your allegations which cast aspersions upon my character. Why did you protect the wrong version? Surely protecting the right version would make more sense? Yes I agree completely that Wikipedia is not a battleground but you and Wikipedia do recognize that it can become a battleground thus you have phrases such as "edit-war". I assure you I am not the aggressor but when people fail to act in a fair-minded, logical, or reasonable manner I will vehemently fight for justice via the appropriate channels. I am not disrupting Wikpedia to make a point. It is actually user Dahn who is disrupting Wikipedia to make some sort of point; and rather than protecting his edits it would make more sense if you protected my edits. I am saddened regarding people in authority within Wikipedia misconstruing my statements. This is not about using Wikipedia to right great wrongs; I am simply trying to present a unbiased version of Tzara's life based upon verifiability referenced from reputable sources, but to present a reliable article this issue has become a battle for justice and logic. Do you think I enjoy this petty nonsense regarding a certain editor who seems to see the entire Tzara article as his own personal authorship? Perhaps the Tzara article should credit Dahn for his input because it is basically his article... check the history and you will see he has made a massive amount of edits. I assure you if things don't go my way I will not persist with Wikipedia: I will bypass Wikipedia in my search for justice. It seems Wikipedia editors often like to think they are the ultimate authority on journalism and media but there is a world of journalism and media outside of the cliquey Wikipedia brotherhood. Thankfully Wikipedia editors do not have censorship powers outside of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.37.8 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
My actions "indicate a lack of good faith"? All I've done is protect a page (that you admit was undegoing an "edit war") and offer advice on civil dispute resolution. I'm not certain you actually read the content at WP:WRONGVERSION as I don't detect sufficient irony in your accusation against me... — Scientizzle01:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of not reading things: You've obviously NOT read my contribution to the Tristan Tzara page because if you had you would not suggest I was attempting to right great wrongs. Really, your suggestion is ridiculous when you look at the facts.
Regarding the Tristan Tzara WP:WRONGVERSION which you protected, your internal link redirected to "The_wrong_version" [5] and at the top of that page is says: "This page contains material intended to be humorous. It should not be taken seriously or literally." I therefore didn't take it too seriously and didn't read every detail, which was apparently a mistake? When a page says you shouldn't take something too seriously you should obviously take it seriously (perhaps) because the order to not take it too seriously shouldn't be taken too seriously therefore it is serious. Perhaps all Wikipedia pages are not serious? Wikipedia seems to has a Kafkaesque love of absurd bureaucracy evidenced by almost endless pages of rules, regulations, and insider-jokes (In-joke). It seemed the essence of the WP:WRONGVERSION page you referenced is that it is impossible to challenge a decision which protects the wrong version because any challenger will be assailed by a mountain of bureaucratic redirection intended to thwart any challenges, reminiscent of The Trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.195.34 (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you not understand why I referred to that page to begin with or are you being obtuse? No matter the version of the disputed article I protected, someone will have a complaint about it. It's a no-win situation for the admin, because s/he will surely have to deal with these complaints, but it's a sacrifice taken because edit warring is more broadly unconstructive/destructive.
And you can't have it both ways: you claim the be the "lone voice of logic" and that inclusion of this tidbit is "something of a cause for [you]" and is a battle for "justice"...but your editwarring isn't tendentious? Please. — Scientizzle14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
My edit should be upheld if editors fail to engage in discussion
After the temporary protection for the Tzara page expires: my edit should be upheld if editors fail to engage in discussion. I have actually been waiting for a reply on the discussion page since around March 12th therefore I feel it is more than generous to give editors a couple more days to reply. When I say "editors" I really mean user 'Dahn' because this is basically an issue of my edits verses his edits, but he has occasionally gone running to other people for support. In the interests of a level playing field I would appreciate it if you didn't go a tell Dahn to respond to the Tzara discussion otherwise his edits will be superseded by mine regarding the pissing issue when the protection expires. If people are unable to engage in discussion then surely by default my arguments are correct and my points are validated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.195.34 (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I fear you are assuming the pissing issue is an attempt to right great wrongs but when you look at the facts and references you can see the pissing issue is well-documented in art history and theory by reputable theoreticians and historians. Please don't assume I am wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.195.34 (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
That's not how it works. Open the damn RFC and quit trying to lawyer in your preferred content.
I've waded through a good portion of your talk page comments and the the suggested content. It's a fantastically insipid battle. Have you even convinced one other editor that your content is a valuable inclusion? Have you tried? Honestly--not just talked at people about how you're right and they're wrong? If you want to be taken seriously, take others seriously. Edits like this suggest that this is some tedious, verbose trolling exercise. Is it?
If edit warring resumes following the expiration of the protection, I'll immediately re-apply it. Now, please don't fill my talk page with any more self-righteous dribble. Address the issue through the suggested means and gather support for a proposed inclusion. You're pissing (word choice intended) away my good will and willingness to assist you through your badgering on this page. — Scientizzle14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I really do get weary of your insults. You have accused me of not acting in good faith; you have accused me of trying to right great wrongs; you have also implied my edits lack verifiability and neutrality and that I am trying to promote original research and that I am trying to make some sort of point. When you ask if I have even convinced one editor; I wish to reiterate that there is really only one editor, Dahn; It is basically his article and he has a few cronies supporting his nonsense. Please forgive this edit [6] which was online for a few seconds before I removed it, but surely you can appreciate how your pigheadedness combined with offensive insults could lead someone to alter your page disrespectfully?... come on really, merely because I justifiably lost my temper for a few seconds that doesn't mean my entire argument is a "verbose trolling exercise". When you suggest I am trolling you are obviously, to my mind, being intentionally obtuse. The question is this: did Tzara demand the right to piss in different colors; and is such a demand well documented by respected academics, published by noteworthy publishing houses? The answer is yes on all counts. I think the reason people are difficult to convince regarding this matter is because when I highlight the verifiability of the pissing issue, via highlighting credible and reputable references, such references are ignored and I am accused of vandalism, promoting original research, etc etc etc. So until I can find the time to cut off the heads of the Hydra via opening a Kafkaesque RFC I suggest you permanently protect the wrong version because it is easier for me to reinsert the pissing issue instead of banging my head against the bureaucratic Wikipedia wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.128.249 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You have accused me of not acting in good faith; you have accused me of trying to right great wrongs; you have also implied my edits lack verifiability and neutrality and that I am trying to promote original research and that I am trying to make some sort of point.
Highly inaccurate. I have pointed out that you have made some accusations against others that seem to violate WP:AGF (do you really need examples of these?). I have pointed out that, by your own words, you have viewed this issue as something to battle over and I cautioned you that this is not appropriate. I have never implied that your edits lack verifiability and neutrality, only that you have not gained any sort of support for your inclusion. Tell me how these actions are inappropriate. Seriously, please go through my comments on this page and re-evaluate your responses to them...do you really think "cast[ing] aspersions upon [your] character" is an accurate description? Where are the "offensive insults"?
I asked whether you were trolling as an honest question. If you should be pardoned because you "justifiably lost [your] temper", should I not have been granted a modicum of respect on my own talk page for all the offered advice on how to proceed in your dispute? I gave you level-headed suggestions on dispute resolution, followed by justifiable cautions that some of your actions were potentially counter-productive and probably contributing to your lack of success at content inclusion. In turn, I was told that my "actions seem to indicate a lack of good faith", that I was "protecting" someone else's edits, that I "obviously" was not reading your arguments, and that my behavior was pigheaded.
I am quite serious. Do me the minimal favor of reexamining this discussion and WP:AGF.
All that said, opening a request for comment is quite simple. Given the amount of time you've taken on my talk page, it could have been completed long ago. Since you're confident that your addition is well-documented and noteworthy, why delay? I am still willing to help, should you need it, even though I am frustrated at how much I'm spinning my wheels here. It's certainly not appropriate for you to threaten to edit war further. If you're not willing to be collegial and cooperative, I can't and won't help you. — Scientizzle19:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Truly I am perplexed regarding things you have wrote. How can I assume good faith of other editors when my utterly verifiable contributions from reputable sources are labeled acts of vandalism and original research? Do you really need examples of these? You ask where the offensive insults are... well for one your snide insinuation that I am trolling is offensive. You also described my comments on the Tzara discussion page as being "insipid" and you suggest my input is tendentious. I find it offensive that you generally see me as the aggressor, which leads you to remind me of how: "Content is required to meet policies on verifiability, neutrality, and original research..." by which you are implying my edits do not comply, which is insulting. Furthermore you say my accusations seem to violate WP:AGF but for the record you can see it was user Dahn who started calling my edits "nonsense" and "vandalism"; such offensive words seem to reject WP:AGF therefore I feel it is impossible to assume good faith of other editors when they have been the instigators of offensive comments. How can I assume good faith when an editor describes my edits as nonsense and vandalism despite my edits being utterly corroborated via numerous reputable sources of impeccable authenticity and renown?
My cheeky edit of you page which lasted a couple of seconds, and during those few seconds I am sure it was seen my nobody other than me, it was hardly a transgression; although due to the transitory nature of it you could possibly call it a thoughtcrime if you insist upon it being a transgression. It was only via looking back through a transient history that you became aware of my fleeting disrespect. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. If you looked deeper into my thoughts you would probably see deeper disrespect but on the surface I am being civil. So it is NOT really an "honest question" when you ask if I am trolling. You were searching for disrespect merely as tool to use against me. I was foolish to give you such scanty bait because I should have realized you would disproportionally jump upon the most microscopic pretext for criticizing me. Regarding the edit-war I am not the transgressor I am merely fighting a defending action therefore I suggest if the edit war continues you should level your condemnation against the aggressors. My reluctance to open the RFC is that I fear bias and favoritism exists within the Wikipedia Hierarchy therefore I imagine user Dahn will be successful regardless of evidence. The situation resembles a member of the public making a complaint against the police and the complaint is investigated by the police; the outcome will be biased because the police protect their own.
On a more constructive note I suspect Dahn maybe guilty of sockpuppetry. At the very least I would like to challenge the accusation of vandalism against me, which was made at "17:03, 2 April 2010 by Cptmurdok". Who is Cptmurdok and what led him to define my edit as vandalism? Is there any connection between Dahn and Cptmurdok? Can private correspondence between editors be examined as part of the RFC? I would like to know what strings are being pulled behind the scenes? Here is a good example of Dahn's unjustified tone when he corrects my edits: "02:08, 16 February 2010 Dahn (talk | contribs) (123,715 bytes) (rv - completely random, woefully overfocused (WP:UNDUE), not commented in any of the sources dealing with Tzara's life; borderline vandalism)."
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply and please forgive me if I've been tense or slightly confrontational when responding but some of the things Dahn has done really annoyed me; and then when you decided to protect his version I rightly or wrongly saw you as being in cahoots with Dahn... I saw you as another antagonist engaging in the edit-war. There is not much more to say but I will open a RFC at some point in the future although not just yet because I feel very worn out.
OH, there's one final thing to wanted to mention... some of things you say are contradictory, for example you say I should assume good faith but then you also say on your page assume makes an ass out you and me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.127.61 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Look, we're done here. I've offered the olive branch and you're clearly not interested. Please leave me alone now. — Scientizzle12:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I agree we are done. My future edits on the Tzara page will leave out the references to nihilism thus "the pissing in different colors demand" (at the first Dada Soirée July 14, 1916, Zurich) may seem more palatable to some editors. Anyway, thanks for your feedback; you have been helpful. Sorry if you felt stressed by our discussion. Regards 86.128.127.61 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)XVarn
Update
A quick update regarding what I am currently considering for the Tzara article. I think before I submit a RFC I can refine my contribution. The following will be suitably referenced when I submit it for editorial approval:
In his Zurich Chronicle 1915-1919 (published in 1920) Tzara recollected how during the first Dada night at Waag Hall (on 14 July 1916) he demanded the right to piss in different colors: "...we demand the right to piss in different colors..." Tzara wrote regarding the first Dada night at Waag Hall.
It's good that you've made a concrete suggestion on the talk page. It's not clear, however, why anyone should care about this factoid bit of trivia. That someone who did so many things that could be described as surrealist or avant-garde would have made such a demand is not surpising...is it relevant? I think that is the case you've been unseccessful with thus far. It seems like it's been noted in proper sources, but why? What's the relevance beyond, say, an abusurdist titillation that's mundane by today's media standards? — Scientizzle14:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I assure you it is not a factoid. Don't be so quick to judge. The relevance is chronological, historic, and insightful. Via mentioning the first Dada night, and the location Zurich, and by giving a flavor of what Tzara said, written in his own chronicle, I feel this is an concise description of a key stage in his life, worthy of inclusion. 86.128.0.104 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)XVarn
(edit conflict)Why did he make this demand? The point of him making that satement was ___? Tie it together with the larger article & explicitly state the relevance. It's almost there... — Scientizzle14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The relevance could perhaps hinge upon the importance to which Tzara gave the demand. According to his chronicle, regarding the first Dada night (14 July 1916); the pissing in different colors demand was the first thing Tzara uttered therefore it seems he gave the demand some importance. Something said at the beginning of first night should surely be worthy inclusion even if it is titillating. Merely because something is titillating this shouldn't be cause to shy away from including such information. Perhaps pissing in different colors seems mundane by today's standards but today's standards are irrelevant; the demand shouldn't be included merely because it was once shocking. It should be included for the wealth of historical information it gives regarding Tzara and the mood of the times. 86.128.0.104 (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)XVarn
I don't care if it's titillating or not (by any era's standards), but it should have obvious relevance to the article. It being the first thing he said doesn't make that relevance clear. For it to be included, most reasonable editors will want to know how it relates to the bigger picture: Tzara is considered an important figure, therefore in the interest of the most informative article most details should illustrate clearly how some aspect of his history was part of his larger impact. — Scientizzle14:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Pissing in different colors is an archetypal Dadaist statement, thus purely as a conceptual artwork is it relevant. Many art historians and commentators considered Tzara's demand to be worthy of inclusion in their works, so perhaps I shall dig deeper and see what their justification was for including Tzara's demand. Tzara wrote in his Zurich chronicle: "For the first time anywhere. Guildhall 'zur Waag'. 1. Dada-night (music, dance, lectures, manifestos, poems, paintings, fancy dresses, masks). In the crowd of the audience Tzara demonstrates, we demand, we demand the right, to piss in various colours. Huelsenbeck demonstrates, Ball demonstrates, Arp 'Explanation', Janco 'My Paintings', Heusser 'Own Compositions'." (this translation differs form other translations slightly). This first Dada night seems to be an important event with many noteworthy artists in attendance thus the art performed is also important. 1916 was an key year regarding the evolution of Dada therefore the events around that time are likewise important. In the Tzara article[[7]] it says: "The shows Tzara staged in Zürich often turned into scandals or riots, and he was in permanent conflict with the Swiss law enforcers.[62]" Pissing in different colors could be a good example of provocativeness.
Anyway, I'm busy at the moment, I will do more research and get back to you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.0.104 (talk • contribs)
Okay, I think we're getting somewhere useful. Including random claims in a biography can often make it disjointed and distract from the relevent details. However, if this particular statement has been, say, used by Tzara biographers as an example of the type of activities by Tzara that precipitated larger reactions from contemporaries, the public and/or antagonist authorities, then it evolves from an interesting tidbit to a relevant illustration of the man's actions and impact. I look forward to your further clarifications regarding this issue. — Scientizzle17:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Update April 2011
I am thinking of revisiting this issue. Other artists have subsequently used piss in the their art or made references to urination (Helen Chadwick: piss flowers. Marcel Duchamp: urinal ready-made, and Andy Warhol: piss paintings) but none of these artists directly mentions being influenced by Tzara's piss statement. Nevertheless I think the prominence of the statement at the beginning of Tzara's own Zurich Chronicle gives the statement the necessary weight for inclusion in the article. The piss statement is referenced in numerous art history books and in Tzara's own Zurich Chronicle therefore the statement should be included because it is a good example of archetypal Dada provocativeness. I look forward to your help regarding how to proceed with the wording and the appropriate place for insertion into the article.
Hello, i need your advice, Administrator guidance to be more precise. I will try to represent the problem as detailed as possible so that I and others could get a valid advice from you about this matter. I don`t know if this enters the category of Edit war or Edit warning , so i`l just say it :).
There are 2 articles that represent the problem, first and second. The problem is the same on both articles, User:Umumu(who wrote the data) and I want to make a referenced contribution to both articles but other users(User:Squash Racket) refuse for the article to contain that data, even if it is referenced by valid sources. If you can please look here and here you can see that there is a silent edit war. Here is the 1st contribution and the second. If you can give us your Administrator guidance regarding this matter so the silent edit war can stop. I would rather ask for advice and not to get myself or somebody else banned.Thank you in advance.iadrian (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I don`t want to get into details about incivility some users represent so i`l just say that this represents wikihounding. iadrian (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
You link somebody's name in an accusation presented in an absolutely misleading way on an administrator's talk page (moving from another admin's talk page WITHOUT waiting for his answer) and you try to delete his answer AND then you start citing rules?? Squash Racket (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry that i can`t prove, but i realized that i had deleted your comment while not on my talk page (not my page i don`t have the right to delete/modify anything), and i wanted to revert it , but you already did. I don`t want to talk anymore , you like to create confusion and this time i will not participate. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Who exactly likes to create confusion? At least wait for the answer of Excirial as he already indicated he would answer and stop the forum shopping. Squash Racket (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
...ummm, woah. I took a look at Excirial's talk page and agree with Excirial's response. I don't have any knowledge of (or much interest in) these disputed areas. I'll simply refer you all to WP:DR. Please consider voluntary ways to defuse your own conflicts as well (e.g., voluntary 1RR restrictions). — Scientizzle22:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
On April 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article BanLec, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits to macroevolution were promoting a viewpoint held by such a small minority among biologists as to fall under WP:FRINGE guidelines. Our articles have to conform with WP:WEIGHT policy when it comes to showing such minority views. You were also using AiG as a source – verification is required from a reliable third party source, not from creationists promoting their own views. Please discuss your proposals for changes on the article talk page, and refrain from edit warring which is not the way to get anything in articles. Thanks, dave souza, talk 21:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Information.svg Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — Scientizzle 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Scientizzle 16:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)"
All you are doing is making mere accusations and of the very things you do. I will not be drawn into an endless fight against your cyber-harassment. If you want me to press charges against for breaking federal law against Internet harassment and libel, keep it up.Oriclan (talk)
Aw man, I didn't even get to put in my two cents. His talkpage kept getting editted while I was getting ready to post a comment. Wait, speaking of pressing, can I get my pants pressed? --Morenooso (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Heh. Pants pressing is an additional charge. Not a charge like libel or stalking, but a reasonble monetary fee exchanged for services. — Scientizzle17:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I am so sorry. I looked at the wrong part of the diff, intending to revert the vandalism that you reverted. I did not mean to perform the action I did; the good-faith edit was intended to revert the vandalism (not reinstate it). Please accept my apology and understand that I was not trying to cause any harm.--mono23:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm still getting used to it; it's kind of confusing when you see vandalism that was reverted but think it's still there...--mono01:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope "it wasn't really good info" is just a typo! The informationwas good, but I think there's probably a better location for it. If you can cite the study you refer to and provide examples of television shows that try to help, the vaccination article might benefit from a new section describing the practical difficulties in convincing people to have a needle jabbed in their arm (or worse). Cheers, — Scientizzle01:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand that it must be a hard job reverting irrelevant entries by those random IPs. I was just wondering if you could help out on the Wikisource article of Shahi, as it still claims that Shahi has passed away (see). Probably bring it upto date with our work and consensus here. Your input? -- Nasir | ناصر یونس have a chat 22:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
For the most part, if the IP edits have brought up something on a talk page and anyone has responded to it, I'll leave those, but banned means that editor has lost his privelages to contribute and everything else gets reverted. Frankly, I think I'm being pretty easy on the guy given the years of disruptive editing and the repeated lies...
I understand about the Wikisource thing- I actually checked the policy on cross-Wiki bans just now, and apparently bans don't cross over. So I suppose if the IP's disruptive again or uses socks again, they'll be judged with a clean slate.
Anyway, in regards to Shahi's alleged death, I still have to say I'm not sure. I mean, I don't know if the editorial by Ardeshir Cowasjee could actually be used to verify, given its an editorial and he was just stating what he heard. Also, the Daily Times claims Shahi was murdered in jail after being arrested for blasphemy[11] and that Younus AlGohar was a hypnotist and billionare [12] while the Telegraph refutes claims made about AlGohar in the article you mentioned.
But besides this, The Hindustan Times [13], Indian news agency PTI [14] and The Indian Express [15] state that Shahi is alive. These news reports were published as of 2008, while the most recent of the ones claiming Shahi's death was published in 2006. I'm sorry to be so picky about this, but I feel like these points need to be considered when talking about Shahi's supposed death. Nasir | ناصر یونس have a chat 03:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm...Are all of these cited in the article? If not, they should be--I think most are. Since the most reliable reports (IMO) suggest he died in England, maybe there's a death record available? As it is, the article does a decent job of showing the confusing claims. However, I would place the supporters' claims ("Beliefs of followers") subordinate to anything publoshed by a media source. The ACCORD source is the closest I've seen to a scholarly work and maybe should be relied upon more heavily. — Scientizzle12:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Amen to this section header. I can't remember which admin talkpage I saw it on today but he/she put Another satisfied customer stopped by as a section header. I sometimes feel like that too when my talkpage gets B-52D conventional bombardment. Of course, you could ask for a raise from Jimbo Wales as another admin did on his talkpage. . . --Morenooso (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The edit you reverted wasn't nonsense. Everyone knows that Oregon is, in fact, Idaho's Portugal. I request that you kindly re-revert my changes. -137.244.215.55 (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't think twice 'bout blocking one of them, either. Fortunately, much of the deep sea still lacks reliable internet service and dolphins have a minimal online presence, therefore I don't much worry about them vandalizing Wikipedia. Yet. — Scientizzle17:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
A little help, perhaps?
Please pardon the intrusion but, in my editing travels, I've run across your name several times; I think it's likely we have a similar level of interest in cleaning up crap and pushing back against the flood of POV-spin, vandalism and general silliness.
I have requested rollbacker authorization on the Requests_for_permissions page but I've either gone about it the wrong way or have another problem about which I'm unaware.
If you are willing, I would appreciate your help getting my request approved (or determining why it's just sitting there).
If you can spare a few minutes and will review my case, I would be most grateful.
One other thing: It's always helpful to have someone to consult from time to time. Would you be bothered by an occasional request for advice? I assure you I don't ask questions often and I never do so unless I've done my homework beforehand. (A bit of background: I'm an I.T. professional with over 35 years' experience in mainframes, networks and information security.) I promise not to waste your time.
Besides, if I annoy you, just tell me to buzz off and I'll leave you alone.
Feel free to ask questions any time...if you annoy me, I'll simply block your account! I kid, I kid! If I can't answer your questions, I probably know someone who can. — Scientizzle22:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your deletion of the Bigoted woman incident article. I am just concerned that it won't be long before someone comes along and creates Gillian Duffy again. Would it be possible to put some kind of prevention to stop this from happening? At the moment there is nothing to indicate to a user intending to create Gillian Duffy that the article has been discussed and deleted. Thanks. Abc30 (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I've copied what I need to written an article so if you'd be kind enough to re-delete it, I'd be much obliged. Also, any chance you could provide me with the history so I can note it over there for attribution? thanks a lot, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Please undelete
I notice your timezone is not in the UK. Please understand that this is a massive thing here. At the very least allow AFD to run its course. Maybe move to "Bigoted Woman" Incident so that it does not imply Mrs. Duffy is actually a bigot.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.111.239 (talk • contribs)
I've read your Drv rationale about five times now, and I still have no idea why you think this was such an urgent BLP issue that required closing after an hour. I cannot imagine, in the midst of such a media shit storm, what you thought the potential harm from the article was, that couldn't wait 7 days with monitored editting and protection if necessary. Even the title can be moved if necessary. But whatever you might have thought about the potential for its recreation in future, your closure seems to have killed it stone dead, both now and for the future, now the philosohpical opposers are all over it like a rash pretending that the only goal here with recreation would be to write a biography about a private person, or to regurgitate "tabloids" (yes, tabloids, such as the New York Times presumably), which are both absurd arguments. If it wasn't around then, as alleged, then barely the next morning, the actual presence of in-depth substantial coverage of the incident and its effect on the election is now not making a blind bit of difference to this debate, as apparently the one hour debate you closed is now sacrasanct consensus, and I suspect most if not all are not even bothering to look at the mounting sources, they are happy to pretend they can predict the coverage or impact. And the coverage is out there, and would support a decent fork of the 2010 election article, easily passing EVENT. It wouldn't be so tragic if I hadn't just observed near wall to wall coverage of this all afternoon and night on the BBC, practically eclipsing, and certainly inseperably bound up in, coverage of the final leaders debate. I think you just might have killed stone dead what could have been a decent UK politics article here, equivalent to documenting the effect of Obama meeting Joe the Plumber, although I suspect with worse consequences for Brown. And before you suggest it, no, I don't fancy spending a few days writing a draft in userspace just to gamble on the same kneejerking occuring again, I waste too much time on live articles to being with. MickMacNee (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Obviously I wouldn't be the least bit happy with such a condescending non-response, but if it makes you feel better in your actions though, you can have it. People will just have to see it for what it is, I'm content with that tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
A condescending non-response as a response to a condescending piece of drivel worth no response?! It didn't make me feel better or worse. Please feel free to gnash your teeth somewhere else, though. Seeing links like this makes me wish I'd been able to do it sooner. I'm quite confident I made the right decision. — Scientizzle11:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
You think pointing to a link that shows an American newspaper took notice of an incident which in its view "could cost the Prime Minister the election" fills you with confidence that this is not something that is worth an article? Scratch that, that was not something even worth more than an hours worth of debate? That sort of 'confidence' just makes me laugh to be honest, or rather cry. You clearly have no idea, not one single inkling, as to the magnitude of your error, in taking the typical mistaken view that people will see that scrape, which doesn't even call her a bigot, and just assume she is a bigot, and that in Wikipedia's self-important view of the world, even though that content is no different to what is spreading across multiple reliable sources worldwide as we speak, and is even top billing on the television news infront of me right now, that by simply waving a magic wand and pretending it didn't happen, you have somehow prevented harm, and now you have that warm and fuzzy feeling of having done something good, irrespective of the logical fallacy you've now created. Once the steam roller kicks in, it is collective self-absorbed self-aggrandizing nonsense, that Drv is nothing but a joke, the notability of the article or the merit of the closure is now an irrelevance to that collective love-in. It's hilarious that, as far as Wikipedia is now concerned, she is a non-existent person who was involved in a non-existent event that nobody took notice of and will have no impact on anything and anyone. I could have forgiven as a simple mistake your thinking that this highly irregular early closure wouldn't be a fatal blow for the article for ever, and that recreation would be a possibility once the evidence of notability that already existed and is still piling up was given a less-hysterical appraisal, but now I'm not even sure you can claim that saving grace tbh. You don't look much different to the people who, once they get the BLP bit between their teeth, could care less if this incident became the top story for the next ten days and that commentators around the world call it the most significant event in the campaign, for them, it is more important to do no harm and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist, than write an accurate and informative article about a notable incident, a task that could already be echieved now, had the well not been poisoned with this mistake of a closure and an excuse of a review. It would be brilliant if had made this remark about an inanimate object and this hysteria could be avoided by default, and the article be left to develop for at least the mandatory seven days, but that would hardly have made the news now would it, meaning there would be no article anyway. Misunderstanding and misinterpretation of BLP is the cause of most howling failures of Wikipedia, but this decision will be in the top five at least this year. Infact, this phenomenon occuring in that Afd/Drv that nobody can even conceive that the goal here would be anything other than to write a biography on this woman, is the crowning failure of the entire BLP movement. The rest of the world's press quite rightly don't give a stuff about doing such a thing, but they have no qualms about covering this incident, and shock horror, wiritng her full name for posterity. And these bodies are hamsturng by actual real world responsibility, not the faux responsibility of Wikipedia editors. They are bothered about the notable aspects of the incident, something Wikipedia clearly has no clue how to handle. Total fail. MickMacNee (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Surely you feel better now. As for me, I can sleep perfectly fine without your forgiveness. And I refuse to allow a giant tu quoque fallacy dictate the standards to which I hold my editing. You'll just have to accept that I hold a different point of view regarding the role of Wikipedia in the greater information exchange of the internet. Please take your braying elsewhere; I've no need for discourteous sanctimony. — Scientizzle15:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not me you need to seek forgiveness from. It's everyone who ever naively thought Afd is a proper venue for discussion rather than a venue for kneejerk reactions, it's everyone who ever starts an article even remotely linked to a living person who now has no idea whether their work will be wiped out in an instant or not even though they have ample evidence it meets WP:EVENT, and it's all the readers you've forced to come away from Wikipedia wondering why the hell it contains no information on what is being described as the incident of the campaign, by multiple reliable sources worldwide, and is still on the television news, as it has been for going on 48 hours. There are many tools you can use to calculate precise figures on that last one. Let's be clear about this, your failure was not merely to close an Afd inline with BLP norms, it was to steam in and shut it down after an hour, when quite obviously nobody there was remotely able to judge its impact. If you think that Afd outcomes have never changed after the first hour, then I think you need some more experience in the venue. I have learnt over the years not to trust the kneejerk reactions of people who patently haven't even bothered to do even the most basic, and I mean trivial, effort to know the subject thay are pointificating over. Me, I couldn't give a monkeys tbh, I am in the privelaged position of not having to use Wikipedia as an information source, I write various articles as my hobby, nothing more, and occasionally when I see such disasters like this, I endeavour to show the future that not everybody here was a BLP reactionary who fainted at the mere suggestion Wikipedia covers a current event about a living person, and there were people here who knew that that did not necessarily entail writing a biography on a private person, invading their privacy and defaming them. Probably the best example of your failure to realise this, is that you appear not to realise that articles can be moved if their titles are BLP violations. Still, you have to have allowed it to exist for more than an hour to get a good grasp of the common name though, of which there is a clear candidate now. Not that it matters anymore. If you have ideas about Wikipedia's place in the information world which mean this incident never happened, or was a mere crappy footnote of equivalent impact to the unimportant events it has been grouped with (and it is a hilarious footnote to this hysteria that people will actually spend time going to look for non-notable incidents to flesh out the section in a vain attempt to justify their Afd predictions as they start to unravel before their eyes, rather than actually add to it from the hundreds of sources that cover this one), then frankly, I very much doubt the steady decline in people who take Wikipedia seriously will be redressed any time soon. If there is a briliant reason for the demolishing of Wikinews btw, it is its own pathetic attempt to compensate for Wikipedia's total inability to act rationally with regards to these sorts of incidents. It's account is garbage, as is the UK election article here. It's garbage all round, and its people who don't live in Britain I feel most sorry for, they have to actually put up with this crap as their information source. It's brilliant to think there are even political commentators out there in other countries stating that this incident is the only reason that the media in their countries are now even bothering to cover the UK election. Nothing could be a more damning indictment of Wikipedia than the thought of those people then coming here to find out more, and finding jack, nothing but a shotgun Afd and a lot of self-congratulation for Wikipedia sticking two fingers up to the "tabloid" (yes, that's what its being called, despite the obvious counter-evidence) media's coverage of the incident. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess "Please take your braying elsewhere" was too cryptic? You've been quite insufferable, with a remarkably dismal signal-to-noise ratio. I see no need to seek forgiveness; I'm perfectly content to allow you to thrash about within your overwrought perceptions of my intellect, editing abilities or questionable moral fiber. Your hyperbole and pharisaic bleating never really interested me. Please stop cluttering my talkpage with your piffle. — Scientizzle14:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Just thought you'd be interested to know someone has gone and created a new article about this incident. I'm trying to get it deleted as I think the right decision was made yesterday and there was clear consensus. Abc30 (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The next time you go on holiday, try not to do controversial things immediately before leaving! Otherwise you are a bigot (ha ha, just kidding) Bon voyage! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I just violated my monthly wiki-holiday. Every 1st of the month, I take a few days of required leave. So as to practice what I preach, I'll start on the 2nd or 3rd so that I can watch for any responses. Just participating in a bigoted discussion means that I shouldn't comment then run away. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Peter Duesberg
Hi Scientizzle, I removed one use of the NIAID reference you added to the Peter Duesberg article, because it doesn't make any reference to Duesberg or his theories, and thus can't be used as a citation for the statement that his theories have been rejected by the scientific community. I left the second use of the citation in place (after noticing it because I temporarily broke it by removing the original one it referred to.) I'm letting you know because I know that articles on controversial topics and figures often have a long history behind some of the changes, and I wanted to explain my reasoning in more detail. I've started going over some of the other references in the article (prompted by some comments on the discussion page about many of them being broken or inaccessible behind paywalls) but most of them seem fine. The Discover website seems to be down at the moment, but the copies of the articles in Google's cache look fine. Yours, --Lewis (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
One of the few articles where I think there is merit to ignoring the prohibitions against syntheses; Duesberg's hypothesis is pseudoscience and it is important to contextualize it as such. HIV causes AIDS, and the NIAID reference does cite that. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex19:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi WLU, I've started a discussion about this on Talk:Peter Duesberg if you'd like to make your points there. I'm sure Scientizzle would appreciate us not doing so on this page. Yours, --Lewis (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Cracked me up! Glad to see that I'm not the Lone Ranger with happy customers coming to litter talkpages. You ought to ask Jimbo for a raise. Cheers, don't let it get you down. --Morenooso (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Morenooso has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
I do like cookies. I hope you don't mind if I abstain from using Template:Munch, though. I find it faintly disturbing. I can't decide if it's more the template name or the disfigured nature of the half-eaten confection (which looks like The Cheat to me) that makes me uneasy... — Scientizzle21:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was hilarious... I was half-tempted to do it, but I've gotten into trouble before for deleting big pages... (there's a hint on my user page that I'll let you find if you're remotely interested). — Scientizzle19:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I added a comment about the last version of the introduction in the talk page/MMR vaccine controversy . Concerning "the MMR vaccination rate began to fall in 1995" I agree a precise reference is needed : I'll try to look for it Trente7cinq (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Rich Zubaty AFD
The Admin's Barnstar
For making a closure at AFD that was difficult, complicated, and bound to be contested regardless of which decision was made. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Somehow I suspect this is not over, but anyone who would wade through a mess like that and not just shake their head and move on deserves some recognition. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Actually, I didn't find it as hard as one would initially guess from the 100K size of the page. One side made policy- and guideline-based arguments and seemed to perform due diligence in searching for proper sourcing. The other side leaned heavily on free speech arguments and casting aspersions towards various individuals and the project as a whole... — Scientizzle18:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
+1 on the Barnstar. Not sure if I should give you another one for your help, or if I should just second Beeblebrox's appreciation for your help. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Rich Zubatay deletion
It is a sad commentary on Wikipedia that Rich Zubatay's Wiki page was deleted. Even after it was proven that he met the notability criteria. There could be no better evidence that Wikipedia's behind-the-scenes denizens are neither objective or even remotely fair. All this because he espoused a movement that many are afraid of - indeed, a movement that cannot be stopped by Wikipedia. Mandel17 (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandel17 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
So...I'm neither objective nor remotely fair, and I'm "afraid" of you and your friends' movement? I've never heard of the guy nor his irrefragable disquisitions until I stumbled across the AfD. There was a definitive lack of quality reliablesecondary source coverage to assert encyclopedic notability, thus my closing decision. Based on your own participation in the deletion discussion, you seem to operate under the delusion that Wikipedia is some sort of free speech enterprise through which The Truth™ may be revealed to the inerudite plebeians wandering the intertoobz. It's not. However, feel free to make your best case at Wikipedia:Deletion review...be sure to point out how I've censored and repressed a bête noire based only upon my own quivering disquietude. Cheers! — Scientizzle17:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a strange request. I do not have checkuser capabilities. Why do you feel the need for a checkuser? (If this is Iamsaa (talk·contribs), I have no patience for your nonsense any more as you have repeatedly lied to me and others.) — Scientizzle12:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I request you to unblock me as I am keen to work on wikipedia, it is prove by my contribution also.BTW I asked you to discussed the matter, not to block me. Saeedrags--119.155.51.165 (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Just when I think you can't act more stunningly obtuse...I am not willing to "discuss" anything with you any more. You have lied to me repeatedly and disrupted things here for years. You have forfeited all editing privelages and are banned for your actions. Can you even comprehend this? It's like talking to a dining room table. — Scientizzle14:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't seem too likely to me...This account has been around since 2006 & Dr.J was quite the noob when he arrived on-scene. — Scientizzle16:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Our contribution, "Diaspora Movement of Kenya", was deleted. We feel that that was very unfair. Our research shows that the organization is spearheading a very difficult cause - a revolution - all to counter the corrupt regime and various atrocities up to and including crimes against humanity in Kenya. We find the deletion an atrocity itself and an affront to the struggle of the people of Kenya abroad. People have continously been killed in Kenya, funds have disappeared and no one has been made accountable - all this info in clearly on the internet and very verifiable. It appears that there is always an effort to "kill" democracy and civil rights fights as led by Kenyans in the Diaspora and it appears that Wikipedia has joined that club.
We want to re-write the article and repost it. Please advise.
Jaime's right...I closed that AfD as delete because it was the obvious conclusion based on the discussion. If you want to challenge that at deletion review (by all means, go ahead), you should provide direct evidence of proper sources that assert notability. — Scientizzle18:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
A message from an inevitably-blocked sock...
Greetings. Gatleyhead be ROBERT TAGGART (moi !) in our new guise. Something somewhere went awry sometime in the recent past. As one was using a communal computer and discussing matters with 'colleagues' methinks they took the opportunity to 'run riot' with certain other editors. These latter editors appear to have concluded it was all ones doing. It was not, as one had finished our editing of articles last year. So ? So somehow those latter editors 'revived' ones account, and added insult to injury ! All one has wished to do for the last few months is 'disappear' form our User Page and Talk Page. Oh, for the record, the location of those 'collegues' with which one associated, be in our past as from last friday. One hopes for no more 'mischief' from them ! Gatleyhead (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
How can I edit my article on the YMCA of the Rockies so that it can run on Wikipedia? I am not trying to advertise, but it is the largetst YMCA in the world and should be listed. Thanks.
Sierra
COrockies (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You were extremely helpful in the Zubaty affair, and I thought your expertise would be helpful in the current discussion at Toyota Camry Hybrid regarding whether to merge the article with the larger Camry article. I have stepped back for a few days of cool-down period, but I would like to see what cooler, neutral heads might have to say regarding the current debate. Note that I am not asking you as a subject-matter expert, but rather as a Wikipedia rules expert. Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
OK... I did some reading, enough to know that it would be best to take you up on your offer to facilitate and neutral RFC. Any support you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Asking your advice: After OSX trimmed the article to the present version (and already moved/duplicated almost all of the content into the main Toyota Camry (XV40) article - check here), we finally seem to be moving in a more constructive mode so I proposed to him to restore some of that content in the hybrid article and to do significant improvements + new content during this weekend (see here), and he agreed (see here). Nevertheless, since the RfC has already began, I have doubts if it is prudent to begin doing significant changes to the article in the middle of the RfC discussion. I do not have experience with RfC processes and I want to avoid further conflict, so your advice is welcome.-Mariordo (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
All that really matters is that content is improved. You don't want to mislead anyone who has put in the effort of an uninvolved comment, so any large changes that might directly affect someone's recorded opinion should be noted for clarity--many will watchlist or return to a discussion to adjust their views as the situation develops. Any changes made in good faith, and respectful of apparent consensus, are to be encouraged. Beyond that, the process is designed to help improve the articles, so it should never stand in the way of doing so. — Scientizzle13:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Mariordo refuses to remove the excessive fuel economy information he added to the Camry Hybrid article and had no consensus to include. All I ask is that it be removed until a consensus is reached but he states that there is no rule that you need a consensus to edit an article. It is my understanding that if another user objects then you do need a consensus. The discussion is held here: Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid#U.S. environmental performance table (v. 2). If you could clarify what should be done that would be great. Kind regards. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Well. I haven't been around for the better part of two weeks...Apologies: Real Life is busy. I'm not sure I want to get involved in the minutiae of day-to-day editing disputes on this article. I have no real interest in the topic and don't wish to spend the time to familiarize myself with the technical details to offer a properly informed opinion. Regarding WP:CONSENSUS: the burden is always on those who would add content to demonstrate its accuracy and utility should it be challenged. Following that, however, if a larger proportion of editors find the content to be valuable and appropriate, the content should be included; consensus does not require unanimity. One of the larger philosophical problems I see at Wikipedia is the ability for a small minority of editors to effectively dig in their heels in situations of this nature and obstruct progress. I'm not claiming that this is occuring, but mentioning it only to that those on either side will ask themselves whether they are being too obstructive. There does seem to be, overall, an unusual amount of vitriol on the disagreements over what truthfully amounts to rather trivial details in the grand scheme of things. Please, everyone, try to keep some perspective: you're all volunteers working on a project that assures up front that your additions and edits will almost surely be changed by future tinkering and/or large re-writes. Good luck. — Scientizzle20:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Scientizzle, the RfC bot removed the tag so what do we do now? "Responses from uninvolved editors" received 7 supporting votes and 2 opposing votes (one of the opposes stated he supports the move if other hybrid pages are merged as well, a view held by many of the other supporters of the merger).
"Responses from involved editors" was simply a repeat of the previous votes.
Given the localization of L1 ORF1p and ORF2p to cytoplasmic foci, it is misleading to describe these elements as "nuclear". Further, the same paper shows Alu localizes to stress granules in the cytoplasm.
Very interesting paper! However, I think there are a few points regarding this study and your previouschanges I had reverted:
The paper tracked the localization of transposon ribonucleoprotein particles, finding some cytoplasmic localization. This is pretty cool and Retrotransposon could benefit from a clear explanation of how and why these RNAs move about the cell. However, since we're only talking about RNA, not DNA, it likely doesn't make sense to add this info to Noncoding DNA.
The names of these elements haven't changed as far as I can tell. Wikipedia policy demand that we use the common name when discussing a topic; while we might be able to invent a more accurate term, it's probably original research, which is prohibited. We now know more about how the RNA moves about, but that doesn't change the reality that "interspersed nuclear elements" is actaully a decent descriptor of DNA elements found interspersed in the nuclear genomic sequence, no matter the journey the RNA took to be integrated. Unless I missed it, they never localized any transposon DNA outside of the nucleus...
Thanks for getting back to me. I'll mull over a way to include this paper in the Retrotransposon article if I can--you should feel free to give it a shot yourself. You should also defintitely let me know if you find a reference that 1) localizes noncoding DNA out of the nucleus and/or 2) proposes renaming these elements. Cheers, — Scientizzle16:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
My point was not to change the name to represent a shift in the field. In fact, these elements are called Long Interspersed Elements and Short Interspersed Elements by the vast majority (if not all) researchers in the field of mobile elements (of which, I am one). The terms "Long Interspersed Nuclear Element" and "Short Interspersed Nuclear Element" were first used by a researcher outside the mobile element field and unfortunately further propagated through various review articles (all written by researchers outside the field of mobile elements). That the term "nuclear" is a decent descriptor of DNA elements found interspersed in genomic DNA is irrelevant; of course there are no references showing the localization of mobile element DNA outside the nucleus, as (as far as I know) no DNA has been localized outside of the nucleus in a eukaryotic cell to date.
I think we're in agreement then. Whether or not these are the most appropriate names for the mobile elements, LINE & SINE are clearly the widely-used terms. Your edits did change the names in the two articles, though, which is why I reverted. However, you bring up a good point: the articles could be more clear that the entire "life cycle" of these mobile elements is not contained within the nucleus. Retrotransposon, in particular, could probably use a diagram that describes the activity and localization of mobile elements at various stages... Unfortunately, images and diagram creation are not my strong suit. — Scientizzle14:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Irene Gauthier
Hello Scientizzle,
I have drafted a new posting for Irene Gauthier. I read the comments you made in regard to past articles of reference and agree. Apparently there are multiple articles similar to the new ones I cited in my submission. However they are "archived" in the individual newspapers and tv websites and require a payment to access. I have wanted to help get this straightened out for this wonderful woman for some time and will slowly pay to have those articles available as well. In the mean time I would appreciate your comments on my new references and if I am heading in the right direction.
Who do you think you are getting rid of bill hick's biography, it does exist just to let you know, so it should be on wikipedia! moron—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.228.227 (talk • contribs)
Just wanted to know, Scientizzle, why did you delete information on the 2010 Bill Hicks movie, American: The Bill Hicks Story? There is a reference to G3 Vandalism. Did you commit the vandalism by removing the page - or are you saying the page was vandalism and you removed it. So it's true that any idiot can change a Wiki page? I notice your page has angry threats and it's been vandalized >>100 times...so I was just wondering what was up with you. And I had to register with Wiki which was a royal pain, just to find out why you deleted Bill's movie, so I hope you answer...thank you.JesusChrist this is a pain (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Answering for Scientizzle, the article as it was indeed vandalism (or nonsense) and was in no way suitable for an encyclopedia. This happens from time to time, and we ask that you assume good faith on the part of editors and administrators who remove it. You are welcome to write an appropriate article on the subject; you are also welcome to adopt a less prickly attitude toward other editors. Acroterion(talk)18:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Acroterion covered about everything...Thanks!
It is more or less true that "any idiot can change a Wiki page" and, in this case, one of those idiots created an article solely made up of childish prattle with no encyclopedic information. However, the movie looks to be a notable topic based on a quick search for sources[16][17][18][19][20]. I haven't the time or interest presently to write such an article, but you should feel welcome to start it...you might want to begin here.
As for "what's up with me"? I'm just one of those unsung volunteers that makes this encyclopedia work (as imperfect as it may be). However, cleaning up the crap deposited about the Wiki (such as the initial incarnation of the aforementioned article) does not always endear me to the inerudite and this humble space is not uncommonly the target of the bored and innane. It proves, however, quite trivial to ignore. — Scientizzle21:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Heya - thanks for blocking the spam account. If possible I'd like to petition for something a bit lenghtier than 31 hours however, as I doubt it is going to deter their behaviour. Taking a look through the history it is pretty evident that the only intention of the account is promo/adv. I understand an indef may not be possible (yet), but is something a little heavier handed than 31 warranted? Thanks! Srobak (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah...I saw your note and looked into the editing history of 212.200.65.19 (talk·contribs)...only the edits from September 28, 2010 are clearly spam. There's a mixed bag of good edits and some vandalism in August 2010 and only one other spam-like edit in all of 2010 (promoting a blogspot site in June). Since the IP never been blocked before, I think 31hrs is appropriate. However, if you can show me a pattern of behavior from related IP addresses I'd certainly look into it. Thanks, — Scientizzle15:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This article was deleted for lack of "notability". I propose to reinstate and expand it, including the following references:
Jeff holds 34 patents (so far):
[APPLICATION] Method and system for storing a sparse file using fill counts US Pat. 11/406,592 - Filed Apr 19, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[APPLICATION] Multiple replication levels with pooled devices US Pat. 11/406,956 - Filed Apr 19, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[APPLICATION] Hierarchical file system naming US Pat. 11/416,745 - Filed May 3, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[APPLICATION] Method and system for repairing partially damaged blocks US Pat. 11406578 - Filed Apr 19, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[APPLICATION] Adaptive resilvering I/O scheduling US Pat. 11406757 - Filed Apr 19, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[APPLICATION] Method and system for adaptive metadata replication US Pat. 11406957 - Filed Apr 19, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[APPLICATION] Method and system for metadata-based resilvering US Pat. 11407719 - Filed Apr 19, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[APPLICATION] Method and system for pruned resilvering using a dirty time log US Pat. 11409427 - Filed Apr 19, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[APPLICATION] Automatic intent log testing US Pat. 11431379 - Filed May 10, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[APPLICATION] Input/output priority inheritance US Pat. 11433345 - Filed May 12, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[APPLICATION] Unlimited file system snapshots and clones US Pat. 11513800 - Filed Aug 31, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
System and method for flexible software linking US Pat. 6542167 - Filed Jan 28, 2000 - Wind River Systems, Inc.
Mechanism for performing polling in a system US Pat. 6578036 - Filed May 15, 2000 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Method and system for allocation of file descriptors US Pat. 6725244 - Filed Feb 25, 2000 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Method of providing direct user task access to operating system data structures US Pat. 6735666 - Filed Feb 22, 2000 - Wind River Systems, Inc.
Memory allocator for a multiprocessor computer system US Pat. 6785888 - Filed Feb 24, 1998 - International Business Machines Corporation
Methods and apparatus for executing code while avoiding interference US Pat. 6799236 - Filed Nov 20, 2001 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
N-source in-kernel cache for high performance in computer operating systems US Pat. 7155571 - Filed Sep 30, 2002 - International Business Machines Corporation
Protection domains for a computer operating system US Pat. 7213247 - Filed Jan 10, 2000 - Wind River Systems, Inc.
Automatic conversion of all-zero data storage blocks into file holes US Pat. 7225314 - Filed May 26, 2004 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Method and apparatus for I/O scheduling US Pat. 7260703 - Filed Aug 20, 2004 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Method and system for detecting and correcting data errors using data ... US Pat. 7281188 - Filed May 26, 2004 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Method and system for I/O scheduler activations US Pat. 7305537 - Filed Mar 1, 2005 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
I/O dependency graphs US Pat. 7376758 - Filed Apr 20, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Pipelined I/O execution US Pat. 7398329 - Filed Apr 20, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Method and apparatus for identifying tampering of data in a file system US Pat. 7412450 - Filed May 26, 2004 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Method and system for data replication US Pat. 7596739 - Filed May 15, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Dynamic intent log US Pat. 7606812 - Filed Aug 31, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Method and apparatus to interface an offload engine network interface with a ... US Pat. 7647436 - Filed Apr 29, 2005 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Method and system using checksums to repair data US Pat. 7689877 - Filed Apr 19, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Ditto blocks US Pat. 7743225 - Filed Apr 19, 2006 - Oracle America, Inc.
Inheritable file system properties US Pat. 7761432 - Filed May 11, 2006 - Oracle America, Inc.
[APPLICATION] SYSTEM AND METHOD OF SQUEEZING MEMORY SLABS EMPTY US Pat. 11778054 - Filed Jul 15, 2007
Scholarly papers (I'm still building out this list):
citations include:
Anatomy of the Linux slab allocator "The slab allocator used in Linux is based on an algorithm first introduced by Jeff Bonwick for the SunOS operating system. Jeff's allocator revolves around object caching. Within a kernel, a considerable amount of memory is allocated for a finite set of objects such as file descriptors and other common structures. Jeff found that the amount of time required to initialize a regular object in the kernel exceeded the amount of time required to allocate and deallocate it. His conclusion was that instead of freeing the memory back to a global pool, he would have the memory remain initialized for its intended purpose. For example, if memory is being allocated for a mutex, the mutex initialization function (mutex_init) need only be performed once when the memory is first allocated for the mutex. Subsequent allocations of the memory need not perform the initialization because it's already in the desired state from the previous deallocation and call to the deconstructor. The Linux slab allocator uses these ideas and others to build a memory allocator that is efficient in both space and time. " http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linux-slab-allocator/
Jeff Bonwick was deleted as an expired proposed deletion based on concerns the article didn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Please do read WP:NOTABILITY (and WP:BIO) before any further effort -- any biographical article that cannot clearly provide significant secondary coverage to establish that notability (e.g., articles about Mr. Bonwick) may be deleted. I'm not quite sure the sources you've provided definitely meet this threshold. However, since you're willing to work on it, and there was no deletion discussion, I think there's no harm in restoring the article to a good working space...
It's hard to believe that Jeff Bonwick is not notable enough for Wikipedia, especially when his work is pretty much a standard fill for university operating system courses [28]. Here is another ACM queue interview with him. Pity that the original article about JB is not accessible anywhere (or is it?). But it seems to me that proving his notability here is really not the problem. How about pressing undelete or whatever it takes to restore the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjermar (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It's hard to believe that someone not in the computer science field should automatically know that Bonwick meets the notability guidelines...university operating system courses and ACM Queue ain't exactly a broad interest base. Still, I didn't nominate the article for deletion, I merely deleted it when nobody said "hey, this guy's actually notable" for a week. It's undeleted now. As you can see, the content of the formerly-deleted article already cites the ACM Queue interview and hardly makes clear Bonwick's broader relevence. Please fix this. — Scientizzle22:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Clarity
Thanks for your message. I am of course in favour of deleting these articles; I already noticed that I should have used delete instead of support (of the delete proposal). I'll fix it. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Darrell Black
Hello Darrel Black is my work colleague. And he asked me to create his wikipedia page. How can i make to create his wikipedia site without being a delete? Thanks for your help. Why getting removed always also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qurus (talk • contribs) 18:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article 2010 United States tomato shortage, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Smartse (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Diaspora Movement of Kenya. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
I appreciate your concern, but I use it to describe myself, since I have some Jewish ancestry. When I created the userbox it wasn't done with malicious intent as I was unaware that some could find it offensive; in fact I'm stunned by that revelation. I think of myself as completed whereas before I wasn't; however, I am willing to acquiesce to your request. So I thought about alternate names... how about: Other Jews or renewed Jews?-- Avazina, an Unreconstructed Southerner
No problem I appreciate how you politely declared your concern. As an old saying goes "you get more sugar with honey than with vinegar."-- Avazina, an Unreconstructed Southerner
The definition was deleted before I could complete the reference (due to being somewhat unclear on the formatting code). This is not advertising, the reference is to a book published by Adams Media. Please advise. D.Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanticDeception (talk • contribs) 16:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I've undeleted the article--I may have been a bit hasty with the delete button. However, I still think it looks like an advertising attempt. Prove me wrong... — Scientizzle16:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I have made keithfairisle dormant by posting {{User Alternate Acc|Velvettfogg|cat=no}}
I do not wish any comflicts of interest,
as I only want to edit in factual statements.
I have linked many of my profiles to Wikipedia
including ones, seperate to this, that I am an Administrator/Moderator.
and as such I appreciate your concerns about accuaracy.
You have my pledge, that anything posted will be
in keeping with the guidelines of Wikipedia.
I have been notified that information and changes posted on the site are being considered for removal. I have tried to read the reasons and where additional information needs to be added, deleted and or changed...but I cannot really make heads or tails of what is being asked, so I am asking for help. In both cases I serve as executive director of both organizations...I am unsure if that ensures I have a "conflict of interest" or not, based on the materials I read, but didn't fully understand.
Any help you can offer would be very much appreciated since it would be great if all that I put on the site was not removed before I had a chance to alter it and meet your standards.
Thank you,
Robert Kesten--Rtk212 (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Regarding your incident here] I laughed for a good 5 minutes on what happened, pretty hilarious, was it really for an entire half hour? No illwill coming from me, you just brightened my day.Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I was afraid of that. Can I make amends by offering the best pieces of any further candidates I may come across? Or maybe my firstborn? Amalthea20:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Even though I'm still stung and insulted that Gonzonoir would deign to accept a nomination from someone who makes a typo while typing "typo" or tries to AfD one's own userpage when obviously superior nominators exist, I have lent my support. I'm taking what is known as the "high road". Also, I got my support in before even the nominator, so nyeah! — Scientizzle15:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I was drawn inexorably to the typo-typoing crew by my own pathological tendency to make a serious howler any time I offer/agree to copyedit someone's GA nom. I hope you don't really mind that I took Amalthea up on the offer without pinging you first: it seemed like a good moment, so I just took the plunge. If your rage is deep, I can only offer hand-wringing, shirt-rending, and to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course I don't mind. I find farcical indignation to be funnier than most. However, if you mange to fell a tree with a herring, I'll nominate you for bureaucratship! — Scientizzle16:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Burdock Group study
Hi Scientizzle. Are you suggesting that the way in which the Burdock Group study is presented currently is not a POV-push, if indeed noting the funding of the study and the affiliations and previous history of all involved somehow is? All facts were verified and the links were ascertained by myself over the course of the last four hours, and it is clear that you didn't bother to look at a single link based on how quickly you edited it. I look forward to your response. Dobyblue (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
LNo. I'm suggesting that copying and pasting a large chunk of unattributed content of another site is not appropriate. Additionally, even if what had been posted wasn't a copyvio, it was improperly sourced to meet WP:MEDRS and WP:NOR. The amount of material did clearly not meet WP:UNDUE. Finally, the statements within were unencyclopedic in tone and failed even the basics of WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE. Please read all these links. — Scientizzle22:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be very nice if you restore my local copy of my article. Without this I can not improve this article to pass the WP-requirements in the future. --Txt.file (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
...for the help with 1intheknow or whatever his name was. He is still making edits to talk page, mucking things up - including the fix you implemented. Also if you have a chance - consider restricting User:24.188.102.80 as it appears to be from the same user. Thanks again Srobak (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in this case, since there's also legitimate edits being made by Melih Yavuz, I'm not qualified to say the IP is related to Melih Yavuz. If you think the evidence is strong, and if the IP vandalism continues, you should bring it up at WP:SPI. --Golbez (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I think the evidence for the IP being Melih Yavuz (talk·contribs) (perhaps accidental logouts, not necessarily anything on purpose) is pretty good: the same type of edits occurred over a very close period of time at Eskişehir, Fethiye, and also at Sinop, Turkey (where the gap in time is considerably larger). There are indeed many legitimate edits though. I'll leave a message at User talk:Melih Yavuz that explains the problems and suggests a way forward... Thanks, — Scientizzle16:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
crossed edits on you - and I'm not sure what I lost when it happened. sorry about that - let me know what I mucked so I can fix it.--Ludwigs219:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay then, Kel. You and your brother should take a look at Wikipedia:User pages and perhaps consider toning down some of the content on your user pages.
Also, your entire "Unscientific People" section is grossly misinformed. Please read our article on the straw man (a logical fallacy you're blatantly committing) and peruse the various articles on evolution around here--articles I've contributed to. Introduction to evolution would be a great place to start if you're not well-versed in the topic. — Scientizzle19:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This is LutherVinci, I am speaking on my sister's behalf. Please try to go easy on this 11-year-old Wikipedian, at least while she's getting used to the place. So long as she's not using these kind of arguments on the rest of Wikipedia, all her opinions will be contained within her user page. After all, I would expect that on her own user page she is entitled to her own opinion, right? (plus, she can be a little crazy at times, so please go easy on her). Besides, all of her statements do have merit, she just tends to exaggerates when she's allowed to speak freely. Again, I hope she can speak freely on her own user page, so long as she does not use like arguments any where else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelthecool (talk • contribs) 01:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not planning to do anything. However, as a scientist and educator, I cannot in good conscience allow ignorance to go unchallenged. It's quite ridiculous to write in one line "I will try to be tolerant" and in the next line write "Hello all you idiotic atheists out there...Here is a list of stupid things atheists have said:" followed by a somewhat-incomprehensible list of uninformed or misinformed assertions applied to a swath of people. It's hypocritical and it reflects poorly. One is entitled to one's own opinions, of course, but opinions founded in hypocrisy and ignorance are not worth defending, in my opinion.
If you actually think "all of her statements do have merit", you too could benefit from some further education. I'd be happy to offer some explanations regarding evolutionary theory or some of the philosophical positions that atheists I'm familiar with actually hold. I suggested some Wikipedia articles worth reading because you two are participating within a compendium of freely-available knowledge through which you can challenge your preconceived ideas. — Scientizzle17:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
CORDIALS V.I.P. Drinks
Why are you deleting this article? Just take a look to other refences: FOUR (energy drinks) etc.. My article has nothing to do with advertising! Its an information about an, for my understanding, imortand product concept! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analustia1 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Analustia1, I have restored the deleted content. I was too hasty in my deletion and apologize. Cheers, — Scientizzle19:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear friend Scientizzle, I appreciate your support! Its realy a great beverage concept to be mentioned! lets give the people a chance to find out about Post mix concepts! Have a great day!
DYK for Michael S. Gottlieb
On 5 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael S. Gottlieb, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Dr. Michael S. Gottlieb was instrumental in identifying AIDS in 1981 and thereafter treated actor Rock Hudson for the disease? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I went to add discography information about Logan Venderlic, but I saw that his page had been deleted. Would it be possible to take out the irrelevant bits but leave the musician info?Em thegem (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thx for helping me with naming my TUN article. :-) Peter Mulvany 15:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulvany (talk • contribs)
Excuse me, you claimed my article was a hoax. I own a copy of the game the article talks of, so check your facts matey.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IreviewStuffUK (talk • contribs)
Wow, thanks for the block. I just checked in on the AfD and I'm a little shaky right now; all I asked for is guide listings and proof of airing and nominations and he tells me that? Never in all my years have I even experienced that with serial vandals. Nate•(chatter)23:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. It was seriously over the line. The reviews at ANI are that this was the right call, too. I think, if you want, you should feel free to remove the offending comments. Interesting to contrast that behavior with the content in this edit... — Scientizzle23:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I was definitely noticing that too, how he could say that over as something as little as this in the position he holds is quite scary. I'm going to ask for REVDEL on the ANI thread. Nate•(chatter)00:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
requesting history restore on redirect
You closed H.E.L.P.eR. as a redirect, but erased the history. Requesting you restore the history, so I can export the full Wikipedia history of that article, in order to import it to the Venture Bros. Wiki, as I have other characters. DreamFocus04:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I am trying to add lab testing information to the entry for S-200, but you have removed all of my changes. I am new to editing Wikipedia entries. If I redo in my own words, will that solve the problem? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioremediationresearch (talk • contribs) 13:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure it applies, but if you're associated with S-200 research, production or marketing, you may want to read our conflict of interest guideline, too.
I've requested oversight for all of this user's edits. Just wanted to let you know so you didn't duplicate the effort to report/request it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to contest the deletion of the "Walter Landberg" page. The page was meant to be entirely humourous, which was made very obvious. I am confused as to why this page was not allowed to exist, but other "humour" pages, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centijimbos, are allowed to. Is there some kind of cliquish inter-wikipedia inside joke requirement for labeling pages as humour? The existence of the Centijimbo page even goes directly against this guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day. How do you justify the inclusion of that page if it defies one of the most important Wikipedia policies? I'm just astounded at the blatant hypocrisy presenting itself in the site that I used to have faith in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.248.90 (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you at least explain why one humour page is allowed to remain while the other is deleted? I am honestly confused about what makes these pages different from eachother (in terms of a humour page), besides that one caters to the Wikipedia community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.248.90 (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Walter Landberg was a clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:HOAX; the edits to Innovation Academy were vandalism with similar violations. Both presented deliberate falsehoods with possible libel risks. Humor pages on Wikipedia are restricted to the project namespace where they are not presented as legitimate articles or allowed to have inflammatory or libelous content. I hope the difference is abundantly clear--the legal ramifications alone should make it obvious. — Scientizzle14:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I wasn't quite sure how to handle that (COIN report?), but your message seems to be the best for all involved. I will use that in the future in a similar situation. --CutOffTies (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Certainly. I hope the message helps. The man's got a right to address any WP:BLP concerns and a personal message was probably going to work better than some template. Plus, I've got a soft spot for those Nasty Boys era Reds teams... — Scientizzle21:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This popped up on my watch list, and I couldn't for the life of me figure out why Rob Dibble would ever show up as a conversation point here. Well, now I know. This is amusing. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Edits
I have made some edits to this page, but they do not show. I also have several more pages of information to add. How long does it take to show. Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.165.34 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I just started my first attempt at an RfC, and I might have boned it up pretty badly. I tried to use your previous RfC at Toyota Camry Hybrid as a template, but I just noticed that you had all the pro and con arguments in place when you initially posted the RfC. How'd that happen? I included notes that editors should work collaboratively to create such statements, but that would take time. What do you think I should do now? Your advice is much appreciated. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, this slipped off my radar...I'll have to go back and see what I did back in the day and determine whether there's anything worth helping you with several days after you queried me above. — Scientizzle21:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it's starting to come back to me now. The Toyota Camry Hybrid RFC benefited from some preparation before the initiation of the RFC. Succinct, collaboratively written pro/con arguments and counter-arguments made the competing positions very clear. I also think the separation for involved and uninvolved opinions allowed everyone to participate but made the situation more welcome and better organized for the invited commentaries.
Looking back at that experiment, I'm pretty pleased at how it worked out!
Thanks! I appreciate your help. Yes, I am worried about Barnstarbob as well. He seems very emotionally attached to the article. I worry that he won't be able to let go enough to let other editors change his work. I am trying to think of ways to "gentle" him into the idea of giving up ownership of the article before it gets him in trouble. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
RE: SIFL
What is your issue against the Southern Indoor Football League? What did they ever do to you? I wanna know!
Um, I've never even heard of them until yesterday. I could have validly deleted two associated articles yesterday, but chose instead to determine whether the topic overall met enyclopedic notability standards. If it does, then those two articles won't be deleted. I'm hardly a villain here... — Scientizzle13:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Miroslaw Magola
I am watching Miroslaw Magola which you deleted in May 2010 following an AfD. The article has just been recreated. I cannot remember the original, but the new article is probably pretty similar to the original because CorenSearchBot flagged the new article as a possible copyvio. I guess that creating a new article is ok (although the notability issue does not seem to have been addressed)? Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
So...your edits in to response my concerns were to:
add implicitly inaccurate text ("The Trojans have been a football powerhouse throughout NCAA history and claim 11 national championships, though, their most recent has been vacated for cheating" your addition in bold) that is actually refuted by your cited source ("The Associated Press has stated it will not strip USC of the 2004 title."[30])
completely bungle up formatting
and use the WP:NPOV-challenged term "cheating" over and over (here's a clue: the source you cited does not use the term "cheat")
Well done. (←sarcasm) If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go clean up your mess. Feel free to report me for vandalism; I'm sure that'll go swimmingly! — Scientizzle14:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you will be reported because I clarified why the championship was vacated. As it is pertinent to the case, it is an essential matter that should be disclosed. Telling someone that USC's championship was vacated only tells 1/10 the story. The most important part is WHY it was vacated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.79.247 (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Pete Carroll's record
We use OFFICIAL records of coaches, as recorded by the NCAA. 14 of Pete Carroll's victories at USC were vacated by the NCAA for cheating. Pete Carroll's coaching record, according to the NCAA, is as I have written it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.79.247 (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Righto. If you can get over grave dancing for a minute, you'll note that you're adding inaccurate information (i.e., that USC doesn't have a 2004 championship--it holds the 2004 AP championship). I'm adding accurate and more informative prose. Get over yourself. — Scientizzle15:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
You are the one posting biased information. USC has a title, not a championship, from 2004. There is a major difference. USC's 2004 championship was vacated for violating NCAA rules. OFFICIAL NCAA records are the official numbers used by Wikipedia. Compare Barry Switzer's article on Wikipedia. He does not get credit for wins that were vacated by the NCAA. If you continue to deface articles with your slanted views, you will be reported to the moderators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.79.247 (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Please feel free to "report me to the moderators". I'm quite confident that my contributions have been almost universally improvements upon the previous work, in sourcing and prose. I also love the idea that "title" and "championship" are suddenly not synonymous. I've never edited Barry Switzer; I think it would be quite informative to present his record with and without vacated wins... — Scientizzle20:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Scientizzle, please stop edit warring on the article. I have asked 68.x to discuss on the talk page, and I will protect the article if need be. Eagles24/7(C)23:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd hardly characterize my extensive improvements as edit warring...I'm confident the facts of the situation have been presented accurately and appropriately in my edits as well. — Scientizzle01:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Scientizzle professional hired help requested.
Hello there Mr. Scientizzle. I am hoping to contract your help in authoring a Wikipedia article.I would like your expert help and I am willing to enter a paid relationship. Yes real life is wonderful, and I would like to speak with you for real [redacted] Vince — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincenzo Gennaro (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Vincent,
I gather from your contributions that you would be interested in seeing Wikipedia coverage of US Jetways and/or Vincenzo Gennaro. While paid editing on Wikipedia isn't expressly prohibited, it's frowned upon for its conflict of interest issues. I'm not particularly interested in doing it myself, but I'd be happy to point you in the right direction...free!
Wikipedia:Starting an article|Starting an article]] is rather simple, but you'll want to have the proper sources included right away. I'd actually recommend using the Wikipedia:Article wizard as that provides some step-by-step guidance. — Scientizzle16:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
A few questions and a request for guidance
Thank you for your encouraging words. Twenty years ago I published on the diet combination, fen-phen. I am currently trying to learn Wiki editing on my user page User:PietrH/Sandbox. While learning is slow, it is fun for this retired doctor. I do have a few questions.
obtained a document that described a NIH protocol and parked it on my Google site. I am a co-author and therefore believe that I have the right to release it. I see that Wikileak has citations. Is this OK?
Since this will be my first effort, is it possible to have my sections reviewed prior to moving it from my Sandbox. I know that what I will post can be modified, but since I will expend a lot of time, is it possible for a pre review?
I have a Google site that goes into a long discussion. I would think it inappropriate to post it into the article but can i post it in the discussion so that others who may want further details could access this. I am concerned about crossing the Spam line.
I'm getting absolutely slammed with labwork this week and haven't much time to help at present, but I'll do my best. I'm happy to provide guidance. I'll try to address each of your questions.
I'm not sure, copyright-wise, whether you can release your document without express approval of your co-authors, but I'm hardly an attorney. More importantly, I'm not sure this source is of much utility in the article. Wikipedia policy is to avoid original research, meaning that article content must rely heavily on secondary sources that evaluate and comment upon the topic; science/medicine articles have a higher bar for sourcing scientific and medical claims, as I'm sure you can appreciate. I'd suggest that you could use the study protocol to help guide article writing (in particular, finding sources to cite), but I don't think it can be cited in a Wikipedia article: as an uploaded Google doc it lacks important contextualizing information about the process and status of protocol submission/review and how well the presented information fits with the following 15 years of published data.
I will check out your sandbox and see what I can offer. You can always present proposed inclusions (with cited sources) on article talk pages prior to editing the article. This can gather wider input.
It's probably best not to cite your own website. Keep in mind WP:MEDRS--the best sources to use for a scientific/medical article will be published reviews and meta-analyses.
I prefer the open forum of Wikipedia talk pages for a few reasons. Primarily, it's much easier to draw in other helpful editors. Secondarily, I don't check the email associated with this account more than a couple times a week and for personal reasons I prefer my present pseudo-anonymity. I redacted you email above because just to offer it some protection against spammers and I can always get it though the page history.
PietrH follow up
Scientizzle,
I have spent the day editing User:PietrH/Sandbox and am getting a good feeling. Could you look and critique? At this point, I will let this percolate for a couple of days. I don't know how I will merge it with fen-phen. Is the best policy to do one big edit or add a bit at a time? The link that I was concerned about posting, see above, is [31]PietrH (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look shortly. It's best to do moderate-sized focused edits, changing one section or region of the article at a time and always including the relevant sources. This can help facilitate discussion about specific changes that may be more controversial than others. Doing too big of an edit can overwhelm other editors in determining the value and relevance of all the changes; too many very small edits can be similarly confusing and may also risk the annoyance of edit conflicts. You'll get a feel for it after a little while, but a general rule of thumb might be to work on only a paragraph or two at a time and always include an informative edit summary. — Scientizzle14:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Inquiry regarding Eden Wood page
Hey I just need to know the exact reasons why you deleted her page. I've been meaning to update it (her manager is my mom so I have to most rights) But I'm kinda new to working with Wikipedia and I thus, need to know what you thought was wrong with it so I can make a new one. Thank you for your time and wish me luck in figuring out Wiki. Thank Isis for Youtube! Thank you and bye!Summeradventures (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Eden Wood was 19:59, May 29, 2011 as an unchallenged proposed deletion with the rationale "Non-notable child beauty contestant lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER."
Summeradventures, please be cognizant of Wikipedia's important policy on content in biographies of living persons. Since you're associated with the article subject, you should also be aware of Wikipedia guidelines on conflicts of interest.
I can undelete the article for you and move it into your userspace for you to work on, but I want to make sure you understand the links provided above and you've got sources in mind that can be appropriately used for the article. Leave a few links below demonstrating what you're planning on using and we'll move forward. — Scientizzle14:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I have learned on my own, thanks
I played in the sandbox and felt comfortable enough to revise extensively the fen-phen page. Please note I put a COI statement on the discussion.
I used PMID for my articles and gave a link to the full copy. I do believe that my citation of an NIH protocol written by two eminent addiction leaders is as justified as the links on the wikileak page. This NIDA protocol is not classified but probably couldn't be obtained without a FOIA.
Of course, as a new author, I am proud of my virginal creation. Pat me on the back, if you wish.
After FEN/PHEN, I went on to develop another technique to stop addictive craving. It uses levodopa and 5-HTP. It works wonderfully. I gave a link above. One trick to avoid L-aromatic acid decarboxylase is to absorb the precursors thru the mouth. This, serendipitously, permits one to titrate by taste. Unfortunately, I can't and shouldn't put my hypotheses on Wiki.
PietrH (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
How so? Full set of warnings. Cursory search through past edits (prior to today's repeated vandalism) showed other vandalism (e.g., [32]) or questionable edits such as these[33][34]. Do you see any reason why an indef block isn't warranted? It wouldn't preclude a successful unblock request. — Scientizzle21:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Well...those warnings happen to link to Wikipedia policy. That said, though I think you're wasting your worrying about this account, if you're willing to offer mentorship, I'll change the block length to whatever you suggest. I'm happy to be proven wrong. List your preferred time-frame and I'll reset the block accordingly. — Scientizzle21:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed you're performing clean-up, I don't want to encrouch upon your activity, but I have noticed that there is India missing although New Scientist source states: "A British Council poll of 10,000 people in 10 countries has revealed that creationism is strongest in the US, South Africa and India, with 43 per cent in each country agreeing that God created life in its present form." Please add it up if you agree...Thanx --Stephfo (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to keep an eye on that. I noticed your work on it, which is appreciated. I left a note on the talk page. I don't know how many IPs and new accounts will look at that, but I hope that some will and that it doesn't get out of hand. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah...I think it's more-or-less under control. PZ's fans will be aggressive, but WP:UNDUE will need to strongly limit a one-source criticism. We also need to figure out some better way of making the article about all three locations. — Scientizzle16:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
True that. Right now, I think the criticism is warranted considering that the person and their blog seem to be notable enough by our standards, but it shouldn't go farther than it does now. I've added hatnotes to all the Dinosaur Worlds, but your point re:locations is well taken--but I don't know if there is any (reliable and interesting) information to beef up the article. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You didn't respond to the first 4 links, I suppose you thought that I had accidentally copy/pasted the first part of my response. Please reread and respond to the first 4 links you asserted were inappropriate.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I have clarified my objections to each--multiple edit conflicts on partial replies made it difficult to answer your questions in a more timely manner. At this point, I believe I've made a clear case for a pattern of disruptive editing that I urge you to avoid in the future. — Scientizzle16:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you fail to see the reason but I will not stop informing people because you disagree with the reasons beinh dme informing them. No aggressive editing has occurred.--Jacksoncw (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I did fail to see any reason in your response, because it was conspicuously absent. I suspect you are suffering from the delusion that Wikipedia is a venue to right great wrongs or that source quality doesn't matter... These will not get you very far. — Scientizzle20:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm grateful for your closing it, but I think it is inaccurate to head it saying "General support exists for an indefinite block of LiteralKa" when there were about 10 opposes, 17 supports. That isn't as clear-cut as your heading makes it appear. Chzz ► 17:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, "general support" seems a reasonable descriptor of ~65-70% ratio in favor if the block in addition to those advocating for a topic ban or other editing restriction. Not that matters much, but my recount of the opinions is 21 in favor, 9 clearly opposing, and two best described as "meh". Several opposers indicated support for a non-indef timeframe or a topicban as well.
That said, the key thing is that a re-evaluation of the block can be better accomplished in a separate thread with new evidence. There was no chance of properly re-focusing the discussion in the archived thread. — Scientizzle18:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
DYK for A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English
As a side note, it's pretty poor form (particularly from a sysop) to revert an obviously good-faith edit with just "rv", as if it were common vandalism. 68.54.4.162 (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Stalking your edits? You think too highly of yourself. Your edits at Vaccine controversy were obtuse; it took me five minutes of research and writing to fix the "issue" that needed to be fixed (a {{cn}} tag that had been added only a week prior). After actually doing something productive, I clicked on your contribs in Vaccine controversy article history and noticed your follow-up to being spectacularly unhelpful on the former article was the appallingly ignorant edit summary "not an english word so nobody would search it". I've explained on the talk page why I think your argument is stupid. Now, I think I've found a good solution for the Visio issue.
Regarding "rv": If I had wanted to refer to your edit as vandalism, I would have. I just reverted it. In our two interactions thus far, you have merely tried to remove content, and I have cleaned up after you. I'd say I'm in rather good form, actually. Cheers, — Scientizzle19:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Mostly, redirects are cheap and there is evidence that the terms maybeuseful, though that can be better evaluated after further stats have been collected. I tend to err on the side of making information easier to find for the reader and redirects are an easy way to do that. The circular links are a problem, though, and should be fixed. — Scientizzle13:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and removing those hatnotes. I thought that the redirects would clutter up the search box, but I don't see The Clocks (an old, untagged redirect) there. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
How to delete a userID, user page, talk page etc.?
Sad to see the article on Steve James Sherlock has been deleted. A great deal of work went into the work - i felt the comments on 'why' it was deleted rather ignorant or dismissive. Steve did contribute to 2 major international music acts. Marc and the Mambas did only last a -year - however their work has been highlighted by the likes of Antony and the Johnsons as a major influence. If you look at the sleeve for Marc & TM album 'Torment & Torreros' it states that the Mambas are Marc Almond, Anne Hogan and Steve Sherlock (steve was not a session man - he was integral the the band- To dismiss him as a 'bit' player is simply wrong. As for The The - Steve knew MattJohnson for many years - he played live and recorded with Matt Johnson. Steve Sherlock is indeed notable and Wikipedia is a loss without him. I do hope the page is reinstated.Thank you '86.155.144.40 (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)'
Thanks for help with this. I did take your advice and received the following statement.
Not done. The article was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Steve James Sherlock so, as stated at the top of this page, it will not be undeleted here. If you believe the discussion was wrongly decided, or you have new information, you should first aproach user Scientizzle (talk), the administrator who closed the discussion; then, if your concers are not addressed, you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
If you're not willing to be patient & provide those sources, you can try deletion review. I can almost 100% guarantee that unless you provide the type of sources in your deletion review that I'm looking for, you'll likely find most people will endorse my close as pretty clear-cut and within policy. (DRV will only really determine whether the closing admin competently evaluated the opinions presented in the deletion and won't really evaluate whether discussion participants were adequately informed and made the "right" conclusions unless new info is presented.)
Finally, if you think you can make it work, but it might take you a while to gather everything and re-write the article to meet inclusion criteria, you should sign up for an account. I would be willing to undelete the article and move it to you userspace for you to work on. If this interests you, let me know. — Scientizzle14:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
First and Foremost I would like to thank you personally for the time and practical help given to me. People like you make Wikipedia Great – Thank you. I have taken on board your helpful suggestions and have chosen to go down the ‘reliable sources’ route. It’s not easy as much that was written about this period is consigned to publications like Sounds/The Face/NME/Melody Maker – and little of this exists online for general referencing. There are good sources to be found (such as the Peel Wikia) but unfortunately this is unsuitable. Some publications have been published about this musical era but generally they skirt around the issues and exclude much information. A biography on The The has yet to be published – Thankfully Marc Almonds biography – Tainted Life has. There is a great reference to Steve and Neu Electrikk in the fantastic book publication 45 Revolutions. I have spent some time researching suitable sources to highlight the article. I might add, I did have first-hand experience of the subject matter having lived in London at the time and befriended many of the musicians mentioned.
I am still a relative novice to Wikipedia and hope that some of this research proves appropriate. Thank you
http://www.ingsoc.com/thethe/information/biography.html (Chapter 10 - states The four-piece lineup survived only a few months before Johnson stripped it down to the original duo. The following year, Keith Laws quit the group and The The briefly comprised Simon Turner (guitar/vocals), Colin Lloyd Tucker (guitar/vocals) and Steve Sherlock (saxophone)
I'm not sure about all of those sources--though articles on musicians aren't exactly my bailiwick--but it's certainly a good start. I think I've come up with a solution that may work well: Wikipedia:Article Incubator. I'll undelete the article contents and move it to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Steve James Sherlock where you can work on it (and hopefully recruit help). When you think it's compliant with WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC/WP:BLP, you can have others evaluate it and move it into the main article space. Best of luck! — Scientizzle14:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you again. I'll try my best to make this article happen. Please - how do I recruit help. Would you be willing to help? How do I get others to evaluate it? Thanks for the positive comments - Regards '217.44.71.143 (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)'
Thanks again for the very helpful advice. I did try writing to and asking for assisance from the people you mentioned - but no luck - Never mind - I have spent some considerable time adding inline citations/refs + bulking out the article. Please could you have a look, make any amendments you feel are needed and consider for moving back into articlespace. Regards '86.152.61.137 (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)'
Hmmm...I'm not confident the article would pass WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC just yet--a lot of the sources are iffy in meeting WP:RS requirements. I'm not sure I'll be able to help much, unfortunately, as I've got a lot of personal obligations coming up. Keep up the good work. — Scientizzle15:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I really would appreciate your help. As it stands - I'm wondering where to go next????. I've tried to locate sources that are appropriate - but you say they are iffy. Sorry if I sound LOW - I am. I really would like to make this aricle happen - then, I can return to work and homelife. Please help-I don't like leaving things half-done. Regards(86.152.61.137 (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC))
Hi Scientizzle. Would you consider undeleting Jill Whalen and relisting it for a more thorough discussion? The deletion discussion was started by an editor with some sort of bias against SEOs,[35] and there were only three thin comments. Those of us involved in editing the article were never notified about the deletion discussion. A quick search on the topic in Google Books returns multiple solid hits. http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Jill+Whalen%22 Ignore the stuff on Celtic Tales; go to the bottom of the first page of results, and continue to the second page. There is plenty there to write an article, and more could be found in web-based sources. JehochmanTalk13:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Since I'm named as biased here, I will put in my word here that I feel that there is WP:COI. The un-deletion requester is involved in SEO for trade and appears highly involved in advising in how to keep entry on wikipedia in the presence of underlying agenda of commercial gain.*Can WP help your business?*The Art of SEO for Wikipedia 16 Tips to Gain Respect. I don't feel that I have bias against SEOs. I am nominating what I stumbled upon that appears to have underlying agenda of commercial gain and when I do so, I make sure to go through references. I am not involved in this SEO business like the undelete requestor. Thank you Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
What an odd, unsolicited question...I don't know anything about the prize, but from the description, it sounds like a cool idea. I think prizes provide an interesting motivation that can spur technological leaps. Why ask me? — Scientizzle16:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Scientizzle! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
MSU Interview
Dear Scientizzle,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.
For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
You sure about this block? Seems to me the guy was warned at 02:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC), and made no other edits to the article after that. --jpgordon::==( o )19:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
