You've reached User talk:Scientizzle/Archive 5, an archive of User talk:Scientizzle. Please do not edit this page. You're encouraged to leave a message on my regular talk page and link to the archived discussion.
I know everyone has been waiting anxiously for this week’s COTW, so here they are: Barlow Road and Columbia River Plateau. Both are almost Start class, just some formatting and referencing, plus a little expansion and they will be there!
As to last week, it is difficult to track the items we were working on, but I know some pictures were added and at least three red links were removed from Oregon, so thank you to all those who participated. The award winner will be GoodDamon for their creation of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute article. We have now worked through all the Top class stubs and are into the High class stubs. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Happy editing, and remember if you see a downed power line, don’t pick it up. Aboutmovies20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for being so understanding about this article. I have been offline for a few months however still welcome your collaboration concerning this subject. I'm intending to do more research concerning citations and any other verifiable references. Sadly, most doctors who prescribe SSRIs/SNRIs today are still completely ignorant of this phenomenon. A shame, really. And you were correct. I do tend to edit a paragraph or article endlessly until I feel it is "just right." I will make use of the preview feature from now on. Thanks. P.S. The paroxetine article still needs work. References concerning efficacy are still patently false and misleading. — Badgerbear11:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I missed something. I saw this pointing to a comment that I had made in another AfD. Is everything okay? Did I goof something up? -- Ben20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just noting how the nominator appeared to have a specific axe to grind, and as part of that, incorporated comments--including yours from another RfA--from the AfD of one of his articles in a WP:POINTy AfD nomination of another internet radio station. You did nothing wrong at all. Cheers, — Scientizzle21:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Scientizzle, how are you? You're an admin type, so I thought I would ask you about Chaba River, which is undergoing a slow edit war with a vandal who is using a range of dynamic IPs. I don't think this is serious enough to ask for a range block, but do you have any other suggestions? It seemed too minor to report at AIV. Why do I care about an obscure river in Alberta, you ask? Because Bradley Walworth vanitydalized an Oregon article and I checked his contribs. There was briefly an article about Bradley Walworth, and he added his name to a river in Connecticut too. In the Spanish Wikipedia, no less. Stupid vandals. I don't want to have to watch this article until he graduates from junior high school... Katr6722:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been semi-protected for 2 weeks and I blocked all the recent IPs for a week's time...if he continues, look me up again. Hopefully the dolt will just lose interest. — Scientizzle00:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may convince me eventually. I was looking at the stats page the other day and figured out that there's one admin for every 4066 users. That's pretty alarming. It's a wonder the wiki is as good as it is... Katr6701:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings WPOR world. Last week was great with the Barlow Road seeing lots of improvement, maybe even B class. Columbia River Plateau also saw some improvement, maybe enough to bump it to Start.
On with the countdown, another two Stubs in the High category, both happen to be people: Don Schollander a multi-gold medalist; and then world-renowned bridge architect and all-around swell guy Conde McCullough. Schollander needs sources more than anything, and McCullough needs more of a bio, plus maybe a nice chart for the bridges with type/year/location/length. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. This week’s safety tip, stranger=danger. Aboutmovies18:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your warning to this new guy [1] was probably in error. His edit was a legitimate cleanup to a BLP case. (See article talk page with warnings from Swatjester and myself). Fut.Perf.☼09:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings once again WikiProject Oregon members. Thank you to those who help out with improving Conde McCullough and Don Schollander last week. This week is a Stub break, with a Ref improvement drive for Oregon and a request for work on Portland Police Bureau. For the ref improvement, this means sourcing tagged statements and standardizing all existing citations, both of which are needed for GA and FA status. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies18:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on AAAD, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because AAAD is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting AAAD, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.CSDWarnBot08:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just posted my first article -- thanks for the feedback (though it may have been automated, but none-the-less nice to get immediate feedback). Have several more to come, some of which will link back to the first. Any direct comments/concerns are greatly appreciated. Thanks again!MergenthalerVIP20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User 70.131.50.104 should really have been given a final warning before a ban. 'Always give a final warning, and report only if the vandal has vandalized at least once after that.' --Neon white00:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, I ignored that in this case. I'm not too worried about a 24 hour block (not a "ban") of an IP that only has obvious vandalism to its credit. If it really bothers you, I'll unblock. — Scientizzle03:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject may merit a separate article, but right now, as a redirect to Birmingham Six, it's rather effective. If, however, a reasonable case can be made for notability independent from (or at least tangental to) the Birmingham Six, then a sourced, neutral article may be appropriate. — Scientizzle04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it works now. I suspected something like this would happen if I didn't use the {{User Alternate Acct}} template, and was hurrying to do so when the stupid computer kept freezing on me. No worries, and thanks for looking out for my impersonators. --barneca (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I aplogized for writing that to the person you mentioned and aplogized to him/her directly. Immediately deleting without giving the person a chance to argue his case just doesn't seem fair. I felt attacked and acted impulsively. It's people on here like him/her that are bringing out the worst in me. This is why: It just seems to me that it's unfair that they are choosing to delete this when there's alot worse to me found here and in fact the semibeings are equal or more deserving than alot I see here. I find that in itself to be a bit of a personal attack. I'm working hard to get these guys rightfully in here. People like the person I wrote that to seem to just want to come along and wipe it out. It's subjective. If it was downright Un-notabile, then it would be different. But it's not. I plan to state more of my case so at least they should give me a chance to.HayashiantibushHayashiantibush01:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your DYK help an hour or two ago. I was the one who yelled "fire!" An hour or two is ok but nearly 6 hours late for something that is rotated every 8 hours was approaching a wiki-fire.Archtransit16:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will be continuing work on the article - offline obviously. If I think it's up to par should I let you check it out before creating it? Combat Fetus21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir
i am trying to collec5t information on the article Umar Alisha Sahithi Samithi
which is nomonated for deletion
kinldy give me time to make it fully done (notable)
it is a non profit oriented literary organisation tring to develop literary activiteis in Telugu
i request you to kindly restore the article
thanking you
I just wanted to know what we did at ElaKiri.com to make you delete this Wikipage??
Is it because we had links to ElaKiri.com in the webpage?
Or is it because we had a ElaKiri.com logo?
Or is it we had a link to register in ElaKiri.com?
Please tell me! It would be really greatly appreciated that if u can give the page back so i can remove all the external links to ElaKiri.com
Please help me!
Thank you very Much!
The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.
Why the hell did you delete this page for? I swear I hate it how big wikipedian people delete interesting pages it annoys the shit out of me! TeePee-20.716:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!! I edited the page ElaKiri.com and hope it meets guidelines set by Wikipedia and does not involve in any wikispamming! So i would really appreciate if u can just see the page and tell me if there are any other errors or violation of terms.... Thanx alot!!
Ranhiru16:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore the Wiki page on Rockville Volunteer Fire Department. As an Assistant Chief of that Department I had explicit permision from the RVFD web administer to copy the information from RVFD's website and create a Wiki page, it was not copywright infringement. I would apreciate your help in fixing the article to make sure all appropriate agreements are completed so that the article is not deleted again. I am new to Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizard389 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to all those editors who helped improve Cayuse War and Portland Trail Blazers last week as part of the Collaboration of the Week. They are looking much better. This week, with the election season over, we’ll tackle a request for Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004), which should have plenty of WP:RS available to work with on improvement. Our other article is another Stub in the High category, our only Miss America, Katie Harman. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Legal disclaimer: WikiProject Oregon and its affiliates are not liable for any personal injuries acquired while editing on the COTW including but not limited to carpel tunnel syndrome, Wikistress, alcoholism, anxiety attacks, or extreme emotional distress. Aboutmovies20:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.
Take a look at the Hoy newspaper article dated January 13,2006 page 30
Take a look at the Chinese World Journal dated November 29, 2005 page E3
Take a look at El Diario article dated May 11 2005 page34
Take a look at The Sino American Times dated Dec. 16, 2005
Yeah, thanks. I never deleted the article (I even refused a speedy), but I did put a prod tag because the author refuses to actually cite any sources in the article...I'll leave a more detailed explanation. — Scientizzle22:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complaining about the proper deletion of an inappropriate page.
You deleted my great grandfather's second cousin's page! Kurt von Lockhart was an admirable man! How dare YOU!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Itemsplot (talk • contribs)
Thanks for supporting My RfA. Unfortunately, things didn't quite go well, and it was closed rather early. There were a couple of recent issues raised by some other editors that I think it's best to put a bit of time between. But I don't plan to go anywhere; most of the things I do on wikipedia really don't require any special powers anyway, so it's not that big of a deal (having the powers would've made things easier, though). I'll probably try again sometime in the spring. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
introduced the subsection antibiotics as antagonists of pathogens in article Receptor antagonist. while current definitions of antagonists rely on determination of their affinity and efficacy at receptors, antibiotics are treated differently. Activity of antibiotics is assessed by direct measurement of their antimicrobial activity. Though these chemotherapeutic agents possess affinity and efficacy for their molecular targets these parameters are often ignored when determining their pharmacolgical usefulness. Was just wondering if you agree with my point of view. If not this subsection would not belong here so your free to remove it. Lilypink (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A receptor for a drug in pharmacology may be an actual biochemical receptor or ion channel or enyzme. Originally, the term 'receptor' was applied generically to all drug targets because there was no clear sense of how binding gives rise to a biological effect. Some of these targets subsequently turned out to be enzymes or other molecules, and today the term 'receptor' is generally reserved for a molecule that acts as a biological signal transducer though I agree the title of the article is receptor antagonist. If the focus of the article is to remain on specifically only receptor antgonists then ok I see your point. there is also information included in this article about COX inhibition a membrane-bound enzyme as far as I can tell, information relating to aspirin which acts as a cox enzyme antagonist. So this article as it stands does contain information relating to non-receptor mediated antagonism. when I think about it, it seems more acceptable to talk about aspirin, but not so acceptable to talk about antibiotics. I think because their place as antagonists is glossed over when they teach you about these things. i wouldn't have necessary known that much about their pharmacology other then how they work when I started my PhD in microbiology.
Why I thought they should appear...
Its because they are a special case that I really wanted to highlight this particular class of antagonists. We define antagonists by their affinity and efficacy. But we define antibiotics (which are antagonists) differently. Not by their affinity, or efficacy but by their antimicrobial activity. So I think they do merit discussion which I think you agree with. But your only objection seems to be that this discussion is beyond the scope of this article.
I think that the scope of the article should continue to encompas this topic for 2 main reasons. All links to this page are under the term antagonist. the general term. I think receptor antagonist and antagonist to be the same. (see point above) as a pharmacologist you'd hopefully agree. the scope of this article also includes information relating to aspirin.
I think placing antibiotics in this article would benifit it providing it is made clear that the term receptor is explained as above. Or the new article on pharmacological antagonism is created and the information is repeated their and the scope of that article should be broader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilypink (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Antibiotics target enzymes like the penicillin binding proteins (Cephalosporins) and (penicillins). The aminogylcocides target s30 subunit of ribosomes and Floroqinalones target the enzyme DNA gyrase. Alot of enzyme targets I agree. Was trying to reconcile Antibiotics and antagonists. I always wondered about it. why don't you have affinity and efficacy information or IC50s for antibiotics. The answer is I find that people don't assess antibiotics the same way, they look instead at the ability of an antibiotic to kill or inhibit growth of a micro-organism. An overall antibiotic effect. what the end point of inhibition really is for these types of drugs. They do have affinity and efficacy for their target but there just not determined.
but I removed the information anyways, I think I should try and get a few more opinions on the matter as well. Not that I don't appreciate yours ;)
I think an article like Antagonism( pharmacolgy) would contain alot of redundant information that would also appear in this article. I think this article covers more then just receptor antagonist. But I don't know really. Lilypink (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please 'undo' the deletion. It was a stupid scotch driven crazy Canadian mistake on my behalf. In fact the page was fine. My problem was that I had named it 'EUFA' when it should have been named 'UEFA'. Please help and restore it. My intentions were all good, and the page is important IMHO. Cheers and best wishes. - --RobNS00:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (53/0/1).
As a token of my appreciation, please accept this bowl of tzatziki.
I feel honored to be trusted by so many of you. Wikipedia is such a large community, that my acceptance in the face of such large numbers truly is humbling. I will use my new tools to continue the tasks for which you entrusted them to me.
Hi, you tagged this article for Wikification, would you care to look at it now and assess whether the tag can be removed or not? Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this; I was getting a bit silly there. I try to maintain my composure, but sometimes the challenge of dealing with an incessant barrage of crud gets to be too much. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I (and others) disagree that we have a consensus as you have declared. Please provide a suitable definition of "consensus" for future reference in cases such as this. Also, I would like to formally complain about referring to this addition as being "an incessant barrage of crud" as a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIV. --GoRight (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied RE: "consensus" on the talk page. As for the need of a "formal complaint"...in my opinion, there isn't. I think I called Raymond on his instance of inappropriate editing and he responded appropriately. — Scientizzle21:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Raymond "getting exactly what he wanted" from my actions, feel free to clarify if this is meant to imply anything, I'd rather respond to an explicit statement than infer something potentially erroneous. If you feel my actions, as an administrator or otherwise, have been inappropriate, please bring it up here, at WP:ANI or any of the other appropriate venues. I feel that my actions have been entirely for the good of the project. I'm not sure what you would have me to do with Raymond here--he clearly admitted he was wrong in his inappropriate edit and the "barrage of crud" is, in my opinion, hardly a major civility issue. If I were to see Raymond or any other editor behave more crudely, I might act more harshly. If I have missed a larger pattern of inappropriate behavior, please enlighten me--I am not too familiar with the general inhabitants of the GW articles. (Part of why I think it might be better that I intervened with page protection than a more-involved admin. Just an observation.) — Scientizzle01:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mean to imply anything inappropriate, as I said it was just an observation. This is frequently the outcome with some of these individuals, though. They simply get their way by default because either they manage to gang up on newcomers and win using raw people numbers, or someone such as yourself comes along and reverts it to the unmodified version. I try to discuss these things in the talk pages but if they simply refuse to participate or refuse to even acknowledge my POV on a topic, well they call that "consensus".
I agree with your comment on being a "disinterested party" being a good thing, but with all due respect you simply came in, counted hands, declared a consensus and now wish to move on. I understand that you probably have other things to do but don't the merits of one's arguments matter at all? Is it simply mob rule here and he who has the most friends wins? Because that is what has been happening here, IMHO.
I can honestly say that I am presenting honest rationale for the edits I have made. Can you honestly say that the majority of those who are opposed here have done likewise, or even expressed a reason for objecting? If so I guess that I just can't see it. From my perspective they simply state that they object and continue to revert without much comment either way. How is one supposed to reach consensus when the opposing side won't even express an arguable position?
And for them to object to this particular in-line edit is just ludicrous. It hurts absolutely nothing. It enables absolutely nothing other than provide a convenience for the reader. Yet for some reason 7 people come out of nowhere, well not actually out of nowhere out of interaction on other articles, to object over something this silly.
Or how about this on-going debate over a completely innocuous quote from a properly referenced source that many of the same people oppose: [2]. The quote itself clearly meets all of the relevant criteria for being included but rather than debate the merits of the quote itself they have engaged primarily in an ad hominem attack on the author whom they simply don't like.
Or perhaps the double standards which they apply in the case of what is "controversial" between An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle. In the case of the first they act en bloc to prevent any criticism in the summary while at the same time acting en bloc on the second to prevent any comparable removal of criticism in the summary of that article. This is clear POV pushing IMHO which I simply seek to equalize to achieve NPOV as we are supposed to.
At any rate, I have read the rules and I try to follow them but many times people simply engage in drive-by reverting and refuse to negotiate in good faith. At that point it boils down to mob rule as it has in this case. That is the substance of my observation. --GoRight (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I would say that the rationales opposing this edit presented on the talk page honestly seem fairly solid. Part of the reason I ended up counting noses was that I saw no overwhelming strength or weakness in either side's arguments, thus the arguments that held favor of the vast majority "wins" (for now). Your point about majority mobs rings true all over this encyclopedia and I respect your willingness to discuss your point-of-view. Without delving into the other GW realms you mention, I'll only offer this: keep working on it. Remember the old adage about flies and honey, cite sources, be civil, and eventually even those that disagree with your personal opinions will shed those limitations and be more willing to work together. A pittance of a pep talk, I know, but it's the only viable way to make NPOV work. Many folks could use a refresher on that, IMO, on every side of every debate. Cheers, — Scientizzle03:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your assistance in this matter and for sharing your insights. Thanks also for your efforts at what must, at times, seem a daunting and thankless task. --GoRight (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heya. I know it's fairly standard, but I prefer if requests from people being zotted as trolls are left on my talk page. This edit [3] removed such...
Vandalism is one thing (please by all means remove obvious vandalism...) but when it's some form of abuse complaint, I rather err on the side of letting them have their say, whether they're banned or not.
I noticed that you posted a notability sign in the Jubilee Christian Academy page and by looking at the precautionary standards to avoid speedy deletion, I posted my references in the article conerning that school. I was once a student in that school and I have kept all the references I mentioned in that article.
If those references or actions are not enough or if I violated some things I haven't noticed yet, I'll appreciate your kind reply. Thank you very much.
Please see WP:N, the general notability guideline. To be short, there needs to be some demonstration of independent coverage to assert notability. News stories and other such reliable sources work well. Additionally, the article is not written in a very encyclopedic tone--it reads like an advert for the school--and it has a lot of information that isn't necessary (it's really not necessary to explain what each of the school's departments do...). — Scientizzle17:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, but I'm not a skilled writer. I just written what was in the references which I believe somehow a basis of this article. If by any chance you can edit this article in a more legal or more correct way, please do so. Thank you very much.
I would like to draw your attention to an edit war that occurred on the An Inconvenient Truth talk page of all places today. Note that two of the users involved were in the group from our previous exchange over the in-line link to a category page. Their actions on the talk page amount to censorship, IMHO, and if they persist I wish to escalate the matter. I have contacted each of the three on their talk pages concerning this matter and asked that they stop censoring the dialog there.
Any assistance or advice on how to proceed would be appreciated.
I'm trying to makes some sense of things, but with several parallel discussions on many pages, with weeks or months of relevant bickering, it's slow going. My initial impression is that it's not so much "censorship" but yet another needless conflict. The crossposting doesn't appear necessary--a link would suffice. (Deleting the crossposting doesn't seem necessary either.) My own personal preference would be to simply have a section on T:AIT that contained a link to the relevant subsection of the the other talk page and then any relevant discussion: less clutter, plenty of clarity. Naturally, this appears to have turned into an edit war in which at least one 3RR block was dished out... — Scientizzle16:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to look. As it turns out we have compromised along the lines of what you have stated ... provide a link from AIT to the stats on the other page. We have an RFC on the issue now so I am just going to wait a bit to see what turns up there. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Having looked into it, I have no problem with the final deletion--the page was never improved so it only served as an advertisement in user subspace. Cheers, — Scientizzle16:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE REMAIN CIVIL. I DO NOT LIKE THE WAY YOU TOLD ME TO "STOP SCREWING AROUND" AND CALLED MY WELL-WRITTEN ARTICLE A "JOKE". You Wikipedians seem way too serious. BUT PLEASE CAN I HAVE A COPY. EVEN IF IT WAS A JOKE (UNFUNNY OR NOT), IT WAS AN ARTICLE AND IT IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE. SO PLEASE GIVE ME A COPY. I AM BOB AND I AM COOL21:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way if youre going to be so legalistic, how come you didn't even get a second opinion. that stupid thing you put at the top of the article said it should be discussed. I AM BOB AND I AM COOL21:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings boys and girls from the fine folks at The Wettest Place on Earth! A thank you to those who helped last week make some good improvements on the U of O and OSU OS articles. For this week, the next stub on the list is Fortune 1000 company Lithia Motors, Inc. way down south in Dixie, which only needs a little added to make it to Start. The other is a bit more of a challenge, but Linus Pauling I believe is our only Nobel Prize winning Oregonian, and a former FA. So hopefully we can get it back to FA, check the talk page’s article history template for comments. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies20:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you recently visited the RealClimate site. Have you no opinion on the open RfC's there? This issue has generated some level of edit warring so you may wish to keep an eye out since you don't like that sort of churn. There is also a section on the Reliable Sources Notice board if you care to weigh in there as well. Just a friendly notice since I have no idea which side you might be on here. --GoRight21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wandered by RealClimate & a couple other GW articles just to see if things are progressing at all. I noticed the article needed a little wikignoming...
As for the RfCs, I haven't registered an opinion because I've not got any strong ones about the questions presented as of yet. If I do develop a stance, I'll drop by. As of now, I've got a lot on my plate, and don't quite have the energy to get sucked into the vortex of GW debates... — Scientizzle21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i would love for you to help me. but since it is for a class assignment it has to be done tonight. is that feasible?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Krstn4 (talk • contribs)
You are welcome. I'm just glad I declined that speedy deletion. The next time I feel an article should be kept but can't prove it, I'm calling on you. :) Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That a lot of pressure! (The name "Reskin" was vaguely familiar to me, then I realized she had authored a text book that I had in one of my undergraduate classes...) — Scientizzle00:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you maybe allow the article to be up more that 2 minutes before you start questioning everything? It's what is called a stub, and a new one at that. I have added a link to the article on the existing clubs. The club has been around for more than a century, I believe finding press clippings would be possible, but I am only one guy. Regardless, that should not be the ONLY criteria for determining notability do you think?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch22 (talk • contribs)
I get the point abstract point about notability being necessary, which is why I have placed the tag back. I just felt your reasoning (that there was two red links) was somewhat flawed when you could just have visited the external link to the clubs own webpage. Sure it might need more reference, but that will come naturally as the stub develops. Anyway, all is good :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch22 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, um you redirected my work that I did on Parts Of A Cell that took me a lot of time. My article states important key facts to part of a cell. I did the cell unit last term, and we had to write key points, I didn't write what I wrote on my article, but after asking my teacher said if I had written that I would have gotten A+ instead of the A I got. Therefore the article I have written can help users who are searching for Parts Of A Cell.The article that you have redirected it to doesn't really talk about the specific parts of the cell rather than the whole cell.
Thank you very much and I hope you'll undo your actions back to my article back to the way it was. By the way nice talk and user page!! Warrior4321 22:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Warrior4321 (talk·contribs)
Well, as I outlined in my redirect of Parts of a cell, I believe the redirect is more appropriate as the article was not an inclusive list. If you look at the section to which it was redirected, it includes detailed anatomies of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells (particularly, in the diagrams) with links to sub-articles about each . I ppreciate your work, I just disagree that a separate list/article is even necessary. How about we gather some other opinions? I'll restore the page and then leave a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology asking for other input--perhaps someone has a better idea than either of us! — Scientizzle23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you very much, I appreciate your efforts, instead of just keeping it as it is, you're getting opinions! Thank you once again!! Warrior4321 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks your the only one that seems to be helping me, can you help me with this article so I can learn from it for future articles?--Answer8 (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you take a look at the current lead of the Santa Claus article. I have sourced two The New York Times and the London Evening Standard that children primarily believe in Santa Claus. Additionally, there is an MSNBC poll provided showing children believe in Santa. Two "Santa is real" supporters feel this is POV (one removed the "primarily" word as a "weasel word"), and one, User:Jeffpw, found a Canadian marketing survey that showed out of 1000 Canadian adults, 300 believe in Santa and 700 did not. So I added the wording "(and a small number of adults)" with the source. This is now being called POV on my part. We could stand to have some--*ahem*--adult supervision. --DavidShankbone16:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy... so I see your name on a few AFD closures. I read WP:DPR#NAC and wanted to get your opinion. I do not want to step on Admin toes or create any questionable edits. What are your thoughts on non admin closing AFDs like this one which seems like a common sense keep? Thanks in advance GtstrickyTalk or C21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Scientizzle, it seems you may not have taken the time to download one of the MP3s and have a listen to it before deciding to delete the article [Radio Links Hollywood].
Am I correct?
I was hopping you would take the time to download one and see that it might be a good addition to Wikipedia's data base.
I am still working on updating the website so it is more user friendly. This should be approved in a bit: sample
Lori Lerner's material is unique. She is hired by film studios to produce unique MP3 clips. Her clips are provided to radio stations across the country as a free service.
What do you think? Should I cease trying to get this article accepted? It's just that I'm not understanding exactly why it isn't being accepted. Thank you for your consideration, Courtens (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I planned to post an ANI notice & notify wikiProject Music to ask more people to keep an eye on the issue and to verify the notability if The Grand Hustle itself. Let us wait 2-3 days and see what happens, while mercilessly pruning all unreferenced info from its surroundings. I agree, I was thinking just the same as you: either a massive spam or an massive hoax. `'Míkka>t17:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you meant by hoax...I did some initial research when I first came across the article and came up with several articles (for example -- http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E0DD1E31F936A15751C1A9609C8B63 ) that indicated notability. What I questioned were the almost daily additions of news and internal links to new articles related to GH, plus reverts and re-adds of redlinked artists. I will happy to do more research, but with so many IPs and editors relentlessly making edits, the articles/areas need many eyes. Flowanda | Talk03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just wanted to let you know that according to WP:ATP you should not include the contents of the page in the deletion summary (only CSD-10), it is a basic mistake that i see many admins make (including yourself [4]). Just wanted to let you know. Cheers! Tiptoety (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. The software was recently changed and has varied in its success in replacing the text properly in the deletion box. It's a pain in the ass and I prefered the old javascript tool I had before the mediawiki fix. — Scientizzle00:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings to all the WikiProject Oregon crew. Happy holidays to those who celebrate holidays. Thanks to those who helped out with last week’s articles Oregon Garden and Robert B. Duncan. Due to the holidays and people likely to be spending less time on Wikipedia, the new Collaboration of the Week will run for two weeks (OK actually I’ll be out of the country, but same difference). The first item will be a general Reference Improvement Drive. So find an article, source an tagged sentence or bring all the citations up to WP:CITE standards. The other item is a Tagging Drive, looking for those random articles about Oregon that do not yet have a {{WikiProject Oregon}} tag on the talk page. In the past I’ve found the Category:People from Oregon and its sub cats fertile ground for the lost Oregon souls. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Scientizzle.
In September, you added a commment to the article regarding Dov Gazit - stating that references were needed to validate the article.
Since then, 2 references have been cited - one from the History of the Biblical Zoo in Jerusalem, to verify the story about the lion, and a second from a History of Russian Zionism, whch displayed a picture of Dov Gazit and other Zionist inmates at the Karkarlinsk Gulag in Khazakhstan, to illustrate his Zionist acivities.
Rather than unilaterally removing the notice, I am hoping that these references are enough to enable you to remove the notice you posted in September.
Many thanks, and have a great 2008. StevenBirnam14:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at Dov Gazit...I didn't remember closing the AfD, but now I recall the discussion. I placed the {{sources}} tag because while there was no consensus to delete the article, it was seriously lacking in that department. Adding sources is good. Without vetting the sources myself, I've removed the tag. The article could still use a little help with general formatting, but it's in pretty good shape. — Scientizzle03:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.
Right...Take the advice of the editor that has offered to mentor you. Your work to date has been...unhelpful. Personal attacks are never appropriate. — Scientizzle00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are a horrible person.
I happen to know for a fact that my father's comic-strip, Rizzo, is syndicated in over twenty American newspapers. Wow, I can't believe you can't find evidence of it. Who cares. Shouldn't there be freedom of the press. Rizzo does exist. My father has hundreds upon hundreds of strips. It exists, so why does it matter if you can't find it on the internet? Not everything is reported or written about on the web.
One thing I can't figure out: why does it have to be sydicated in over twenty newspapers in order to have a page? That's like saying you have to be famous to be important or heard. You are the problem with the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.230.97 (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you've received the right info at User talk:Gnangarra. So, to address your points succintly:
In order to be covered in this encyclopedia, one must demonstrate a subject's notability--this has a very extensive an accepted role in the Wikipedia editor community.
The article is not deleted. It's moved to a location in which a specific editor is working to combine all the relevant info about Rizzo and its two artists.
If you notice, in the deletion discussion, I'm in fact one of the editors that tried to find more information about the strip and agreed in the end that deletion wasn't the best course.
Well, then, maybe Wikipedis is the problem. I think I'll never use Wikipedia again. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.230.97 (talk • contribs)
I unblocked user:Moldopodo. You failed tyo look into contribution history. There was no edit conflict in the past 7 days. User ungurul is an ignorant arrogant person and suspected sockpuppet who messed with terminology in the article Balti steppe. `'Míkka>t05:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My daughter found the page and there are new work details that make me look less than marginal. Re: the Jeopardy! question - it took the contestant three seconds to answer my ex-husband's name. I think the answer was "Who was Congressman Davis?" This was in 1985. The question was something about the worldwide media attention to this now quaint event. Thanks!
Marty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martycdavis (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just put up this article and it was almost immediately deleted. Why did you feel this was an innapropriate WIKI article?
I would like to discuss the undeletion of this article, please.
Jellytot77 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year to all the Oregon WikiProject People. A big round of applause for everyone last year, we got a lot done. A thank you to everyone who helped with the last Collaboration of the Week, I saw a large number of articles in the unassessed section and our total number of articles is over 5000 (we were around 4000 in June when the assessment program finished the initial run) so I know at one person was busy tagging. This week we are back to a High importance Stub article the one and only max security prison, first prison, and only one with a death row in the state, the Oregon State Penitentiary. Then, by request we have one of the most prolific ballot measure sponsors in Mr. Bill Sizemore. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for keepin wikipedia free from vandalism and all that shite, but dont worry about "vandalism" or "Nonsense" on my page from user i.p. number 90.206.81.96 i like her nonsense, its pretty great like,
cheers (Y) RiainMcA (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we were in agreement on reverting the last addition to Kevin Trudeau, but your last reversion reverted mine, and reinstated the phrase "what the courts ruled were" to the paragraph. It seems like we both see that as an example of WP:WEASEL, and that it should be removed. I just wanted to make sure before I reverted part of your last change. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I filed a report of suspected sockpuppetry here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rothchild. Since you're familiar with the previous incident involving Rothchild and blocked him/her for 48 hrs, I thought you should know.
Can I create some sort of page -- maybe like a disambiguation page -- that explains to readers that variations on netpay may be used by different groups to refer to various online payment systems? I'm still a bit worried about all the netpay variations I saw when I was checking Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NetPay. Wiki also has the stub article Net pay about take-home pay after taxes and deductions (that will probably expand over time). I think netpay belongs in the dictionary, but does it make sense to add something here in Wiki to help prevent confusion? --Busy Stubber (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scientizzle - a little birdy tells me you deleted the sandbox. Well just to let you know (in case you didn't) it's locked up all the servers and now no-one can edit because there were too many revisions. What you should do in future if you need to delete a revision is ask someone to oversight it as that doesn't involve deleting it. Luckily, a developer caught it in time so the damage was limited, but it's still going to take a while to fix. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite23:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
....of all the poor 13-year olds who missed the opportunity to add "poop smells" to Wikipedia before their study hall was over! Seriously, don't sweat it. It was a good-faith-breaking-of-Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hand-crafted this one-off specially for you. Well earned indeed, sir. Us wikiholics are secretly grateful for your act of kindness :-) - Alison❤23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a "stop working" attempt... it didn't work... I just idled in IRC laughing at all the inane commentary and worked on meta and commons instead. ++Lar: t/c00:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about what happened: you made a mistake, and it has been fixed. Now, go and eat the trout, and all the other food given to you, and relax. :) Anyway, you might also be interested to know that two accounts related to the situation were created. :) Best wishes. Acalamari00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am here to offer puerile, yet amazingly accurate, statements about your parenthood, personal hygiene, intelligence and/or sexual practices. For your breakage of the Wikipedia caused me, for several fraught moments, to be without guidance as to which band is teh suxx, who is uber-ghey, and which celebrities, both male and female, suffer from firecrotch. Additionally, I was unable at a crucial moment to accurately articulate which variety of Pokemon spawns the "Wigglytuff" The vacuum created in my life by the absence of this information caused me to experience an utter breakdown, during which I spoke in polysyllabic words and manifested unwanted signs of intelligence. You are personally responsible for this horror, and I fully intend to bill you, in full, for the cost of the necessary therapy and medications which will be required for me to recover from this highly-traumatic incident. Did no one ever tell you it's not nice to break the intarweb?
I am panting with relief at the information which you were so kind as to impart to me on my talk page. (Also: yAy! i GOt my 1irsT B@RnST@r!!!!! (Ok, actually that looks like "....got my first PORNSTAR", which...You know, that would be almost as good. Almost. :) )) Fer serious, d00d...thanks! Gladys J Cortez02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I salute you, and hereby offer to bronze what's left of the trout once everyone, including myself, gets their whack at you. I laughed really loudly and long at the AN/I on all this. total Awesomeness! ThuranX (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Random pages were also showing up blank earlier today. It was a parser bug, but we can just blame you and say you deleted them – Gurch05:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hear ArbCom is designing a template to name you in all future cases. If you're gonna open a gmail account, let me know so I can short-sell Google :) Coincidence be damned, it's all your fault now! Franamax (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so annoyed that I missed that. I really wanted to see Wikipedia broken! I've heard distant tales in the halls of Wikipedia legend, of admins who have gone on a rampage and deleted the main page and started blocking other users, or made a flurry of edits to insanely highly used templates and pushed the job queue length to millions. But I missed this event by just a pinch of *hours* @_@ I had been online just before, and now have only just found out about it, unfortunately. Nonetheless, congratulations, Scientizzle, for all the excitement! • Anakin(contribs • complaints)21:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)PS: Do it again![reply]
Go fish yourself a troutHere at WikiProject Fishing, we realise that you may have had enough WikiTrout already, and it is much more entertaining to get it yourself. Therefore we are offering our WikiFishingRod, which allows you to relax and catch your own WikiTrout. We know our present is very late and are very sorry that we have missed the party.=[ themcman1talk20:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scientizzle, can you explain a bit further the reasoning behind the deletion of Fly For Fun? It was a horrible article, but I'm not sure what you meant by "rm virus", and there was no AfD. Marasmusine (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was restoring it as you messaged...an editor was leaving an executable file that loads a virus on several pages & I was trying to clear those out from the history. I bit off far too much more than I could chew, though...see the section above. — Scientizzle23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy to WikiProject Oregon members, time for another edition of the Collaboration of the Week. As you may have already noticed, our flagship article Oregon is up for the third time as we make a push to get WP:GA status before going for WP:FA. Since this will take some time to get where it needs to be, this will be the COTW for more than just a week. Also, so we hopefully don’t trip over ourselves, try to coordinate on the article’s talk page. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here.
On another note, just a general good job/pat on the back to the project for a great 2007, the first full year of the project. We had 83 DYKs about Oregon, improved one article to FA, and went from around 4 GAs to 17 GAs. Plus numerous new articles, improvements to existing, the introduction of the COTW, and the introduction of article assessment at the project. Again, great job and here’s to a new year. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I am user DragonFire1024 on Wikinews. Was wondering if you could answer some questions about the virus on WP for a possible article.
What or who caused it? What was its purpose? Could other users/computers get the virus? What harm did it cause? And any kind of statement you could give would be great.
Thanks for connecting the dots on those suspected sockpuppets I reported; I don't normally watch those articles and just stumbled across that little bit of action via recent changes. AUTiger » talk20:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not any more--I'd rather nip these sorts of things in the bud than let them snowball into a flame war. Everybody--folks both sides--take a deep breath once in a while, and maybe walk away, when they get frustrated. Rarely does collaboration work when there's active antagonism (or the perception of such). — Scientizzle21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montblanc America's Signatures for Freedom pens
Well, I've been on vacation and while I was gone, a block of pages I created were deleted. These were not spam or advertising but a list of people recognized by having a pen named after them, with links back to the individuals. e.g Hemmingway, Humbolt, Washington. These pages were up for over a year now and I think they were deleted without anyone actually looking at where the links went. So, advice please, where are the deleted pages? And can we have the debate now that I'm here to defend them? This is actually useful information for people who collect these, and notable in regards to the individuals recognized.
Let that be a lesson to you - never go on vacation. :) You can always go to deletion review to ask for the articles to be reinstated. Be prepared to address the issues raised in the AfD and defend the notability of the article itself. If you can find a reliable third-party reference to the pens, you will be much better off. Franamax (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again from WP:ORE. Please note the Collaboration of the Week is running two hours late, no morning kindergarten, and routers are on snow routes. Thank you to those who helped improve Oregon, we are inching towards GA quality. This week we have another High importance Stub in our official state insect (who knew?) with the Oregon Swallowtail, and then a new article I came across, Biglow Canyon Wind Farm. Help if you can get out of the snow. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Good day! Aboutmovies (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thanks over at my exit rant over on talk:homeopathy. I should note that my posted selection of who I will accept contact from was mostly based upon the posts I could find, I believe I have generally agreed with your posts also, I simply didn't see any when I looked to check for your name (so feel free to say hello to me from time to time ;) ). You might be amused to learn that it was watching Star Trek: First Contact that put the entire thing into perspective for me - life is about enjoyment and bettering one's self, not a hurtful debate. I hope you can find enjoyment also! :D LinaMishima (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My very best in your journey towards far more pleasant things! I may just need a break from the topic myself...or maybe I should fight harder and be more rigid. I'll have to figure that out...
What kills me is not stubbornness (I generally an exceptionally patient person) but the tediousness of the "dialog" in which every meaningful statement is drowned out by floods of bickering, every basic statement is met with an exasperating "please source", and every attempt at reasonable compromise is thwarted at the 11th hour by someone steamrolling in and decreeing a lack of consensus. — Scientizzle05:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, you seem reluctant to accept this as some miscreants were continuously interrupting my article editing the websites and other details. That’s why you didn’t allow me to use content from the our official website wwww.goharshahi.net.
I didn’t write anything is my article as promised, I was searching online to prove that wwww.goharshahi.com & Mehdi Foundation International doesn’t belong to His Holiness, I am pleased to inform you that now I have got an evidence. You can check yourself, its an article published in India.
Now, I would appreciate, if you kindly let me make this article appropriate as I want to add complete details of His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi from His Birth till his occultation.
Moreover, I would also request you to kindly let me make a separate article for International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam, as I want the article of His Holiness should be focused on his personality, work and achievements. I promise you that I will pay full attention to these articles and in a very short span of time, complete them.
I've just got notice that I've been banned for stonewalling by East. The ban included no diffs. My reason for approaching you on this is that we have been working constructively together on the homeopathy page in getting consensus on a few issues, over the past few week. I don't see how the ban is justified. I am approaching you as a co-editor on that page, not as an admin. I don't want to be accused of admin shopping. Anthon01 (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for bringing Wikipedia to a halt by deleting the sandbox
Hi again; concern was expressed at Wikipedia talk:Village stocks#Please remove this that not all those nominated for WP:STOCKS would be happy with inclusion, so I am inviting you to remove your name if you feel at all uncomfortable about its presence on the page. The page is intended to be humorous, and no one wishes it to cause annoyance or offence. Hoping you take this in the spirit intended... Gwinva (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you got a patch made to solve the problem, then some well-intentioned people tried to use the patch to solve another problem, you may indeed have invented IgDynamite. But it was all good fun while it lasted, what doesn't kill Wikipedia can only make it stronger, and you've achieved immortality with a sense of humour. Good stuff I say! Cheers! Franamax (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wake up! Wake up to a happy day! Says Tom Peterson. Greetings to the gang at WP:ORE, its time for another round of Collaboration of the Week. Last week was a very successful endeavor with great improvement to Oregon Swallowtail and Deuce Biglow Canyon Wind Farm. OK, so there’s no “e” but it makes me laugh. The Biglow production was so successful we got our first DYK out of it. So, let’s try for a second with the tallest building in the state, the Wells Fargo Center. Then by request we have the former governor (among other things) Neil Goldschmidt. Again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, visit here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings once again to members of the best encyclopedia online about Oregon (aka WP:ORE)! Last week we improved Neil Goldschmidt to close to GA level, and moved the Wells Fargo Center from Stub to Start for the Collaboration of the Week. This week we’re clowning around with some bozo from Oregon, Pinto Colvig, and then in an attempt to garner another DYK, the rather stubby Cooper Spur. As always, any contribution is appreciated, and to opt out of these messages visit here.
As we have quite a few new members over the last six months, I’ll make another pitch for our various subprojects. Listed here, you will find a variety of groups focused on specific areas of Oregon from transportation to culture. Not only can you sign up and coordinate work there, but each often has useful sources and templates related to that topic. No pressure, just an introduction to those new to the project. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am highly disappointed, you reverted the whole article, its not fair. Rather I was expecting that you will encourage me by highlighting my mistakes but you.....
Anyhow, still I sincerely want you help and request you to kindly check this and help me so that I could improve this article.
May I once again request you to split this page from this article. You must have noticed that I am seriousely working in compliance with the guidelines of wikipedia, I assure you that I will try my level best to make it an appropriate article.
I don't believe that it got a fair shake in the AfD. There is solid in-depth third-party coverage of it, see [6], [7], [8], [9]. These were written in 2003-2004, long before the AfD, and easily found by googling. There were only two proponents for the deletion and both voted to delete on the grounds that such sources did not exist, which I hope is now obviously false. Ham Pastrami (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scientizzle. You removed the cat from Homeopathy/LEADdiscussion. Soon a bot will tag the article as uncategorized, and another editor will categorize it one more time. Seeing that You are one of the contributors, perhaps You could help find a more appropriate location for this sandbox. – Leo Laursen – ☏⌘17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scientizzle from Acleron. I've lurked a long time to see the fantastic efforts in Wikipedia but don't feel qualified enough to make a significant contribution to the knowledge base above the normally excellent editors in any topic I have any expertise in. I presume your welcome message was in response to the comments I have made in the Edits sections of three homeopathic related entries. I hope correcting logical and factual errors in these sections doesn't contradict Wikipedia policy or custom. If it does, I will reluctantly withdraw.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Acleron (talk • contribs)
You haven't done anything inappropriate. Just try to get comfortable, and please contribute what you can, in discussion and in content. The welcome message contains a lot of useful links. Hope to see you around. Cheers, — Scientizzle01:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that there was no citation for my comments about the no confidence vote, but I don't know how to add citations. The story was in our school newspaper. Anyways, are you a student a Kutztown? No probably not. So where do you get off changing something like that when you know nothing about it. How about next time sending me a message telling how to cite things. There are times when you certainly should change things, and then other times; like when you have no idea whether something is true or not, that you should just leave things alone. So I'm putting back the edit. If you have a problem with it, please tell me how to cite it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.55.211 (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.
Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR.
Eliko (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm - the RFCU case was filed under category "D", which is suspected vote fraud when the vote was closed, which it was. The SSP case was filed when the vote was open, which is also per policy. The RFCU page shows where each case should be presented and the case code is the likely applicable one. It's still up to the checkuser to determine whether the case should be rejected or accepted based on evidence provided, and that is likely to be based on checkuser policy, not per the RFCU main page which is just a guideline for submitting cases - Alison❤05:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My user name is Epicatus. The following message was left by you on my "my talk" page.
"You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LakeOswego for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. — Scientizzle 02:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)"
The case has been closed and I cannot edit the page further per instructions on the page.
Welcome to another wonderful world of WP:ORE COTW. Thanks again to those who lent a hand improving Pinto Colvig and Cooper Spur ski area this past week or so. This week we return to the High importance Stubs, with the mighty Seal of Oregon and former governor and legal superstar Sylvester Pennoyer. To opt out of these messages, or suggest an article, swing by here. Or to stop receiving any WPORE messages just remove your name from the list of members at WP:ORE. Auf Wiedersehen. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More than 13 reliable sources have been used to cite references
According to my understanding I have just mentioned the websites of ASI & MFI, that doesn’t meant to promote their website but to inform reader that, which website belongs to whom.
Therefore, I once again request you to kindly split the page.
Because in my view both are different things,One is about a personality and other is about an Organization, they both should be seperate. Allow me to say thanks, for your continuous contribution, help & support. May Almighty Allah shower blessings upon you.--Asikhi (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does one report instances of plagiarism on wikipedia? it may just be case of insufficient attribution or careless borrowing, but I am uncertain how to 'flag' it. EraserGirl (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scientizzle, thanks for your nice comments here. I agree with your rationale, and if it does end up being a problem I would support a renomination. Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They seem more "meaty" to me, but there's probably a healthy dose of cotton in there. In any case, there hasn't been much in the way of useful production from these editors, so it may take care of itself... — Scientizzle16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On March 3, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Heliconius heurippa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I have used 9 reliable sources for this article, can you please now un-tag this now?--iamsaa 05:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. Most of the sources don't seem to contain more than trivial coverage of ASI, and the article is largely a piece that is decidedly anti-MFI. In fact, most of the sources cited talk about MFI rather than ASI. Please read the notability guideline. I may take this article to AfD. — Scientizzle17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from WP:WikiProject Oregon. Blah blah blah. This week we have our semi-annual PictureDrive and a article creation drive for the NRHP List. For the picture drive, go take a picture, or find a free use one (lots of links to gov sites above) and upload it Wikipedia. For the National Register of Historic Places, find a red link on the main Oregon list or one of the county lists at start a new article. If its more than just a stub, don’t forget to nominate it for a DYK! Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Zeitgeist, the Movie, I was hoping to provide readers who were interested in seeing individual parts of the movie with the fact that they are available. I figured we could edit the beginning to this:
It was released free online in whole(existing reference) as well as in three parts(a ref to the External Links section, or a link to another reference which points here) via Google Video in June of 2007.
I'd say the current three links in the EL section to each of the three parts, and the current link in the refs section to the full version are sufficient. We needn't spoon-feed the reader links to the movie, I think. — Scientizzle15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will not accept your warning sent to my page. It's my prerogative to delete said warnings as I feel are unjustified. Any further warning sent to me I will consider harassment and will take appropriate action against you and/or Wikipedia as needed, internal resolution is a possibility, action through the state judicial system if I am not satisfied with the internal approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.154.131 (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to amend the above by suggesting to fellow anonymous editors, indeed to all users of good will and honest integrity to abandon this shambles Wikipedia and join up with its competitor Citizendium. I like an online reference with integrity my college WILL accept. It's my college's policy to not accept information from Wikipedia, and now I know why. This can't be trusted. I'd also suggest those involved in disputes here to ignore the arbitration committee and all other internal affairs methods here and get their remedy outside of Wikipedia, that is by judicial action against it in either state or federal court as is the case at bar. I don't see how constitutionally sound the procedures inside Wikipedia are. The arbitrators too often seem to side against defendant parties and not give them much in the way of due process, a right to be heard in full. If one wishes to disagree with me, I await your message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.154.131 (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This guy will not stop throwing around questionable legal arguments on his talk page. Something really should be done, especially since he threatened to create an attack page "to denounce Wikipedia and all it stands for that is against human freedom of speech". Thought someone should know. --clpo13(talk)00:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This 68.236.154.131 fellow cannot be over the age of 17. Clearly, he's bright, but without real experience to back it up. Sometimes, just letting kids (to use a metaphor without denigrating the subject) cry it out is the best way to let them better view the environment, instead of focusing on people who they can blame for the Unfairness Of It All. Your post, while an example of restrained delivery, may not have the effect you would have sought. - Arcayne(cast a spell)05:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. Please feel free to catch me doing the same thing, as I am far more prone to losing my cool and not following my own advice of being a calm fellow. I noticed how you dealt with it on the user's page, and it was done with grace and style. Well-done. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong about my age, I'm 26 and an undergraduate student at SUNY Empire State College. If you want to learn about ESC, go to the article on it here. Currently we are under an interim president, hope to have the new one by June. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESCStudent774441 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noted your comments left on his talk page and wanted to refer you to the note he left on my talk page and the response I left for it on his. This was done after he wrote 2 or 3 personal emails to my private email through Wikipedia in a similar vein. He also did the same to User:Pinkadelica, who has become a Wiki-editing partner of mine. She was forced to cancel an email address because of similar emails. I'm rather at a loss as to what to do. I may have been slightly rude in my last talk page note, but given what he wrote, it was as civil as possible. I had tried to give him some advice on WP article writing and when he wrote my private email on March 8, he was cordial. I heard nothing for nearly a week and then he wrote a long, rambling and offensive note for which I advised him to no longer write my email address or I would turn it into my internet provider. In any case, since you are an adminstrator and also aware of him, I wanted to alert you. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...that's really unfortunate. Please let me know if you receive anything more like this. This editor simply doesn't yet seem to "get it". — Scientizzle14:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Articles for deletion-debate should be moved to the /Old page before deletion according to the guideline.
I couldn't see there was rough consensus to delete the article from the debate. There were several keeps as well as several deletes, with strong arguments on both sides. According to the guideline, it should therefore be kept.
I think it was unfair of you to delete the article refering to reliable coverage, as I - which I mentioned - have started to collect references from academic journals and international newspapers and was not finished with that job.
Whether the article's subject is notable or not, is a highly subjective matter. I think it was a pity that you didn't listen to the deletion debate, which - as seen - couldn't reach consensus in that matter.
The first part is of no matter: a bot updates the overall deletion status of the past-5-day logs.
Consensus is not determined by raw vote tallies, but by the weight of the arguments presented. As an administrator, I'm tasked with evaluating the evidence and arguments presented through the lens of appropriate policies and guidelines. In this case, there were concerns about notability & neutrality. The "keep" arguments were as such:
an ad hominum rant from a banned suckpuppeteer, duly discounted 100%
a claim that the rationale for deletion is solely base on disliking the content of the movie, which didn't address the nomination concerns or any of the other deletion arguments
your arguments, based on minor article improvements, a purported film review in Anthropology Today, that stubs should be allowed to expand, and that there are x number of google hits for a certain search string
a claim that the Anthropology Today source is sufficient unto itself and there is "plenty of discussion elsewhere", but no citations of said discussion
I reject the notion that I "didn't listen to the deletion debate". If you want to count votes--which is what I don't do, but it can be informative--there were six deletes and three keeps (banned user=no valid input). The numbers alone are suggestive of the proper outcome, but in my opinion the keep arguments did not successfully address the arguments of those for deletion, and therefore my determination of policy/guideline-derived consensus was a clear "delete".
Now, all that said, the Anthropology Today is a potentially excellent source. However, its distribution limitations make evaluating the claim that it's a "review" (i.e., substantial coverage rather than incidental) difficult to ascertain. If you wish to email the article to me, I'd be happy to take a look. But, one source isn't enough...Wikipedia:Notability requires demonstrable "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The long-standing history of WP:N is the necessity of multiple sources--and blogs generally do not count to this--that independently cover the topic.
Where does that lead us? You have a couple of options. I'd suggest one of these two possibilities:
If you believe I have not exercised my administrative judgment properly in closing the AfD, you may open a deletion review.
If you can demonstrate to me that there are sources out there to meet the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" requirement, I'll happily restore the article into your userspace so that you can re-work it. This, of course, assumes that the Anthropology Today source is non-trivial in its relevant scope, and other coverage is as well, and you avoid further insults towards me.
Sorry, that was absolutely not my intention to insult you, if you felt so. Anyhow, thanks for the thorough reply! Two final (hopefully) questions then:
I may be stupid, but then I don't really understand the following sentences, from the deletion guide: "After 5 days of discussion, a volunteer will move the day's list of deletion discussions from the active page to the /Old page. Depending on the backlog, it may sit there for several more days, during which it is still acceptable to add comments to the discussion." When I look at the /Old page, there seems to be just logs, pointing to the deletion debate pages, nothing seems really to have been moved there. The deletion guide text above seems to suggest that the deletion debate page should be moved to the old-page, where it will sit for a couple of days more. And I couldn't see that, that was what really happened.
If you could put the deleted article in my userspace, it'd be wonderful. For instance in a subdirectory under my user. Even though it was small, I spent a while on editing it, and didn't make any backup. I will try to collect new references thereafter.
Dear Scientizzle,
I am not a rebel, but alleging that Homeopathic medicine is placebo and it's practice Quackery is objectionable.
Please try to see that no one, especially George William Herbert doesn't block me for sockpuppetry again.
I promise not to be disruptive.
Thanks,
Ramaanand (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Ramaanand[reply]
As long as you follow the policies & guidelines I laid out for you, you'll be fine. I've talked to the other editors, including Georgewilliamherbert (talk·contribs), and they know that I'm trying to help you become a productive editor...
You have to have to understand that we provide all major viewpoints in our articles, including the scientific consensus that homeopathy is placebo, and that many believe practitioners to be quacks. — Scientizzle21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I truly appreciate the time you took back in 2007 to sort out the situation. I intervene this time basicly to get rid of total absurdity which User Dc76 keeps writing on Wikipedia, namely about imagined new name for Balti Steppe, thus ignoring not only common sense, but also Academy of Sciences of Moldova, European Commission, Britannica, etc. I live in the city, and even Moldovans who live outside know that it always existed (I know this is not a persuasive argument), it has been described in ancient works of world known travellers. In the article Balti Plain (to which redirects were made from Balti Steppe) you will find a very strange sentence at the end saying basicly that Russian speaking forced this name. It's totally strange. Steppe is an English word (yes with Russian etymology). I mean, one does not need to go to university to know about Beltsy / Balti Steppe. I put a tag for deletion of the article Balti Plain, cretaed by the same User Dc76, ignoring the consensus reached (anyway why would one need to look for consensus for something as evident as Balti Steppe, it's like seeking for consensus whether we should call Black Sea - White Sea), ignoring presented sources and scientifical research works, and presenting one source, an internet site with porn adds on it, which mentions the phrasing Balti Plain, although not specifying where do the sources come from). User Dc76 also modified sections of Geography of Moldova, to support his invention. Another user, I guess administrator, closed the whole discussion on the nomination for deletion page in couple of minutes the deletion log, harrassing me with allegations of POV, disruptive editing and threatening to "be wise" generally. No diff was presented for POV. Personally I do not appreciat ethis kind of approach, moreover, the renaming problems were discussed in 2007 in detail and I do not see why that user comes back with these insinuations. I am not editing so far anything and would like to see what you and other users will say. For references:[10] and [11]--Moldopodo (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Scientizzle (I'm sorry I don't know your real name),
I'd read somewhere here that one can mention web-sites, so can I mention my web-site on my User Talk Page? What about on the discussion page of articles (if not my own, can I post about other web-sites)?
Please let me know.
Thanks in advance for answering my query.Ramaanand (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Ramaanand[reply]
That's fine by me, as long as you keep an eye on them.
Unless someone has threatened violence or stalked, or advocated pedophilia, I'm ok with giving people second chances as long as someone will pay close attention.
Hate to barge in here, but I am not 100% sure how this edit should be read. It looks like a call to use Dana as a sort of proxy to insert some "proof" of homeopathy into the article. It looks like this user could probably use some mentoring in order to become a contributer on WP. Baegis (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Workin' on it--that edit doesn't worry me too much, but I've tried to reign in the energies misplaced on proselytizing. We'll see... — Scientizzle16:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This week, its back to stubs with one of the largest newspapers in the state, The Register-Guard, and a request with Oregon Coast. Feel free to help with either one, and the paper article is so short a DYK should be pretty easy to get (just need 5X expansion). As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please put this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page and mention it is posted by me
Dear Scientizzle,
Please put this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page and mention it is posted by me (or else the others may think I've bribed you); I'm not yet able to post there directly myself because the Page is semi-writeprotected.
Here are some of the studies/clinical trials:-
big-ass list
STUDIES OF THE ACTIVITY OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINES
ORIGINAL/TRANSLATED TITLE
AUTHOR(S)
PUBLICATION
ACTIVITY
STUDY
Inhibition of lymphoblasttransformation
test (LTT) inphytohaemagglutinin
(PHA) withPhytolacca
americana inhomeopathic
dilution
Colas H.,
Aubin M.,
Picard P.,
Lebecq J.C.
Ann. Homéopat.
Fr., 1975,
6: 1-11.
Inhibitory
Lymphoblast
transformation
Inquiry into the limits of biologicaleffects
of chemical compounds intissue
culture. I. Low dose effects ofmercure
chloride
Mansvelt J.D.,
van Amons E.
Z.
Naturtorschung,
1975, 30:
643-649.
Inhibitory
Lymphocyte
growth
The effects of Belladonna andFerrum
phosphoricum on thechemoluminescence
of humanpoly-morphonuclear
neutrophils
Poitevin B.,
Aubin M.,
Royer J.F.
Ann. Homéop. Fr.,
1983, 3: 5-12.
Inhibitory
Radical release
Effect of aconitum and veratrum
on the isolated perfused heart of
the common eel (Anguilla
anguilla)
Pennec J.P.,
Aubin M.
Comp. Biochem.
Physiol., 1984,
776: 367-369.
Protective
Aconitine toxicity
Elements of homeopathic
pharmacology
Aubin M.
Homéopathie
Franç., 1984,
72:
231- 235
Protective
Aconitine toxicity
The effect of homeopathic
preparations on the phagocyte
activity of granulocytes. In vitro
tests and double-blind controlled
trials
Wagner H.,
Jurcic K.,
Doenicke A.,
Rosenhuber E.,
Behrens N.
Arzneim.
Forsch./Drug Res.,
1986, 36:
1424-1425.
Stimulant
Phagocytosis
Approach to quantitative analysis
of the effect of Apis mellifica on
the degranulation of human
basophils cultivated in vitro
Poitevin B.,
Aubin M.,
Benveniste J.
Innov. Tech. Biol.
Med., 1986,
7:
64-68.
Inhibitory
Basophil
degranulation
In vitro stimulation of humangranulocytes
and lymphocytes bypico-
and femtogram quantities ofcytostatic
agents
Wagner H.,
Kreher B.,
Jurcic K.
Arzneim.Forsch./Drug
Res.,1988,
38:273-275.
Stimulant
Lymphocyte
growth
Human basophil degranulationtriggered
by very dilute antiserumagainst
IgE
Davenas E., Beauvais
F.,Amara J.,Robinson
M.,Miadonna A.,Tedeschi
A.,Pomeranz B.,Fortner
P.,Belon P.,Sainte-Laudy
J.,Poitevin B.,Benveniste
J.
Nature, 1988,
333: 816-818.
Stimulant
Basophils
In vitro
immunological
degranulation of human basophils
is modulated by lung histamine
and Apis mellifica
Poitevin B.,
Davenas E.,
Benveniste J.
Brit. J. Clin.
Pharmacol., 1988,
25: 439-444.
Inhibitory
Basophil
degranulation
Cytotoxic agents as
immunomodulators
Wagner H.,
Kreher B.
Proc. of the 3rd
GIRI meeting,
Paris, 1989,
31-
46.
Stimulant
Lymphocyte
growth
Contributions of fundamental
research in homeopathy
Boiron J.,
Belon P.
Berl. J. Res. Hom.,
1990, 1: 34-35.
Inhibitory
Basophil
degranulation
Synergism of action between
indoleacetic acid (IAA) and highly
diluted solutions of CaCO3 on the
growth of oat coleoptiles
Bornoroni C.
Berl. J. Res. Hom.,
1991, 1 (4/5):
275-278.
Stimulant
Growth of plant
cells
Study of the action of
Hahnemannian dilutions of
mercury chloride on the mitotic
index in animal cell cultures.
Boiron J.,
Abecassis J.,
Cotte J.,
Bernard A.M.
Ann. Homéop.
Fr., 1991,
23:
43-49.
Protective
Hg toxicity
Dual effects of formylpeptides on
the adhesion of endotoxin-primed
human neutrophils
Bellavite P.,
Chirumbolo S.,
Lippi G.,
Andrioli G.,
Bonazzi L.,
Ferro I.
Cell. Biochem.
Funct., 1993,
11:
231-239.
Inhibitory
Cell adhesion
(bact. pept.
10-8-10-9)
Effects of homeopathic
preparations of organic acids and
of minerals on the oxidative
metabolism of human neutrophils
Chirumbolo S.,
Signorini A.,
Bianchi I.,
Lippi G.,
Bellavite P.
Br. Hom. J., 1993,
82: 227-244.
Inhibitory
Leucocyte
activation
(metabolism)
Platelets/endothelial cells
interactions in presence of
acetylsalicylic acid at ultra low
dose
Doutremepuich
C.,
Lalanne M.C.,
Ramboer I.,
Sertillanges
M.N.,
De Seze O.
Omeomed 92 (C.
Bornoroni, ed.),
1993, Editrice
Compositori,
Bologna:
109-115.
Inhibitory
Prostacyclin
release
Effect of high dilutions of epidermal
growth factor (EGF) on in
vitro
proliferation of keratinocyte and
fibroblast cell lines
Fougeray S.,
Moubry K.,
Vallot N.,
Bastide M.
Br. Hom. J., 1993,
82: 124-125.
Inhibitory
Growth of
keratinocytes
Effects of different homeopathic
potencies of Lachesis on
lymphocyte cultures obtained
from rabbit blood
Enbergs H.,
Arndt G.
Biol. Tier., 1993,
4.
Stimulant
Mitotic and
immunostimulating
activity (bact. pept
10-5-10-6)
The effect of homeopathic
potencies of housedust mite on
the migration of house-dust sensitive
human leukocytes
Gibson S.L.,
Gibson R.G.
Complement.
Ther. Med., 1996,
4: 169-171.
Stimulant
Leucocyte
chemotaxis
The effects of Nux vomica
Homaccord and Atropinum comp.
on intestinal activity in vitro
Kanui T.I.,
Enbergs H.
Biol. Tier., 1996/1,
43-47.
Stimulant
Contraction of
intestinal muscles
Application of flow cytometry to
the analysis of the
immunosuppressive effect of
histamine dilutions on human
basophil action: effect of
cimetidine
Sainte-Laudy J.,
Belon P.
Inflamm. Res.,
1997, 46:
S27-S28.
Inhibitory
Basophil
degranulation
Effects of Podophillum pellatum
compounds in various
preparations and dilutions on
human neutrophil functions in
vitro
Chirumbolo S.,
Conforti A.,
Lussignoli S.,
Metelmann H.
et Al.
Br. Hom. J., 1997;
86-16.
Inhibitory
Release of
superoxides
In vivo and
in vitro studies
on the
efficiency of potentized and nonpotentized
substances
Harisch G.,
Dittmann J.
BT, 1997,
2;
40-46.
Difference between
potentised and
non-potentised
substances
In vivo and in
vitro study;
basic
research
Experiments with the effects of
Ubichinon-Injeel and strong
Ubichinon-Injeel on an acellular
system
Harisch G.,
Dittmann J.
BM, 1997,
3;
99-104.
Different effects of
associations of
various potencies and
individual potencies
In vitro study;
basic research
Efficacy of the homeopathic drugs
Suis and Arnica comp.-Heel® on
lymphocyte and phagocyte
activity
Enbergs H.
BM, 1998,
1;
3-11.
Effect of
organotherapeutics
and Arnica comp. -
Heel® on immune
system cells
In vitro study;
basic research
Influence of dilutions and
potencies of cAMP on different
enzymatic systems
Harisch G.,
Dittmann J.
BM, 1998,
2;
55-62.
Effects of dilutions
and potencies of
cAMP on some
enzymatic activities
In vitro study;
basic research
Studies of the principles of
homeopathy; the changeover
from in
vivo to in
vitro
experimental research
Harisch G.,
Dittmann J.
BM, 1998,
3;
98-103.
Potentised and
non-potentised
dilutions are
equally effective,
but have different
actions
Basic
research
Determination of the activity ofacid
phosphatase with cAMP atvarious
potencies
Harisch G.,
Dittmann J.
BM, 1999,
1; 4-8.
Different effects on enzymatic
activity
In vitro study;
basic research
Contribution to study of the
efficacy of homeopathic potencies
of phosphorus
Gomez J.C.
BT, 1999,
2;
53-57.
Effect of different
potencies of
phosphorus
Tests on guinea
pigs
Determination of the activity of
acid phosphatase in the presence
of Ubichinon comp.
Harisch G.,
Dittmann J.
BM, 1999,
4;
188-194.
Effect of enzymatic
activity of
homeopathic
medicine
Basic
research
Biochemical efficacy of
homeopathic and electronic
preparations of D8 potassium
cyanate
Dittmann J.,
Kanapin H.,
Harisch G.
FKM, 1999,
6;
15-18.
Homeopathic
potentisation is
more effective than
electronic
potentisation
Basic
research
Osteoporosis in vitro in rat tibiaderived
osteoblasts is promoted
by the homeopathic preparation,
FMS Calciumfluor
Palermo C.,
Filanti C.,
Poggi S.,
Manduca P.
Cell Biol Int, 1999,
23(1): 31-40.
Stimulant
Osteogenesis
(trial with
compound drug)
Thin-layer chromatography (TLC)
of homeopathic active
constituents
Schmolz
M.
BM, 1999,
5;
248-250.
Constituents of Arnica
comp.- Heel® ointment: electrophoresis
accelerates their skin
penetration.
Basic research
Effect of homeopathic
constituents on enzymatic
activity.
Basic research
Efficacy of a potentised
homeopathic drug in reducing
cytotoxic effects produced by
arsenic trioxide in mice
Datta S.,
Mallick P.,
Bukhsh A.R.
Complement Ther
Med, 1999
Jan;
7 (8): 62-75 (a).
Protective
Arsenic trioxide
toxicity
Efficacy of a potentised
homeopathic drug in reducing
cytotoxic effects produced by
arsenic trioxide in mice
Datta S.,
Mallick P.,
Bukhsh A.R.
Complement Ther
Med, 1999
Sep;
7 (3): 156-63 (b).
Protective
Arsenic trioxide
toxicity
Non-cytotoxic antiviral action ofa
homeopathic drug
Heine H.
Ärzteitschrift für
Neturheilverfahre,
2000; 41: 542-7.
Stimulant
ã interferon
synthesis
Efficacy of a potentised
homeopathic drug in reducing
cytotoxic effects produced by
arsenic trioxide in mice
Kundu S.N.,
Mitra K.,
Khuda
Bukhsh A.R.
Complement Ther
Med , 2000
Sep;
1 (3): 157-65.
Protective
Arsenic trioxide
toxicity
Stimulatory effect of some plant
extracts used in homeopathy on
the phagocytosis induced
chemiluminescence of
polymorphonuclear leukocytes
Crocnan D.,
Greabu M.,
Olinescu R.
Rocz Akad Med
Biochemist, 2000;
45: 246-254.
Stimulant
Phagocytosis
Difference between the efficacy
of single potencies and chords
Dittmann J.,
Harisch G.
BM, 2000,
1;
18-23.
Potency chords are
more effective than
single potencies
Basic research
Influence of some homeopathic
drugs on the catalytic activity of
uricase, acid phosphatase and the
cytosol glutathion-S-transferase
Dittmann J.,
Kanapin H.,
Harisch G.
BM, 2000,
3;
125-131
Effect of D8
potencies on three
different enzymatic
systems
Basic research
Influence of some homeopathic
drugs on the catalytic activity of
cAMP-dependent protein kinases
Dittmann J.,
Kanapin H.,
Harisch G.
BM, 2000,
6;
289-296.
Effect of different
potencies of 5
substances on
enzymatic activity
Basic research
Neuroprotection from glutamate
toxicity with ultra-low dose
glutamate
Jonas W.,
Lin Y.,
Zortella F.
Neuroreport,
2001 Feb 92; 12
(2): 335-9.
Protective
Glutamate
toxicity
KEY: BT = Biomedical Therapy
BM = Biologische Medizin
FKM = Forschung Komplementär Medizin
Okay, so all you did was copy the table in the book you keep on about. News flash: this won't convince anyone. We all know about this stuff. Furthermore, it's notable that this list includes a variety of crappy trials in vitro trails published largely in homeopathy-sympathetic journals. It even cites the work of Benveniste, which was famously found to be incorrect. The fact that this book would readily cite such discredited work as a "proof" of efficacy shows a severe deficiency in relevant knowledge and/or scientific ethics. That this book claims
A number of large-scale studies designed to evaluate the huge amount of homeopathic literature have been conducted...All of them have concluded that homeopathy possesses therapeutic efficacy
C'mon Scientizzle, not all of them are discredited. Benveniste's work has also been repeated by others and found to be correct (never mind James Randi)Ramaanand (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Dr.Jhingadé[reply]
I see that he posted this to you as well... Or rather, it looks like after you decided not to post in his stead, he came to me. While this request had me wondering if it was appropriate in the first place, forum-shopping for someone to post it for him after an admin refuses stretches good faith. --Infophile(Talk)(Contribs)03:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He just put it on Filll's page and I reverted it. That is 6 so far (Scientizzle, Filll, Infophile, Arion (who I assume he thought was Arion 3x3), Hans Adler, and GTBacchus) I think he needs a harsher punishment. This might be a good AN/I case. Baegis (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yesterday a debate started about the maps on the same-sex marriage page. In sum, a decision was made - by several users and an admin - that the maps do not follow wiki's source policy as the maps are self created and do not provide sources. I noticed today dominik92 ignored the talk page and acted alone in changing the page back to include the maps. I have left him a message on his talk page but he just does not seem interested in repling or rv the page. Can you rv the page. Thank youThright (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ps- I should provide a quote, "About the same-sex marriage page, I really don't give a shit" also he said admins are meaning less. In any event sorry for the flood, and remember I am acting in good faith. Take careThright (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Scientizzle, I have nothing against Thright and you can check his/her talk to see that the quotes were taken out of context. I simply said that an admin's opinion holds no more weight than another user's (straight from a policy page). I'm really sorry to be bothering you over something so dumb, I think that Thright might be borderline disruptive, removing legitimate good faith comments, calling edits personal attacks and vandalism. Again, sorry for all this, happy editing!. The Dominator (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this civil?
Left by Dominik92 on my talk page:
I see nothing on the talk that suggests consensus, all in all I really don't care, but I find the maps useful. An admin's opinion holds no more weight than any other user's opinion. I really don't think that a new users who violates policy with nearly every edit should be asking me to review policy. PS: we're building an encyclopedia here, and I see you're approach disruptive. For example, barnstars are given out to users who you feel have done exceptional work and mean absolutely nothing more than a pat on the back. And I think you're too new a user to be voting at RfA even though there is no official cutoff, sucking up to admins has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. I suggest you refrain from giving out tips (that are 99% of the time incorrect) as a new user. About the same-sex marriage page, I really don't give a shit, I would prefer some visual representation, but eh. comment left on my talk page.
I find the above comment ill-hearted and unjust. No proof has been given how I have violated policy, and that I am disruptice because I award users who desire to be praised with barnstars? ALso the user is upset that I vote on wiki issues and admins?? In any case I have been around wiki for several months and decided recently to create an account because I like the project. Dominik assumes that I am 'new' when in fact I am not. I would be worried with some of his answers, "all in all I really don't care", "I really don't think that a new users who violates policy" no proof, "I see you're approach disruptive, [for giving out barnstars], "And I think you're too new a user to be voting at RfA", he thinks, is he the policy maker?, "from giving out tips (that are 99% of the time incorrect)" again where is the proof, and "I really don't give a shit" this was just rude.Thright (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what it's about?! Haha! You misunderstood me, when I said "I don't care" I meant that you are free to revert me, not that I don't care about consensus! I just meant that the article doesn't mean much to me personally and you can revert me, I was giving you the thumbs up not the finger! And sorry about the swear if you find it offensive, I sometimes swear, most people don't mind, but I'm sincerely sorry if it bothers you. The Dominator (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Scientizzle,
If you ignore the extra keep vote by User:Diamonddannyboy, the multiple comments by him, and the comment by the single purpose ip of 90.208.51.74, then there is indeed a consensus to delete. Furthermore, nearly all of the keep votes admit that there are no reliable sources for the subject of the article. Because of this, I am listing this article at deletion review. RogueNinjatalk17:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please reban this guy. Here is what he writes on his talk page, and it's not the first time he's said this:
"Dear Hans, I'm just a couple of days old here; I'm not even willing to be an editor here, but I can't stand the allegation that we (Homeopathic Doctors) use Placebos and are Quacks (I'm a Qualified Homeopathic Doctor who's healed more than 10,000 Patients)Ramaanand (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)" [12][reply]
He's obviously not interested in being an editor, but in defending and advocating homeopathy. That should be grounds enough to block his IPs and User names. -- Fyslee / talk04:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Scientizzle...this user was only 5-days old, and although he has made numerous mistakes, this guy is green. Let's not bite the newbies. Like yourself, I tried to educate him, but it does take a little time for editors to educate the newbies. I know that you quoted him saying that he is "not willing to be an editor here" [13]. However, I am not at all clear what he was meaning to say here. My bottomline is that he has made many mistakes, and he does deserve some serious restrictions, but I feel that a total ban is unfair (once again, he's a neonate). He has shown glimmers of possibility. DanaUllmanTalk01:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dana, this editor has been active in various forms since March 1. He jumped straight into edit-warring and spamming the talk page with his diatribe, ad did not listen to earlier editors trying to reign him in. He used up community patience very rapidly with his first couple of accounts, and then decided to "start rotating his IP" to avoid justifiable blocks for disruption and socking. Instead of blocking, I offered this chance to start fresh. I laid out all the basics very clearly up front and clearly very little sank in; his edits indicated implicitly, then explicitly, a desire not to build an encyclopedia, but to battle. Nobody had to offer this chance, but I did. And now I've decided to cut my losses; I'm not willing to go to bat for him any more. I won't oppose or get in your way if you want to convince some other administrator to unblock--particularly if you're willing to handhold this guy--but I'm just not interested in doing that myself. — Scientizzle03:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that he's continued in the same vein, evading the block with another IP, I can't imagine another chance being appropriate. — Scientizzle04:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you will notice on my talk page, Scientizzle, I have decided to retire from the Wikipedia community. I'd prefer to keep my reasons for doing so to myself, but I feel in one way there's been too much infighting on here between administration and individual editors. And also, I don't have much if any editing experience so I hereby hand in my retirement effective immediately. Good luck to all who remain. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez. I know that some of you have also found that he also posted this same thing on my user page, but on both of these pages, he signed it with his real name. My point here is that he is so green, such a newbie, that he doesn't understand what a block is, though he seems to be an honest guy. Does he get any credit for that? I suggest that you give him a several month block, with a very very short leash after that. DanaUllmanTalk04:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether he is a brick or something less dense, the bottomline is that he is super-green, and I think we were all dense in our first week. He has shown good faith. He shouldn't be banned indefinately. DanaUllmanTalk17:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<undent>There are several things operating here. While I feel bad for him in a certain way, there is a limit to how much disruption we need to tolerate. What has gone on since this article was beautifully rewritten is just atrocious. A flood of alternative medicine, pseudoscience, mysticism and homeopathy proponents has appeared at the page, and have declared, loud and long, that they do not intend to abide by the principles on which Wikipedia is organized and under which it operates. They have demanded over and over and over that they get their way, even when it has been explained to them repeatedly that this is not possible or desirable.
The talk page has sometimes been a nightmare, with spamming of horrendous proportions, and it had to be archived every day or two at the peak because so much nonsense was being spewed. The community has had to go through 3 or 4 RfCs, which are incredibly wasteful and time consuming to just slow this process down, and get one or two of the most destructive elements to leave. In the face of this, many more mainstream productive editors just throw up their hands in disgust and say they cannot be bothered; and this includes people of all persuasions, pro science and pro alternative medicine. None of this is productive or efficient or useful.
And into this mix marches Dr. R. J., who just violates rule after rule. He is told how to behave, and then goes ahead and does whatever he likes, violating the rules he has just been told about. And then does it again. And again. And he announces that he intends to violate the rules and principles of WP. Repeatedly. He is cautioned and does it again. And again.
When I was new, I was cautious about making mistakes. I did not know what I was doing, and I knew it, and I wanted to learn what the rules were here so I could contribute and avoid giving offense. I took the advice of experienced editors and I learned. Dr. R. J. appears to exhibit none of those attributes. Maybe this is the result of a misunderstanding, but he shows nothing but what might be interpreted as extreme contempt for the system here and for his fellow editors. He seems to spit in our faces, figuratively, over and over. He does not seem to care what the truth is. He does not seem to care what the rules are. He behaves in a way that might be viewed as only demanding that we kowtow to his demands and massive ego. At some point, this gets old. Particularly when we have been through many many months of similar behavior already from other malcontents.
At what point do we get to say "enough"? What does Dr. R. J. have to contribute that I am unaware of? He wants the article written in a way that violates NPOV that is uncritical of homeopathy. Ok I got that part. He has a bunch of substandard studies which have been dismissed he wants to present as proof. Ok I got that part. He appears not to understand science or statistics or the placebo effect or many other concepts. Ok I understand that. And he appears to want to act like a lout and obnoxious bully essentially, like a bull in a china shop. Well, we have had enough bullying on this article. We are engaged in a collaborative enterprise, and we do not need another contributor with this sort of mindset. Sorry.
I apologize if any of this offends anyone; it is just the impression I am given. And so, where is the point at which the community should say "enough" ? --Filll (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave my impression. I made it very clear this is my impression. Are you claiming that is not my impression? Then, since you know all, please be good enough to tell me what my impression of the situation is. I would be most interested to hear you tell us all, and in particular me, what my personal impression of the situation is.--Filll (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Filll, where did he say or suggest that he "wants the article written in a way that violates NPOV that is uncritical of homeopathy"? This article does not yet give adequate voice to the greater number of high quality clinical and basic sciences studies that exist. While this gentleman dumped too many articles of research in an unformated form, at least he put them on Talk pages in order to stimulate discussion. He didn't edit war or push information into the articles. On another subject here... One of these days, people here will realize that the words "quack" and "quackery" are as offensive to some people as the N word is to blacks. If your life and someone's life close to you has been saved by homeopathy (or simply significantly improved), you too would have righteous indignation about its use in this article. I feel that the old-time editors here need to be sensitive to newbies who may rightly or wrongly feel that there is inadequate NPOV in the homeopathy article. While I certainly also understand that the use of the Q words are common, so was the N word in the 1950s. Would you have wanted the N word in your encyclopedia? DanaUllmanTalk00:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to contrast this approach to "the Q word" with the approach to the use of the word "allopathy" (a derogatory term invented by Samuel Hahnemann to describe the orthodox medicine of his time) found here[15]. Brunton (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done DanaUllman. You have nicely dodged my challenge to Anthon01 to describe how my statements describing my impressions were inaccurate since what I thought were my impressions are not really my impressions. Just obfuscate and change topics, right? We are so stupid we won't even notice.
As for the N word, guess what? It has an article here [16]. And actually, yes I think as long as we are an uncensored venue, I think an article on the N word is fine. As well as using the Q word. And I have not been one of the advocates of using the Q word, but in fact some do use it to refer to homeopathy, do they do not? Do you deny this? This is the essence of NPOV that you do not get and you refuse to get. So not only was Dr. R. J. pushing to ignore NPOV, you are as well. Very reasonable...NOT.
I will note that interestingly, both the German and the Dutch Wikipedia articles on homeopathy both use a word that translates as quackery. Wait, I thought that homeopathy was so much more popular in those countries? Well guess what; for NPOV, they use the word "quackery" because there are a substantial number of people that call homeopathy a form of quackery. Sorry, but that is the truth. You might not like it, but that is the truth. The German and Dutch Wikipedia articles were clearly not written by some evil conspiracy of Americans that do not understand the true value of homeopathy. They were written by people who know what NPOV is. Which everyone should learn as soon as possible so we can work constructively together and not fight.
As for the large number of research studies that show that homeopathy works, what about the large number of research studies that show it does not? Is the Swiss Health Service just cherry picking only the studies that show it does not work, in their moves to cut government support for homeopathy? Or might they actually be doing something reasonable and rational?
As you know, I have argued repeatedly that we should have a separate article thrashing these all out. We do not have room in the main article for more of this nonsense; only a summary can be given there. But you forget I have watched the discussion on the talk page for months, and most of those "high quality studies" when examined critically were found to be a big load of nonsense and full of holes and defects and problems of one type or another. And this was demonstrated clearly. Then a week or two later, homeopathy proponents ignoring the fact that their claims had been debunked, just reposted the same stuff again. And it was debunked again. And they posted again and again and again and again, dozens if not hundreds of times. And you know, after a few months of this, it starts to look a little deceitful and a little disingenuous and starts to look as though many of the alternative medicine proponents are not willing to work in a collaborative and cooperative environment and to compromise. It starts to look bad, in other words. The sooner you accept what NPOV means, the more productive you will be. It means we have to describe all relevant views. We cannot whitewash things just because you want that. Sorry. Look to see how Peter Morrell deals with things. He compromises. We all have to. So please learn to compromise as well.--Filll (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fill, I suggest that you give up on this one. Unfortunately the ASPOV pushers are dangling something in front of you, rather than actually try to resolve the "issue". Shot info (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are unfortunately probably correct. This is probably a trap to try to charge me with some sort of egregious violation of CIVIL or AGF or EQ or something. At least I thought I would try, yet again for about the gazillionith time, to appeal to people's reasonableness.
Let's try to abide by the principles of WP. I did not invent them. I did not even understand them when I first started editing. But senior editors explained them to me, as I am explaining them now. And I realized that they were not so hard to understand, and made a lot of sense.
Slow down and breath, Filll. First, please don't expect me to answer for another editor, Anthon01. Your expectations for this are a tad odd. I didn't said that we should not use the Q word. I said that it was offensive. In fact, I wrote at Dr J's user-page that this word is "prevalent" in association with homeopathy, so it has a place here. That said, the homeopathy article does not make adequate reference to the many "high quality" research studies that exist and some statement needs to be made in response to the charges of quackery. In the coming weeks, I will discuss this at the Talk page. Just remember, to qualify as a high quality study, such research must have internal and external validity. The Shang "review", for instance, had no external validity. DanaUllmanTalk15:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to insist that we fork off this discussion into a sandbox construction of an article on Scientific investigation of homeopathy. To have this discussion for the umpteenth time, and capture none of the claims and counterclaims, and have it just be repeated again and again, with lots of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, is just ridiculous. We have repeated this discussion often enough. And frankly, although I have only watched from the sidelines, my impression is that there is just too much selective reading of the literature and intentional confusion and obfuscation.--Filll (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said "A flood of alternative medicine, pseudoscience, mysticism and homeopathy proponents has appeared at the page, and have declared, loud and long, that they do not intend to abide by the principles on which Wikipedia is organized and under which it operates." Are these facts or impressions? Regardless, I thought facts might be more useful. Anthon01 (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scientizzle, I considered what you said and I decided I will come back from retirement. It isn't my time to hang it up yet. Still much work ahead. But you'll have to excuse me, I am tired and will have to resume in the morning. I need some serious sleep. See you later. Drop me a note at my talk page. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As of tonight Scientizzle, I am officially back out of retirement. At least as far as this account is concerned. The IP address I originated from though, I am leaving that talk page on retired status. But I am back and in your service. Hope to hear from you. As a side note, saw alot of nasty comments about Wikipedia from Citizendium's founder. Sorry to hear about it. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a curious message from user:Filll and looking over his talk page saw someone on his page named VigilancePrime. I noticed he's been indefinitely blocked. Why wasn't I treated like him? What was his apparent wrong? I may take a look at his talk page and review the matter for myself. Hope you're doing okay Scientizzle, I miss hearing from you. Drop me a line at my own talk page. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Scientizzle, hope to have your guidance at getting started. I'd like to start an article on my own healh plan, Capital District Physicians Health Plan, CDPHP for short. You have Aetna here and I think it'd just be fair to write about my plan here. It's the insurance company that is the provider of my Medicaid benefits on a contract with the State. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi... I don't think we've interacted much before, so hello! I see at User_talk:ESCStudent774441#Enough. that you've blocked this user indef based on actions, mostly those after the user came off a 24 hour block. I think your block is completely justified, but I'd like to ask your approval for an unblock, one last chance if you like. I am a bit of a softie, to be sure, but if you read what I wrote there, and what the user replied, perhaps we finally are getting through to this user. With your approval I'd unblock, and keep an eye on the user's activities... if any of this foolishness recurs any admin should feel free to reinstate. If you don't approve I won't. You can answer here, I watch. Or answer on that thread on his page, whatever seems best. Thanks for your efforts on behalf of the project. ++Lar: t/c13:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy folks, its time for another installment of WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week! Last week we made some improvements to the Oregon Coast and brought The Register-Guard up to B class while garnering a DYK! Great job to those who lent a hand. This week we finish up the High priority Stubs with former mayor and Speaker of the House, Vera Katz, which is pretty much a Start class now and could easily get to B class. We also have History of Oregon by request. Help out if you can, where you can. As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Real Ale is an endagered species in the UK. In 1977 CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale) was set up to raise awareness of this fact, and to attempt to increase the popularity of the drink. Despite this, sales of real ale still continue to decline, partially due to a lack of interest from younger people in comparison to lager. Therefore University real ale societies are one important way to stem this tide, and promote appreciation of real ale. Is this not strong enough grounds for importance/significance of the Oxford University Real Ale Society that you feel it necessary to remove our page? --Bbaxte (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Lee Childs (poker player), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Lee Childs (poker player) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Lee Childs (poker player), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I extended those IP blocks for the genesis vandal on the evolution draft article, do you think that was necessary, or is this pointless with a dynamic IP? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno Tim. I'd guess that it probably doesn't make a difference on the vandal's end, where a new IP address may only be a new IExplorer window away each time. I'm not techno-savvy enough to really know what would be best in this case. I do think your implemented approved-revision solution is a good thing to try out. — Scientizzle21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AuburnPilot. I goofed around & left a joke edit (of good humor) up for a minute and self-reverted, and didn't do anything more when asked not to continue (though I had no plans after having my fun). Hardly worth a block a full hour later... — Scientizzle23:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you got a chance to read my reply to your and others' comments at [18]. I acknowledge my appreciation of you and your contributions, though I also questioned the accuracy of a couple of your new statements here. Please take my comments in the constructive way in which they are offered, and I look forward to more dialogue. I didn't comment there about that slew of studies posted, though I can and should say that I prefer to only list and comment on what secondary sources define as "high quality" research. Listing all studies is way overwhelming. My effort to provide info on the meta-analyses and reviews of research in RS journals seems preferred. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what I wrote there, especially my first comment. DanaUllmanTalk04:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dana, I'll certainly reply there when I get a chance...Please know that I never take good-faith criticism or argument as anything beyond that--reasonable people can disagree and debate topics like civilized folk--and I endeavor to make my critical additions to these discussions as respectful as possible. I think there is a middle ground here that can be achieved (namely, it is important to state within the article that there are studies that have positive-toward-homeopathy interpretations of their results, even if I believe the most plausible explanations have nothing to do with any efficacy of the treatment--and I'll work towards that goal. My time, however, may be short today... — Scientizzle16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It's a pity that people's inborn sense of humor is so variable that a little harmless fun isn't welcome by all... — Scientizzle16:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. If you're not too busy, could you restore this article to my user space? I missed it being prodded and I seem to recall the guy had a few shreds of notability. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thank you for userfying the page I had started now at user:CyclePat/Rhumart. As I work to improve this article there where some resources which I had published on the talk page. I was wondering if you could retrieve this information from the talk page. In particular I'm looking to get the information that gave an annotation about the "Contact talk radio". Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the GFDL, I think that the article should be restored to preserve the edit history and made into a redirect to Laois Junior Hurling Championships. As the AFD noninator, it doesn't feel right for me to do that, but coukd you do?
To you sir, I removed your old indefinite block template on my talk page. I did so on the belief it's my right to start over fresh without those things to make me look like a monster. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That image was a mistake. I was trying to create an award to give out when I see fit. Delete that one. Stars certainly are good templates for award creation. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Scientizzle, this letter is to let you know sir, that I have put myself forward in self nomination for the position of administrator. I write as a matter of common courtesy out of respect for you as a fellow human being and an experienced admin and fellow user. Feel free to write to me at my talk page. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scientizzle...Someone archived our active discussion about homeopathic research, so I took the liberty of re-inserting it [19]. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. DanaUllmanTalk02:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned the archive page, and told misza to wait 5 days instead of 3. If there are no new messages on 2 days more, it will get archived again by the bot --Enric Naval (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that MiszaBot won't so active now--activity on that page has slowed some from its peak...
Dana, and anyone else reading this: I have recently become extraordinarily swamped at work and will likely be unavailable for any on-Wiki activity until probably next Monday. I'll try to read the progress of the relevant pages occasionally, but I think I'll just be out of the loop for a while... — Scientizzle16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have indicated on my talkpage, I have decided to retire from Wikipedia, this time for keeps. I'm pretty sure this makes you happy. Anyway, reasons are stated on my talk page for reference. Good luck to your endeavors here and elsewhere. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon folks and entities. Thanks to those who helped out with improving Vera Katz and History of Oregon during the last Collaboration of the Week! As you may have noticed, we have changed the banners a bit, but not our dedication to everything Oregon! This week, in honor of the political process, we have: Current Oregon Senate members & Current Oregon House members. Hopefully by November we can have an article on every current member of the Oregon Legislature. So feel free to turn a red link blue or expand an existing article. Since it is an election year, there should be plenty of newspaper stories. Plus, the state archives has this site that allows you to go back and see when they started serving and district info, plus at a minimum show they were a state legislator from a WP:RS. And per WP:BIO, all state legislator's are notable so no need to worry about AFD. As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do feel free to add items to the list on my talkpage so as to build up a corpus of studies both positive and negative. I am happy for both types to go there. thanks Peter morrell07:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW have just copied and pasted that bunch of stuff (you submitted) from the homeopathy talkpage archive onto to the studies page. Hope that's OK. Hopefully it can be expanded and reformatted as time goes. Peter morrell08:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy Ho WikiProject Oregon! Time for another installment of Collaboration of the Week. The last few weeks we’ve knocked out quite a few articles of our current state legislators, and even a few former ones too. Great job to all those who helped make it happen. On a related note, we have had several DYKs from this and now have 53 DYKs so far this year (not counting multiples), less than four full months into the year. Last year we had a total of 83 DYKs for the entire year, and 7 combined for 2006 & 2005. So we are well on our way to another record year. Each time an article makes it to the main page as a DYK it will typically get an extra 1000 hits, which is usually far more than the typical 100 hits per month most minor articles receive. With that said, this week we have two requests, Portland Lumberjax and Silicon Forest. As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented on your confusing posting here [22] Can you respond and provide some clarification or apology for the exaggeration or misunderstand or something? DanaUllmanTalk22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure he read your comment on the K2Cr2O7 but choose to emply WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Welcome to the wacky world of dealing with Dana on talk pages. Now you can better understand where the frustration is ultimately rooted. Baegis (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
today I'm very tired (actually, i'm totally wasted). Tomorrow I'll follow your advice and try to reduce the word count. Thanks for telling me --Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little burned, so I have been for a few days working mostly at MfD, AfD and DRV and not touching the evidence. Today I have made the changes and pointed to your evidence [24] --Enric Naval (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! :) In November, Nothic was nominated for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, you deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters, which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? BOZ (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know that Dixiana (band) did assert notability when you tagged it -- it said they charted two Top 40 singles (specifically, two #39 hits on the Hot Country Songs charts, as well as a #66.) However, the article was a copyvio when you tagged it. I have since rewritten it from scratch and added their All Music Guide link as a source; I think it looks much better now. (This particular article was on my wish list, so I'm glad it got created, even if it was created by a n00b.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)18:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay...I often put the {{notability}} tag on even if there's a clear assertion of notability as it asserts that such claims should be properly referenced. — Scientizzle18:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
