User talk:Rhetth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Rhetth, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 05:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Human Picture[edit]

Hi Rhetth, I think you should contact the individuals you're using as the prototype image for the "human" page. I'm sure they'd be flattered to know they have such a lauded place in the Wikipedia cannon.

Cheers, Concerned in Manhattan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.149.69 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Restaurant categories[edit]

Hi, Rhetth! I noticed that you are doing some editing and organization of restaurant categories. The way categories work is sometimes non-intuitive, so you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Category. Unfortunately, in the case of regional hierarchies (as you probably have discovered) previous editors have not always been consistent in how they are applied and in preserving a true hierarchy. As it is, if you add a more specific subcategory, please be sure to remove any redundant parent categories (e.g., if you add Category:Restaurants in Missouri, you should remove Category:Restaurants in the United States); and usually we do not add nonexistent (redlinked) categories unless they are going to be populated (e.g., Category:Restaurants in Kansas City).

I have also been working on categorization and recategorization of restaurant articles, so I'm sure we'll run into each other again. You might be interested in looking at WikiProject Food and drink and help me restart the project. Cheers, MCB 00:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User page semi-protection[edit]

Hi, Rhetth - I have semi-protected your user page, which should help keep it from being repeatedly vandalized by what appears to be a spambot. You (and other registered editors) can edit it, but anon IPs cannot. After a while we can remove the semi-protection and see if the spammer has moved on to other targets. Best, --MCB 21:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Core[edit]

Hi. I removed the core (anatomy) link you added to the disambiguation page core, on the basis that disambig pages aren't glossaries, but a way to distinguish information that exists on Wikipedia and which may be confused with each other. Before I removed the link, I did some searching to see if I could find some other anatomy article that talked about "cores" which we could use in the entry, but couldn't turn anything up.

If you know of an article that discusses the anatomical concept of core, or if you wish to write a stub for core (anatomy), I'd be happy to reinstate the entry. Sanguinity 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good! I'm glad that we'll have something to link to soon. Thank you for taking that on. :-) Sanguinity 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There's some judgement call to it. The Manual of Style for Disambiguation pages has a discussion about when to disambiguate redlinks. If many articles already link to the redlink, then it's a good idea to disambiguate it. If nothing links to it, disambiguation is less important.
When I disambiguated all the links pointing to core, almost none of them had anything to do with core muscles, core strength, or related ideas. There are quite a few articles that could link to such a place, but no one was trying to. Personally, I would be okay with disambiguating that sense of "core".
As to how to disambiguate a redlink: it's bad form to have a redlink entry with no accompanying bluelink; it's bad form to have a redlink entry with a near-irrelevant bluelink, it's good form to have a redlink entry with a useful bluelink. Examples:
Moot point -- you've already populated the article! Sanguinity 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sirtuins and Sir2[edit]

Hello, I see that you changed the Sirtuin redirect to a new page. Personally I'd prefer to have a single page discussing the sirtuins and Sir2 together, because almost all we know about sirtuins is about Sir2=SIRT1, the main study object of Sinclair et al. There are some other sirtuins, but comparatively little is known about them. The Sir2 article used to have an introductory sentence explaining that Sir2 is just one of the sirtuins, but that was recently removed and I just restored it. Your interesting information about sirtuin companies and history in sirtuin research could be merged with Sir2. Another option would be to merge both articles under the heading Sirtuin, which probably makes more sense since that's the larger concept. But of course it's your baby so if you prefer to keep them separate that's ok too. Cheers, AxelBoldt 18:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

{{Exercise physiology-stub}}[edit]

Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it clearly states at WP:STUB, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.

In the case of your new stub type, it is already covered by existing stub types, it is not named according to stub naming guidelines, may not reach the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and is incorrectly formattd, with no dedicated stub category. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

William Monahan article at WP:FAC[edit]

Rhetth, I noticed you created the article on Monahan's screenplay Tripoli. I'm currently running the article on William Monahan through FAC. Would you mind chiming in with your opinion of the article and helping out with a copyedit if possible? I too hope one day Tripoli will be made into a film. I was glad to find your article.-BillDeanCarter 03:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Andres Garcia Pena db[edit]

I gave a reason for the article. Please consider removal of the db templates. Thanks, Rhetth 23:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - an Administrator thought my tag correct, and deleted your article. If you still think he is worthy of an article, I suggest you create a stub page and create a draft. Quite happy to help you review this and create something suitable for inclusion if he passes WP:BIO. Rgds, - Trident13 14:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow what an insane article![edit]

Wow I'm impressed! Thanks for asking me. I'll have a look a bit later (tomorrow possibly). Bit tied up at the minute. Make sure you have all fair use images. The other thing is inline referencing will be necessary. If you don't know how to do it I will do it tomorrow if someone doesn't help you out today. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit summary[edit]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture[edit]

Saami Family 1900.jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Saami Family 1900.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 06:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 06:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rhetth,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Saami Family 1900.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 11, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-10-11. howcheng {chat} 23:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The 1/1 situation[edit]

Since 1/6 redirects to 1st Battalion 6th Marines it seems to me that a redirect from 1/1 to 1st Battalion 1st Marines has that as a precedent. Do you want to change the redirect at 1/1 or would you like me to do it. --Drappel 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that a simple redirect will be the easiest, while 1/2 1/3 and 1/4 1/5 have managed to generate disambiguation pages because they have more than two possible answers many other 1/? have only redirects. Some month/day or day/month combinations have disambiguation pages and some do not and some go direct to rather unexpected results like 5/5 and some like 10/4 go nowhere (10-4 gets to the expected page). Anybody that feels a 1/1 redirect upsets them can make it a disambiguation page. I am all for being bold but allowing 10 days from your first post for debate on the talk pages allows anybody to have a say. --Drappel 17:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lordosis.jpg[edit]

I've removed this image from Lordosis because the woman has not confirmed that she suffers from the condition (original conclusion), and she also has not given consent to act as a model for the condition (personal privacy).-Wafulz 14:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny timing that. I just visited this page to say as follows:
Hi,
Thanks for uploading an image of Lordosis. I've deleted it though, essentially for the same reason as above -- we have got no actual evidence this subject has a confirmed medical condition, and whether they do or don't, we need to be very careful before putting images of unsuspecting subjects into Wikipedia as examples of people with medical conditions. Effectively you'd want a medical source, or a statement of permission by an individual who confirms they have the condition and are okay with being the model, or a completely anonymous, clinical-style picture that shows nothing beyond a clinical view, pretty much.
The assumption that this person has that condition also is not made by a reliable source -- the flikr page seems to be by someone who might not know a medical condition from an exaggerated normal stance. So on all these counts I've removed it from Wikipedia.
Many thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 15:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note - response for you on my talk page! FT2 (Talk | email) 23:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion: Steve Siegfried[edit]

A tag has been placed on Steve Siegfried, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

CSD A3 and A7

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Pepve 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lehman's Restaurant[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Lehman's Restaurant requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Toddst1 00:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Notability of Smith's Restaurant[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Smith's Restaurant, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Smith's Restaurant 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 Smith's Restaurant, 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 here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of N-arachidonoyl-dopamine[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on N-arachidonoyl-dopamine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. PookeyMaster (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads up :) PookeyMaster (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

N-arachidonoyl-dopamine[edit]

I agree that this topic deserves a page, as my understanding is that all neurochemicals are automatically notable. I think you may have actually returned the speedy deletion tag by mistake that I had just removed (see the page history for details). Anyway, I hope the article stays in place; if someone tags it again, I'll be looking for that. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was it; although I'd be hard-pressed to point to the exact policy statement, my understanding is that all chemicals are automatically notable, and certainly neurochemicals. The speedy tagger had attached ((db-bio)) to the article, which didn't make much sense. This seemed, and seems, like a reasonable stub article (which could probably use the correct stub tag, if you could figure out what that is and add it). If there's something further I can do to help with this article, let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference for Bolzano-Cauchy-Weierstrass definition[edit]

You gave the page http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Weierstrass.html from the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive as citation for the authorship of the evolving epsilon-delta definition of continuity. But I don't find this mentioned in the MacTutor article: the names of Bolzano and Cauchy do not occur, and the only references to continuity are the mentions of Weierstrass's discovery of a nowhere-differentiable continuous function (a feat also ascribed to Bolzano in their Bolzano article) and of the fact that Weierstrass's approach still dominates teaching analysis today, mentioning the topic "continuity and differentiability" from his Introduction to the theory of analytic functions. Also, some "unreliable" sources like postings on discussion forums (see #9 here) appear to claim that in fact Cauchy's definition was less precisely formulated than Bolzano's.  --Lambiam 09:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Beth Davis[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Beth Davis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Beth Davis[edit]

I prodded it because I wasn't going to make an issue out of it. If the tag was removed, I wouldn't have AFDed it ;)--Nobunaga24 (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:StanleyKarnow.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:StanleyKarnow.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mangostar (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD notice[edit]

An article that you created, List of military controversies, has been listed for deletion. You are invited to comment on the afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of military controversies. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Military controversies[edit]

I saved it, albeit on a computer at my office, and I'm at home right now. I can probably send it over to your talk page, but it will be a few days. I also recommend that you contact "JForget", the administrator who did the delete. They're usually pretty nice about such things. If you run into a problem with that, please let me know; sometimes, it will take awhile to get a response, but they will respond. Mandsford (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See User:Rhetth/List of military controversies for a back-up copy of it (minus the categories, template and AFD tag). --JForget 23:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Poincaré plot[edit]

In Poincaré plot, can you tell us what "R-R" means? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Vieta[edit]

Something new aboute Vieta Franciscus on my page : i have translated my 'owm' page of WP fr in english. you can see it here : User:Jean_de_Parthenay/Viete2/wikipedia

As my english is not native, i am scattered with the idea to publish it. if you are not agree, say it ! If you want to make change, do it ! If you don't say anything, i shall publish it through a week. Thanks.

And please, after that, it will be a first class article, with great importance ! isn't he ?Jean de Parthenay (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles Frederick Menninger[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Charles Frederick Menninger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Shadowjams (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Genome article[edit]

Rhetth, Since I unintentionally reverted part of your contribution to the Genome article, I thought I'd look at the History page, and found out that the wording has made two round trips, from "a single set of the genome," to "a single set of genes, or one genome," to the 1st and then the 2nd again. I apologize. But let's work together in helping readers by discussing what wording would be best:

I'll start from your Edit summary, which was "(taking out 'gene' references to genome, since genome is genes + non-gene information (in eukaryotes))". Rhetth, what do you have against using 'gene' references... maybe you can help me by explaining what is wrong with it.

Yes, "genome is genes + ..." as your Edit summary says, and that is exactly the point of the Introduction defining what set(s) of genes the word genome is referring to. What is wrong with that? The readers certainly need a clear definition, right? Or several clear definitions, because "genome" is used in several ways.

Let's work together to improve the whole sentence, with [one genome] in place of our two wordings quoted above: "In haploid organisms, including bacteria, archaea, viruses, and mitochondria, a cell contains only [one genome], usually in a single circular or contiguous linear DNA (or RNA for retroviruses)." Here, what is a single circular or linear DNA? (a single DNA what?) Is it a single DNA molecule? (which would be a chromosome, right?) Or, should we call it a single DNA chain? Or what else could it be?

Now here is my reasoning: In this introduction part of the article Genome, we are defining the word "genome", and one of its definitions is implied in the above whole sentence. I hope you don't think it is already a good enough definition to help the readers?

In haploid organisms, a cell contains a single circular or contiguous linear chain of DNA (or of RNA for retroviruses), is that right? (I don't really know...) And this chain of DNA (/RNA) can be called a genome, is that right? Below, I'll assume it and I also assume you know this subject better than I do, so you get to reword the whole sentence to correctly define this use of "genome": (And I'll help you by giving a sample rewording that is very close to the current wording, as follows:)

In haploid organisms, including bacteria, archaea, viruses, and mitochondria, a cell contains only a single circular or contiguous linear chain of DNA (or else RNA for retroviruses), which is likewise referred to as a genome.

Please do use this gene-less version, or improve upon it, as you see fit, For7thGen (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Bioacoustics[edit]

I don't think the article about bioacoustics is the place for such a detailed explanation of the physics of sound. We have other articles for that, so it's better to just point the reader there via wikilinks. You should also keep in mind the conventions about writing style - you don't address the reader this way ("...if you are a person...") in an encyclopedia and rhetorical questions ("...where can they go?") also don't have a place here. — Yerpo Eh? 07:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the phrasing is a little un-encyclopedic, but I felt the topic had not been addressed in any other article (I couldn't find any other near field and far field explanations), and these topics are very relevant to biology, so I put the info in bioacoustics. Since there is no good organization for vibrational communication and the mechanisms involved, I put the info in bioacoustics under animal sound. So maybe this section can been seen as a 'starter' section, and down the line, when the section or topic is more mature, we can get away from the informality and introduce more formal grammar. This was my intention, and why I wrote it that way. In all other respects, I agree with you, and thanks for the notice. Rhetth (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Flop2.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Flop2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 19:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Normocephalic[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Normocephalic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Holdek (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

NLM stuff![edit]

Hi John. I am new to this infobox stuff, and now I wonder, "What have I gotten myself into?" Anyhow, I will try to add something of value to the whole process. Thanks again. -Rhett