User talk:SWik78

No problem

My first instance of a double redirect (Serb Chetniks Rescue U.S. Pilots during WW II was redirecting to Serb Chetniks Rescue U.S. Pilots during World War II); just made both pages redirect to Operation Halyard and that fixed it. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 05:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Contempt toward officials‎

Hey there.

Thanks for looking out for the 'pedia, but I'm affraid Contempt toward officials‎ isn't elegible for speedy deletion (at least not under the G12 (copyvio) criterion): the source of the text is in the public domain because it is a work of the United States government. — Coren ^(talk) 22:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The article itself relly contains nothing more than quotations. Whatever it is that it talks about, it's not in any kind of context. Do you think it would qualify under patent nonsense ("no meaningful content") or is it even worth nominating for deletion? Maybe it should just be tagged as needing improvement? SWik78 01:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it can be speedied under any of the criteria, but you might propose it for deletion. A simple {{subst:prod|Article contains nothing but a quotation from the uniform military code}} or something like that might do the trick. Prod-ed articles are deleted after some period of time without having to go through the hassle of an AfD, unless someone comes up to the bad to salvage it. — Coren ^(talk) 16:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Alan Veingrad

Is it necessary to quote the text from the reference in the article itself? Isn't that the purpose of the reference - to provide text in support of a particular claim madein the article? SWik78 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• The text has been provided to demonstrate what portion of the reference supports the claim made in the article. While I usually don't use the Template:Cite news, the "quote" parameter is intended to provide a "Relevant quotation". This format is regularly used in scholarly books and other works. While I will frequently include such quotes within a references, and agree that it is not "necessary", there is no reason to remove it where used. Alansohn 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You had added "Also, the article itself makes no mention of what Shlomo means." The article at this point included a statement that "He now uses his Hebrew first name, 'Shlomo' (which means 'King Solomon')..." With a wikilink to Shlomo, anyone who wants to learn more about the name has the information available there. Furthermore, as indicated "Shlomo" does not *mean* "King Solomon", though it is the same Hebrew name. Alansohn 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Elias Chacour

Thanks for your contribution to the article. The edits you reverted, while made in good faith by some editor, were POV and full of weasel words like "very controversial" and "some ...". However, they did contain some useful information. I tried to salvage what I could; please let me know what you think. Cheers, Majoreditor 18:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While the article itself contains no more of those weasel words, I still don't think that the reference provided [1] qualifies as NPOV. The source text contained a summary of Chacour's speech in which the following statements were made regarding issues Chacour didn't speak about:

• ...and how many Palestinians who "just want to return to their land" did not own the land but were instead tenants, often victimized by their own people.

The quote "just want to return to their land" is by Chacour and it seems to be used in a somewhat sarcastic sense. At the end of that sentence, the article offers a link to another article on the same website titled Whose Land Is It? [2]to offer an insight into the Israel-Palestine land dispute, which is one of the most hotly contested political and religious disputes in the last 60 years of history. That article, after explaining that Arafat refused Barak's offer in 2000, makes this overly simplified statement:

• Apparently, the Palestinian leadership sought no fair two-state solution. They wanted everything—with no Israel at all.

Another statement in referenced text, again referring to what was not said in his speech, says:

• Nor did he give any credence to the need today for a security barrier to protect Israelis from random and horrific terrorist attacks, and how that barrier has vastly reduced both Israeli and Palestinian deaths.

I just don't believe that this article is neutral enough to be given any weight as a useful reference. I won't remove it but I don't think it should stay. SWik78 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, SWik. I agree that one online article on a low-traffic website isn't enough to qualify Chacour as a "controversial figure." For that matter, Chacour is one of the least controversial Middle Eastern figures, given his role as a peacemaker and bridge-builder. Majoreditor 18:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

64.148.190.131 (talk · contribs)

I dunno, how long do you think the block should be? It's a school IP, so it's probably a lot of kids rather than one really persistent one. I hate to inflict collateral damage with long blocks, because it could prevent new users from getting involved. I generally just escalate slightly from the length of the last block. Peace, delldot talk 21:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the last edit to Ethiopia was pretty awful. And the Rose Hill, Kansas thing is pretty compelling. But still, since it's a school IP, the fact that they're always coming back could be that a lot of kids are constantly trying to edit, and there could be good editors there too. How about this: I'll leave myself a note in my to do list to check their contribs after this block is up. If they're vandalizing again, I'll block again, and if it's a similar pattern, it'll be a longer block. Your note on my talk page will remind me to check on them from time to time after that, too. Peace, indeed! delldot talk 22:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

welcome tagging

Hi, SWik. I just noticed you used a {{welcome}} tag on an annons page. I recently found out there is also an {{ipwelcome}}, that also notes that it might be a good idea to make an account. It might be good to switch to that one for annons. Martijn Hoekstra 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Massad

Hello SWik78. Thanks for the message. It was my intention to simply restore my own edits which I believed had been caught up in what falls just short of an edit war. It wasn't my intention to favor either side. In fact, you'll see that I maintained all the deletions to the "Controversial views" section (and the removal of the "Accusations of Anti-Semitism and Denials" header). The two edits by Morningside Clio were simply present in my original edit, and so were restored with all the rest. That said, I'm not sold on their inclusion (and I'd considered requesting a citation for "born in Jordan of Christian parents"). Seems a flaw to have a biographical article in which the subject's birthplace is not mentioned, but given the history of this article it would seem a reliable source is needed. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Inapropriate content

I sent User talk:Mattj5095 a message. If he continues recreating those pages, he'll be blocked. Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Academy and Copyright

Hey there.

Actually, an article is eligible for G12 if it's an improper copy independently of other factors. In that particular case, your assessment is perfectly correct— It's a copyright violation and should be speedily deleted. It might also be deleted as advertisement (G11) but the copyright violation is the most important of the two.

The last element in the G12 test (assertion of free use / public domain / etc) is just that: the article isn't eligible for speedy deletion if it asserts that the copy is proper. For instance, a statement stating:

Parts of this article taken from http://www.example.org/foo/bar with permission

in the article is such an assertion, so the article could not be speedily deleted (but that doesn't mean that the assertion is correct, or sufficient— only that the article needs to be checked further and possibly sent to WP:CP).

Hope that helps. — Coren ^(talk) 14:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Gisele Bündchen Stock Index

I'll write more about it. Thanks for contacting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.157.48.2 (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

66.76.67.66 (talk · contribs)

Hi!

I hope you don't mind but I deleted a vandalism warning you left on this user's page for unconstructive edits he made to Kenny Chesney. The reason I deleted them is because the user made those edits way back on November 5 and it kind of defeats the purpose warning him about it now. But rest assured, I'm keeping an eye on him because he has made an edit or two today that are can't really be classified as constructive. Thanks for looking out for 'pedia!

Peace! SWik78 (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You should warn anonymous users on all edits that they have made that can be reasonably ascribed to the same person or group of people. I disagree that 5th november is too long ago. You might have a point if the user had vandalised a few months ago, because then it could well have been a different person. Only if the user has made positive edits or if the identity cannot be guaranteed should vandalisations be ignored. It's about whether the particular address is positive or negative to the wikipedia or not.WolfKeeper (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Response by AWDRacer

Hey Swik78!

Thanks for leaving a message. I'm sorry I am replying to you so late because I didn't log into Wikipedia after my hopeless efforts to remove that page lol. Added to that, I don't usually get messages haha. Anyway, I tried to do everything that was legal within Wikipedia because the guy either doesn't seem to get it or he's just doing it over and over and over again regardless of what happens. That being said, I think you're right - I might have put something on the wrong page. Oh well, I'll just leave it there... hahaha. I don't have any ethnic connection to the poet; I only ran into that page accidentally when I was looking up information on History about the leader at that time period who had a similar name. Do you think we should nominate it again? Perhaps we should let the moderators know?

Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AWDRacer (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

Thanks for the note. I have gone ahead and lengthened the block to 72 hours. Since the IP is shared, I am hesitant to go too long--it would do no good since the user will switch IPs and the block will only impact someone else (blocks are always intended as a protective, not punitive measure). I didn't see evidence of useful contributions from the IP, so hopefully any impact will be minimal. Thanks again, and let me know if you have any other concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the users you listed, I think you're correct that they are all vandalism-only accounts. I have blocked all of them as such. Thanks and keep up the great work. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Windsor redirect

Definitely a reason for it to be deleted, I'd say, but, as you realized, not speedy. You can add it to Redirects for Discussion. нмŵוτнτ 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Facebook valuation

If you do the math between what Microsoft invested in Facebook and the % stake in the company it was given, it now means that Facebook is worth well over $15 billion. 204.246.237.129 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.237.129 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Christy Marks

An article that you have been involved in editing, Christy Marks, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christy Marks. Thank you.

This is a trial of the AfD notification bot. If you found this message helpful, annoying or have anything else to say about it please leave a message at User_talk:BJBot, thanks! --BJBot (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Serb propaganda

Hey SWik, got your note. Eeesh, sounds terrible. Even the title 'Serb propaganda' sounds POV (But I haven't looked at the article page yet, so I can't say whether I agree with your assessment). Sounds like there needs to be more community input on this. I think you've done the right thing challenging the info you have a problem with on the talk page, hopefully discussion will get started there; maybe give it a couple days. I'm of the firm belief that we should insist on sources for anything likely to be challenged (though you wouldn't want to use this as a beatstick). If nothing productive occurs with the discussion, you're going to have to take it through dispute resolution. I'd file an RfC. If you're right about the blatant POV pushers, they won't get away with it -- the community should fully back you. I'm not good at content disputes, never having been in one myself (and being a big chicken), but an RfC should bring the attention of some neutral admins who can deal with the situation if it comes to that (that is, if people are going against consensus to the point of disruption). Definitely keep me updated on the progress and let me know if the discussion helps or if there's anything I can do. I probably won't really get involved myself, but I can help bring it to the attention of others if it's deemed necessary. Thanks for working to keep the 'pedia neutral. Good luck! Peace, delldot talk 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi SWik78, thank you for your input regarding Coatrack on the Serb propaganda article. I've long felt the article is a mix of different alleged and real individual cases of Serb propaganda in general rather than a coherent article based on a proper source. I've suggested the article for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serb propaganda) and proposed an alternative, more focused, article on Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia based on research by a Prof. Renaud De la Brosse. I don't think this edit conflict is likely to be resolved without help from outside mediation. I've asked Vassyana, who is mediating a conflict I have with the same editors involved here (The Dragon of Bosnia and Gandy Gandy), to take a look at mediating edit conflict with these two persons on a wider set of articles: including the Serb propaganda article. First, a question: do you think it worthwhile to treat these edit conflict as a group rather than individually? Second, your engagement in these articles/mediation processes would be much appreciated.Osli73 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing my talk page, please

I'm not vandalizing anything at Gisele Bündchen article. I just put back the original picture, that has been there for a long time. Who is changing the picture is Cantarevolare, not me.

So why didn't you went to his talk page and told him not to change the picture? Why?

Stop vandalizing my talk page, please. Opinoso (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think I am vandalizing your page by posting a warning about your constant reverting of pictures. The procedure really should be to discuss on the article's talk page rather than just change it to a picture that you like better and justify it by saying in the quote summary reverted ugly picture to a better one. A better [picture], as you say, or the best picture is not the one that looks the best in someone's opinion. The best picture is one on which most people agree to keep in the article. My warning, however, probably should have included the fact that since yesterday you reverted the same picture on the following articles as well:

• Horizontina
• Supermodel
• Celebrity
• White Latin American
• Template:German-Brazilians

Since January 1 you have made no other edits to any article other than reverting that particular picture.

As far as Cantarevolare (talk · contribs) is concerned, you're right about him deserving a warning about this as well if he does it again. I didn't give him a warning today because he had made no edits today. You are, however, incorrect when you say that he is the only one changing your picture. You have reverted edits by the following users since yesterday:

• FireOcean (talk · contribs)
• MigraineBigBoy (talk · contribs)
• 200.157.48.2 (talk · contribs)

Just to clear things up, I have no opinion on Giselle's pictures and do not have a favourite one, which is the reason that I never changed your or anyone else's choice of a profile picture of her, so I'm satified with any picture whatsoever on her article as long as it meets Wikipedia's image criteria. The reason I gave you the warning is that you are engaging yourself and others in an edit and revert war by changing the page and reverting others' edits the way you do. Technically, you could have already been blocked according to the 3 revert rule for the 3 reverts you made to Giselle's article starting on January 1 at 04:50 and ending on January 2 at 02:17 but I thought it would be more appropriate to issue a warning rather than to request a block this time because I am still assuming good faith from you in your edits.

So I will ask you to, please, discuss anything you don't agree with before you just arbitrarily change it to your own preferred version. Those kinds of reverts can prove to be very disruptive because, as you've probably found out so far, not everyone agrees with you on which picture is Giselle's best looking picture and if everyone was just allowed to act like that Wikipedia's articles could become very disrupted.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and I truly hope you don't take this personally.

SWik78 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: attack page template warning

Hey SWik78. Regarding the attack page warning you left at User talk:Drewbitha, when the attack page's title itself is an attack, as that one was, by posting the article name through the template you're leaving behind the some of the defamatory content which I don't believe should be done, just as we make sure to not leave any defamatory content in deletion summaries when we delete attack pages. For that reason I have removed the name of the article from your warning. User is blocked by the way. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

cat deletion

Sure, I think that would be perfectly appropriate. I mean, if it turns out that there's a lot of people that fit in the category, it can always be recreated later, right? The instructions at WP:CFD#How to use this page are pretty clear, but definitely let me know if you need any help nominating it. By the way, you add a colon in front of the category or image name when you're linking cats or images like this: [[:Image:duck.jpg]] (otherwise you'll include the page you're linking on in the category, or put the actual image on the page) Peace, delldot talk 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Triumph Motorcycles

My addition to Triumph Motorcycles is not libelous because the statement is true. The number of independent Triumph dealers within the US has dramatically decreased because of Triumph's poor dealer relationships. Additionally, numerous dealers would attest to the incredibly horrid treatment they have received from Triumph. Wikipdedia.org is not supposed to be a site dedicated to glorifying its subjects, thus, dissatisfaction with a company should also be reported.

• Note: Next time you accuse someone of being libelous, learn how to spell libelous first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linop2 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply is here. SWik78 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My addition to Triumph Motorcycles is not libelous because the statement is true. The number of independent Triumph dealers within the US has dramatically decreased because of Triumph's poor dealer relationships. Additionally, numerous dealers would attest to the incredibly horrid treatment they have received from Triumph. Wikipdedia.org is not supposed to be a site dedicated to glorifying its subjects, thus, dissatisfaction with a company should also be reported.

My apologies on my "libellous" spelling comment. You are absolutely right, the word "libellous" can be spelled two ways. However, you are not correct with your definition of libel. An opinion, however harmful it may be, can never be libel. Only blatant disregard of the truth with intent to harm the subject can be considered libel. In fact with regards to libel, Wikipedia.org stated that, "Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable." In addition, my note on the Triumph Motorcycles page of Wikipedia.org is not simply opinion, but actual truth.

I did, however, hastily create the addendum to the page without citing proper sources. In the future, look for the same addition with proper citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linop2 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply is here. SWik78 (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Yeah, sorry about that. I should use edit summaries a lot more often, becuase I don't want to cause a major disruption with unexplained edits. Thanks. (Respond on my talk) Thundermaster^TRUC 14:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Eqmentor

{{db-repost}} only applies to articles that have been deleted via WP:AFD, not speedied or prodded. Just a heads-up. shoy 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Brap

For the nth time, it's not vandalism. Brap is a slang phrase with no reference to Enochian Angels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.162.124 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that you may know something that myself or the other editors who reverted your edits and left vandalism warning notices on your page don't know. However, it is impossible for us to find out that you do know something if you don't discuss your point on the article's talk page or leave a clear explanation of why you did what you did in the edit summary. You also blanked the same article twice today without any explanation. That makes it even harder for us to assume good faith because it is seen as unconstructive. I hope this explains the situation a little more. If you are willing to contribute to the article in a constructive manner, feel free to ask me for help on how to do that. Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Grace Talarico di Capace‎

The Grace article has been vandalsized and is no longer in any kind of accuarte form. form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.141.157.233 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks OK right now. If vandalism continues, you can request semi-protection. You will, however, not be able to edit the article from an IP. You will need an account that is at least 4 days old to be able to edit a semi-protected page. Maybe you should look into getting an account if you're going to be serious about contributing. Let me know if I can help. SWik78 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please put a semi-protect on the Grace T. article. It appears that our vandal is back. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.142.236.58 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can vandal 24.247.57.44 be blocked and can the Grace Talarico di Capace page be semi-protected. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.141.157.192 (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Extensive and continued vandalism is taking place to the Grace T. page. Needs to be semi-protected and vandal blocked. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.141.156.67 (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a final warning on the talk page‎ of the user who's vandalizing that page. One more unconstructive edit out of him and he will be blocked. As far as semi-protecting the page, it won't happen because the vandalism isn't heavy enough and it's all coming from one person. Once he stops disrupting the article I'm sure things will calm down. In the meantime, I would really encourage you to create an account. You seem to have a dynamic IP because the exact IP address changes from time to time and I would have a hard time leaving you a message if I had some news for you. Either way, keep up the good work. SWik78 (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for your attention, and I will create an account right after this message. Great Work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.142.236.89 (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for protecting my userpage for me. As you may have noticed, I had warned that user, and I just thought of the fact that he might vandalize my userpage. When I got there, the vandalism had already been reverted. So again, thanks for the help. Thingg^⊕⊗ 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Orion (constellation)

Hello. I wish to nominated the article Orion (constellation) to be semi-protected because of the extreme number of anonymous vandals editing that article. Considering it's a high profile article, an article children would be likely to look up, the detrimental effects of the vandalism to how Wikipedia looks as a whole, and the proportion that most edits are vandalism and reversions, I think semi-protection against anonymous users would be appropriate. Since the process requires a consensus on the article's talk page and you are one of the registered users who have reverted vandalism recently, I am writing in the hopes that you will go to the talk page and agree to the semi-protection. If we can get a convincing consensus, we can continue the process to the next step. Thanks for your time. --Bark (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Platform (concept)

I do not really understand the reasoning of removing the Platform (concept) page. There is a clear difference between a computing platform and platform as an idea (like Internet is more than just a software platform). I was to late to 'hangon' - so the redirect page is now in place ... As a minimum I would suggest redirection to the Platform (computing) page - so I can add a better description of the platform concept in that page as a sub-paragraph ...

Evert r (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tikiwont (talk · contribs) is the one who redirected the article to the disambiguation page so you may want to contact him about that. I merely nominated the article for speedy deletion based on my opinion that it offered nothing new that wasn't already presented in Platform (computing). But if you can present some new information that is original to all the other articles listed on the Platform disambiguation page, you can still do it. The page you created is not deleted. You can click here and start rewriting your article. Make sure that you type below the line that says redirect Platform and don't remove the line until your article is complete. Good luck. SWik78 (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Proeski the Aromanian

Hi. Does a youtube video of him singing in Aromanian constitute a reliable source? Anybody who isn't Aromanian singing in Aromanian isn't too common. BalkanFever 05:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply. SWik78 (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Ha ha, thanks for that. =)

— brighterorange (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

re. behaviour of User:Grandy Grandy

Hi, the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia case imposes stricter requirements regarding civility and behavior on Balkan related articles. Could you please keep an eye on Grandy Grandy, he's becoming quite aggressive and rude on the Bosnian Mujahideen talk page. Example: [3]. CheersOsli73 (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD withdrawal

You don't even have to do that. Just state that you withdraw the nomination, and an admin will come along and close it properly. You can put it right under your original nomination, that would probably make it most noticeable. Peace, delldot talk 17:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Chrysler Supercar deleted?

that was just plain uncalled for. the relevance is where it fits among the annals of american rock n roll. if it's too loud, then you're too old for rock n roll! now put it back, so as I can go on about my business discussing the evolution of modern rock in the 90s. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsupercar (talk • contribs)

My reply is here.

SWik78 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Crackpot theories

Adnanmuf is entering complete nonsense in these articles. He clearly understands nothing about DNA research, and has invented most of what he is writing. Are you prepared to vouch for the accuracy of his work? Ed Gies (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

From article Palestinian people, you have removed large portions of text that was sourced and referenced. I know absolutely nothing about DNA or DNA research nor do I know anything about Adnanmuf (talk · contribs) but removal of properly sourced and referenced text should, in my opinion, be discussed on the article's talk page and removed only if there is a concensus reached. Go here and explain why you think these are crackpot theories or nonsense and see what others think. SWik78 (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't "sourced and referenced" at all. If you had read the talk page, as I have, you would see that the author is inserting his own incoherent theories, and the sources he use often don't even refer to what he says. In other cases he completely contradicts the findings of the sources he brings. Do you understand DNA research? Are you prepared to vouch for what he says? Are you prepared to at least read the Talk page in question? Ed Gies (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In my previous statement I c-l-e-a-r-l-y stated the following: I know absolutely nothing about DNA or DNA research nor do I know anything about Adnanmuf (talk · contribs) yet you find the need to ask me the questions Do you understand DNA research? Are you prepared to vouch for what he says? after I made my statement. I don't quite understand the point you were trying to make by asking me questions that I already answered. In addition, I did read the talk page and I can find nothing where an editor admits of inserting incoherent theories. That is your opinion, not fact. Either way, my point was to discuss what changes you might make to an article if there exists a possibility that your edits will be challenged. If you don't discuss your proposed changes (before you make them that is, not afterwards) you are likely to get engaged into an edit or revert war with the user of opposing view. I'm discussing Wikipedia policies and using them towards creative editing, I'm not discussing genetics. I think both of you think you're right and the other one is wrong and if both of you started reverting each other's edits, articles will get disrupted. Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

article EICASLAB

Caporaletti (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Dear SWik78(talk), thank you very much for having withdraw the nomination of the article EICASLAB. I use a lot Wikipedia "as a user" for finding very useful information that can help me in my scientific work, but it is the first time that I try to write an article as an editor. The talks with you have been very usuful for me to better understand how to make an article worthy of an encyclopedia. In the future I will try to do my best to work in this direction. Thank you again. Best regards Gabriella

your note

Thank you very much for your note to me. I'm doing my best to copy-edit and improve in slight ways some articles, but I really don't know my way around the innards of Wikipedia. Your feedback was helpful. Grantsky (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: User categories

You may be interested in participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Proposal. Hyacinth (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your question

No worries, it's always a pleasure getting a note from you. I think you're absolutely in the right, and any Wikipedian involved in the community would agree with you. I'll go ahead and remove the content again, and leave another note on their talk page explaining it to them (good job doing that, by the way). If they keep it up, I guess we'll have to report to WP:ANI or something, but they seem like they're really trying to improve the article, so I doubt it will come to that. I doubt either of us will have to rv more than 3 times, anyone else that sees it would also revert it. Good work looking out for the integrity of the 'pedia. Peace, delldot talk 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, hopefully that will take care of it. I'll keep an eye on the article, but let me know of anything I miss. Peace, delldot talk 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Aww! Thank you so much, you are super sweet :D delldot talk 15:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, they reverted me too, but then they came up with a somewhat reliable source (not awesome, but not livejournal either). I guess I'm going to let it go, since they seem to be making productive changes. Too bad they won't communicate though. Give me another heads up as events merit. Peace, delldot talk 15:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, they'll probably get themselves into trouble unless they can play well with others. Peace, delldot talk 16:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Drifting clouds.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Drifting clouds.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu

Wow, same exact situation, huh? I'll talk to them too, hopefully they'll be more communicative. Peace, delldot talk 22:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the sources aren't good and the info can't be included without good sources. But looking at the article now, it looks like the sentence in question is not in there. Am I missing it? I agree that we shouldn't revert war, we'll bring it to others' attention if it comes to that. Peace, delldot talk 17:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)