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 [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Kill The Potemkin|this]] one which seems like a common sense keep? Thanks in advance <b>[[User:Gtstricky|<font STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">'''''Gtstricky'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gtstricky|Talk]] or [[Special:Contributions/Gtstricky|C]]</sup></b> 21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
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 [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Kill The Potemkin|this]] one which seems like a common sense keep? Thanks in advance <b>[[User:Gtstricky|<font STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">'''''Gtstricky'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gtstricky|Talk]] or [[Special:Contributions/Gtstricky|C]]</sup></b> 21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
*Great advice. Thanks for your time and have a nice weekend. <b>[[User:Gtstricky|<font STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">'''''Gtstricky'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gtstricky|Talk]] or [[Special:Contributions/Gtstricky|C]]</sup></b> 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
*Great advice. Thanks for your time and have a nice weekend. <b>[[User:Gtstricky|<font STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">'''''Gtstricky'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gtstricky|Talk]] or [[Special:Contributions/Gtstricky|C]]</sup></b> 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
== Radio Links Hollywood ==
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: [http://www.radiolinkshollywood.com/detail_show_test.asp?ID=271 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, [[User:Courtens|Courtens]] ([[User talk:Courtens|talk]]) 00:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I can no longer contribute to Wikipedia like I used to...this is a good thing: life in the real world is keeping me very busy, with important new research to perform. As such, I may not be very responsive to messages here. -- Scientizzle
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]
One misplaced vandalism warning
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]
Antibioics as antagonists: A special case? Do you think its relevant
Hi was looking for a second opinion
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]
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]
UEFA Euro 2008 broadcasting rights
Scientizzle,
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]
Leaving apparent troll requests on my talk page
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]
FA for WPORE COTW
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]
RealClimate
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, Dlohcierekim23:58, 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]
Barnstar
The Barnstar of Diligence
For doing what I should have in saving an article from an untimely deletion.
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)
Request for help
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. --David Shankbone16:53, 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]
