User talk:Notenderwiggin

Syphilis History Section

I changed the history of Syphilis. Whoever posted the old history wrote that the columbian theory is weak and unsupported, wheras in reality is is probably more prevalent in scholarship today. I tried to be balanced in presenting both theories. User:Notenderwiggin

Hi new guy! I moved this sentence from the head of the discussion page on Syphylis, placing it in date order and with a discussion topic. I also signed your name. These are wiki conventions when dealing with a discussion issue. Also, all reference material to the article should go to the bottom of the page in a reference (online or off) section, if needed with a footnote in the body of the text.

Regarding your edit, the organization scheme seems okay, but too much was removed too quickly from the Pre-Columbian side of the controversy, which is not as weak as you imply, even today. Would you like to put some of the material back in and move your references? If not, I'll do it later in the day. Look forward to working with you. WBardwin 20:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I followed up by moving your references to the bottom of the article. Do you have the other names for "et al" in the first reference? I couldn't resist moderating a few sentences of your edit, but not much change. Your edit started a discussion about the issue on the page (under your first comment.) You might want to place a line or two there as well. As I said in my last note there, I will probably look for a little more Pre-Columbian evidence, as that is primarily my opinion. But I do not intend to unbalance the article. Thanks for the interesting edit. WBardwin 05:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome back. When I get around to tracking down your Crosby reference, I might tack a little more information to this article as well. I like the idea of a entire category on the History and Impact of Disease. The social impact of plagues and outbreaks was a subspecialty of mine as an undergrad. I've been playing with this in the plague area - with special pages on the three major outbreaks. History of syphilis would also be good, and I would be glad to help too.

Making a new page is quite easy. Just type in your title for the article in the search box - try a couple of variants to double check the index - then follow the link on the page to create a new article. Assigning categories seems to be more complicated. Post me if you get an article started. Look forward to working with you. WBardwin 00:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Did you ever create that article about the 1494 Epidemic of Syphilis in the French and Spanish Armies? I have come up with some summary information that would be appropriate. So what did you/should we name it? I see no relevant link on the syphilis page. Let me know. WBardwin 23:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Dirty bird

A tag has been placed on Dirty bird, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article 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 Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) 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. intgr 05:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]