User talk:Beeswaxcandle

Welcome!

Hello, Beeswaxcandle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! – Liveste (talk • edits) 09:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Minority Issues

I wanted to thank you for all your help! I made the changes you suggested, and hope it is good enough to be kept now. Thanks again. Jennmarie25 (talk) - 09:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Rush (2nd nomination)

Hi Beeswaxcandle - there may be some confusion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Rush (2nd nomination) as to exactly which article has been nominated for deletion. May be as well to keep watching the debate to see whether you need to amend your comments. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratana merge proposal

I've added section on merge proposal to Talk:Ratana - along with my thoughts against merge. Thought you might like to add yours. Fanx (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gero Hütter

This article should probably be built up significantly! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadel (talk • contribs) 23:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging new articles for speedy deletion

Thank you for your notification. One advice, though: Before you tag new articles for speedy deletion, as you did in flame spread, please check "What links here" to see if an article indeed merits speedy deletion. Thank you! Sebastian (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC) (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)[reply]

Luís, Prince Imperial of Brazil

Thank you very much for the cleanup on Luis, Prince Imperial´s article. It was a muche needed assistance! - --Lecen (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 29 in rail transport

I just want to let you know that the July 29 in rail transport ended in a no consensus. I am currently disputing that decision atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. If you wish to speak your opinion of the result of the AfD, please do so. Tavix (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

plant stubs

I have fixed a lot of your missharpened plant stubs over the last couple of weeks. I appreciate you are only trying to help, but if you don't have sufficient background knowledge around the various taxa and classifications, I humbly submit that it would be better not to do that particular job. Hesperian 03:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's egg on my face then. I couldn't figure out where you were getting them from, and had started to suspect you were guessing; or else a 12-year-old way out of your depth. I am glad to learn that you were being conscientious about it.

The abandonment of Lamiales is news to me. APWeb has nothing on it. Best to take it to our friends at WT:PLANTS I think. Hesperian 11:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I keep on getting warnings I am trying to help but my stuff is getting deleted. Is it ok if I post my school report on here. Sometimes the warnings people give me make no scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arojr (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Thank you for helping me but that blog is my blog should I delete the post on my blog.[reply]

Sincerely, Andrea Osborn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arojr (talk • contribs) 05:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wanakee

I'm trying to contest the speedy. I don't understand how a model with 150 magazine covers, movie roles and tv spots (including The Cosby Show), a recording contract with Blue Note Records all BEFORE creating a hair care line that is still popular with African Americans after she sold it is unnotable? What gives? I have all big name sources for this (no geocities or myspace crap). Tippytim304 (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry. So help me, if you were the admin, what would you like to see to keep it from being speedied away. At least give me some time (lack of notability can be voted on if sufficient info not given, something other than the speedy) Tippytim304 (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tippytim304 (talk • contribs)

I have six sources.....Give me examples of what qualifies (I thought IMDB would be good) and I'll see what I can find. I looking for online copies of magazine articles published about her product. Unfortunately, at the height of her popularity, the Internet was not commericalized (pre-1994) :-(, so it's taking me a minute, but I'm looking. Tippytim304 (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Sorry about the typo with Immunosuppression-associated Kaposi sarcoma. Thank you for correcting that! kilbad (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to you on my talk page regarding Proliferating angioendotheliomatosis. Thanks again. kilbad (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Thanks. kilbad (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

salpinx split

Hi! Thanks for noticing! ;) I'm attempting to work through musical instrument stubs in hopes that I can help get the catagory cleaned up a bit. I created the salpinx in anatomy page just so there was somewhere to put the extraneous information not related to the musical instrument, but I haven't fact checked any of it--I just wanted it to have its own home. I was planning on copy editing the anatomy stub I made, but other than that, I have no background in anatomy so I hadn't planned on wading to far into that stub. Anything you can do to flesh it out would be appreciated! Patrickmcg (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx

[1] --KP Botany (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frenulum of...

I have no particular objection to the picture, but at some point, an article is over-illustrated. This article is at that point.

I would have no objection to replacing one of the existing gallery photos with that one, though. Nandesuka (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of species

Please notice that lists of species/genera and alike are not alphabetical, but taxonomical (i.e. based on relationship, as far as known, or, when not known [as can often be seen in subspecies listings], based on distributions in a NW-SE direction). • Rabo³ • 07:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your message on my talk here. • Rabo³ • 06:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIV report - further questions

I have cut and paste the conversation started by you at AIV and would appreciate you coming to my talk page to clarify - it seems that the you may have the first number incorrect also?

61.69.3.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is editing the same articles in the same way that blocked IP 61.96.25.208 did yesterday. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting.--VS ^talk 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder also if this report is correct - I can see no evidence of the link between these two IP's.--VS ^talk 23:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've just noticed my typo for the second IP. It should be 61.69.25.208. The particular edits were considered vandalism. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back - but edits of current IP do not seem to be vandalism - & even more specifically they are edits from 2006.--VS ^talk 00:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		In appreciation for your diligence in the matter listed for investigation at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 April 13. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your noting the problem and taking the time to follow through. It's very important to address copyright matters within process for a number of reasons. Even when text is placed by a copyright holder, as it turned out to be here, that can be very hard to prove down the road if permission is not verified when the contributor is active on Wikipedia. I've seen a number of cases were text placed years ago that did not go through the copyright verification process has had to be removed for just that very reason. (Of course, now that it's cleared, it's up to you and other contributors with interest in the articles to determine how best to handle it. I've found the contributor very easy to work with; maybe you will as well.) I wanted to express my appreciation. Obviously, I value copyright work on Wikipedia, and I admire contributors who go the extra mile to make sure that what we have, we have legally. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

taking a second look at Fleet's Hall page

Hello - I made some revisions and wish to courteously invite you to revisit the Fleet's Hall page. I hope you see through several cited additions, that this is a building and site with great historical signficance. Thank you. Inoysterbay (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oyster Bay articles

I saw over here that you've started taking some of the Oyster Bay articles to AFD. Personally, I think that all or most of these could go without any loss, so I'd appreciate it if you could let me know when you tag one. And if you need any help with the work, just let me know, ok? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria College

Thank you for the note! I was about to do a simple rollback until the 2000 BC date caught my eye. It took a while to find the most recent clean page. It has since been semi-protected for a week. I'll keep an eye on it on my watchlist, in case it needs further protection after next week (seems likely). Age Happens (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Speedy deletion of Talk:Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria/Comments

~~Sorry, I didn't mean to be redundant. I thought it was a totally different area that was not directly linked with the discussion page. Please delete these pages speedily. My bad.~~ I'm having problems finding sources for the Coptic articles. I went to the pages in search of some good Coptic sources I could add to Mark_the_Evangelist, but could not find a single source for the articles. ~~Thanks for bringing this redundancy to my attention.~~ Jason3777 (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to the following on the articles' discussion pages: "This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it." Which I did. I don't see why it was deleted because feedback on the articles is requested, twice even, on the top of the page. You should actually remove these request for reviews from the discussion page if they are going to be deleted as soon as they are written. Jason3777 (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was just sort of frustrated about not finding any Coptic sources. Jason3777 (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You For Your Opinion

Thank you for your vote/comment

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saddleback College

Hi, thanks for your message on the Admin noticeboard. I've replied there but I thought I'd drop you a line as well to let you know that as the individual has used three IP addresses over the past month to insert the inappropriate material, I have chosen to semi-protected the article for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams from My Father Discussion

I was actually the orignal poster and both the questions were not only unanswered in the Talk Page, but were answered in the article. So didn't see the point of keeping them... 24.141.45.91 (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeppers, was all 3. You're right about confusing. So the 2 user accounts are deleted and actually just forgot to sign-in24.141.45.91 (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your comments at WT:PHARM:CAT. If you have any other editors/friends you can bring into the discussion, that would be great too! Regardless, thanks again. ---kilbad (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science

‘Ian has been more than patient…’

I thank you very much for that comment. I had hoped that that what I was being—I was trying to help them establish a worthwhile article, without quite letting on, because for many reasons Wikipedia is actually not at all easy for ‘foreigners’ to edit. And we need those people. And in this case, even though I was pretty dubious about the article from the start, I thought they should be helped through the heaps of acronyms and bureaucracy.

Still, there were times when I felt my annoyance boiled over visibly! Ian Spackman (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:206.252.160.20 (talkback)

Hello, Beeswaxcandle. You have new messages at 206.252.160.20's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

ok... well.. drat. Um... There was honestly no harm meant by deleting my own note, the issue had been resolved, so I didn't think it needed to be acknowledged anymore. I'll read that 'bad practice' link, but... yeah, that's all I've got to say. And I have no clue how to 'wikispeak' or do anything with all the symbols and what not, so, this'll probably be the last you hear of me, hopefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.124.155 (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Surnames by Country

The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Beeswaxcandle. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WT:PHARM:CAT

If available, your continued comments at WT:PHARM:CAT would be greatly appreciated. Regardless, thanks again for your help in the past. ---kilbad (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Army - I have restored but couldn't find citation, I have removed it first trying to edit the thing, I am not sure Croatia bought any Kornet-E, as a matter of fact I am quite sure of it, but I needed to find more info, this is why I posted in the talk page, need info... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.53.72 (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh Re: Harry Potter

Ok, makes more sense now. 203.59.213.54 (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane[reply]

subst:article-cv|:Robin Raina

Dear Moderator-

This page is a biography of Robin Raina and his work as a CEO and Founder of an International Charity and has references to Robin Raina Foundation site(www.rainafoundation.com) founded by him. There is no copyright violation as I am a senior member of Robin Raina Foundation and head the Public Relations division. Through this email i am confirming that any text content from rainafoundation.com page can be published on wikipedia. We explicitly permit use of the contents under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL.

I have already sent an email from my rainafoundation.com email id approving of the contents. (redacted)

Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avington2915 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

subst:article-cv|:Robin Raina

Subject: subst:article-cv|:Robin Raina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Raina

Dear Moderator-

This page is a biography of Robin Raina and his work as a CEO and Founder of an International Charity and has references to Robin Raina Foundation site(www.rainafoundation.com) founded by him. There is no copyright violation as I am a senior member of Robin Raina Foundation and head the Public Relations division. Through this email i am confirming that any text content from rainafoundation.com page can be published on wikipedia. We explicitly permit use of the contents under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL.

I have already sent an email from my rainafoundation.com email id approving of the contents. (redacted)

Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avington2915 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC) --Avington2915 (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed at user's talk page. MLauba (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 119.93.44.170

Greetings!

I received your message and I deeply apologize. It will not happen again.

Thank You for Your message

You're right that I shouldn't have posted my opinion in article's talkpage about that movie but it was late and I didn't have determination to look for a review that confirms my point ;) I ususally wouldn't do such thing but I felt this silly movie just didn't deserve high standard of editing in its wikiarticle. Obviously I was wrong. Best regards. IP user 78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving + reverting.

Would you like your talk page archiving? :) Also, with the Michael Jackson revert you performed, I'd say leave edit summary as it is (e.g reverted edit ... back to last edit by .... etc) and warn the user with uw-delete1 template, which can be found here, instead of uw-test1 template. Regards, --Scythre^Talk_Contribs 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note.

I haven't noticed need to archive this page yet. Despite my involvement in Recent Changes I don't get a lot of talk.
Because this was a talk page revert (which is where most of my recent changes work is focused) I didn't use {{uw-delete1}}. It's a mainspace template and refers to the talk page of the article concerned. This means that when it's used to refer to a talk page, then the receiving user is told to talk about changes on the talk page of the talk page - just too confusing. I usually use the uw-tpv series for this purpose, but in this case I chose to use {{uw-test1}} because the IP wasn't amending or deleting comments they didn't agree with, they were just putting their two cents in.
For IPs who are new to wikipedia I think it's important to give the reason for reverting/undoing in the edit summary as well as on their talk page. This is especially important for dynamic IPs who might never pick up the talk page message. However, I got tired of typing the same thing onto the end of the standard summary, so I've started using the version I used on the edit summary you picked up. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Beeswaxcandle. You have new messages at Kirachinmoku's talk page.
Message added 20:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

KiraChinmoku _{(Talk, My Contribs)} 20:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lega Nord

I did not delete messages, I've inserted messages deleted from LN activists. Do not delete the messages please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.199.13 (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacology stub sorting

Hi! You proposed splitting {{pharmacology-stub}} way back, but this was never implemented. While I doubt I'll have much time for sorting the stubs in the near future: What about making a start by creating the templates and categories? Before doing so myself, I just wanted to ask whether you had an idea how to phrase the templates. "This cardiovascular system drug related article..." is too bulky, and "This article about a drug acting on the cardiovascular system..." would exclude articles about groups of drugs (eg. Alpha blocker, though that is not a good example). Regards, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easter article

Thanks for weighing in on the dispute over the capitalization of "Son of God" with a note of sanity. I'm guessing you're the author of the note dated 10:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC) on the Easter talk page. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you put a warning on my page, I haven't made more than one edit in any given 24-hour period. Anyway, I have better things to do than worry about someone injecting POV into a WP page so I've unwatched it. (The original edit that provoked this "war" proclaimed "Jesus isn't the son of God, he's the Son of God").Gr8white (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem, if you want to send me a draft of your proposed rewrite I'll be happy to give my feedback. I agree this exercise was largely a waste of energy and I'm sorry I got involved. I really have no particular interest in the topic and I was only watching the page because at some point I had gone there to find out how the date was computed, found the existing explanation confusing, and rewrote it in a clearer (I hope) fashion. Best wishes. Gr8white (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

Could you do me a favor and take a look at this page? I'm hoping my last edit is the end of this but I'm not holding out much hope. I don't want to get into another situation like I did on Easter so I'll probably just avoid any further involvement (even though at least I'm clearly right in this case).

And since you seem to be interested in these things - you might take a look at the history of Dusha, which consists largely of two users reverting each other's edits. Gr8white (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passiflora maliformis

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the conventions of wikipedia, but wouldn't it have been better for you to have done a page move of Talk:Sweet Calabash? which would have retained the edit history. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if there had been an edit history worth retaining. However, it was created shortly before (ca. 30 minutes at most) I found it up and moved the content. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile phones and driving safety

Thank you very much, Beeswaxcandle, for your kind offer of informal mediation over the "raw data" issue. I certainly agree that it would be best to cool the tone and pace of the "discussion". Informal mediation, or even a RfC, would certainly be fine by me, although I think it may involve wider issues than just reaching consensus between the three editors who have been involved so far. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Passiflora flavicarpa"

Having checked IPNI, it looks as if Passiflora flavicarpa has never been published, and it may just be slopppy usage for Paasiflora edulis f./var. flavicarpa. (IPNI doesn't have f./var. flavicarpa either, but IPNI is incomplete for infraspecific taxa.) I'm not convinced that the name even merits a redirect. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Bernacci et al, Passiflora edulis Sims: the correct taxonomic way to cite the yellow passion fruit (and of others colors), Rev. Bras. Frutic. 30(2): 566-576 (June 2008) Lavateraguy (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Beeswaxcandle. You have new messages at Lavateraguy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's up bro? What did I do wrong? I am new to this. Please correct me. Thanks brah.