User talk:Sarahj2107

If you place a comment/question in my Talk page, I will respond here. If I placed a note in your Talk page It will stay on my watch list for at least a week so you can respond there. This helps keep the thread readable and in one place. Thanks

Need some help

Dear Sarahj,

I am sorry to bother you for such frivolous matter, however I am having difficulties in managing the infobox for my article on Angels Den. I have been through the wikisection discussing it, but I do not happen to comprehend how to put it on the right side of the screen nor can I seem to be able to add a picture and details such as commercial (yes).

If you use your back button, your text will still be there

Please don't say this is definite. With some browsers, clicking on the back button will mean the text is lost. I know this has happened to me.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it works for me in Firefox all the time. I didn't know it didn't work for some other browsers.Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I learned the hard way IE doesn't always do it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Vineland Edit

Hello,

You removed my recent contribution to Vineland because you did not feel it was 'constructive'. All I did was properly attribute an essay linked to on that page, "Raptor, Rapist Rapture: The Dark Joys of Social Control In Thomas Pynchon's Vineland". The essay in question was attributed to Ken Knabb. Knabb did not write this essay, Bill NOT BORED (publisher of the NOT BORED! zine, www.notbored.org), did. Hence I correctly inserted his name in place of Knabb's. If for some reason you still feel that this was not "constructive", then by all means continue to (publicly) display the incorrect attribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasm144 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it was in all caps, it doesn't look like a real name and it was red linked (i.e. doesn't have a wiki page). This made it look unconstructive to me. I you had left an edit summary explaining why you changed it I probably wouldn't have reverted it.Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

540 BC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Elea

Wet Processing Engineering (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Scouring

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cloud-based lending (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Credit

Sarania kachari (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kachari

Typology of unconventional terrorism tactics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hijacking

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

RAK ceramics

Hi Sarah - I am an official employee of RAK Ceramics, and had made changes to the profile of the company on the wikipedia page...kindly do not modify the edited info as the content currently is incomplete and incorrect.

Rgds Deboshree Bhowmick (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see my reply on your talk page.Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

your reply was entirely appropriate--I have reinforced it. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Çatalhöyük, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page UCL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

luiz gustavo

why did you remove my link in luiz gustavo page? can you please explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhupi2929 (talk • contribs)

I removed your link because it was to a wiki site which is not a reliable source. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your cleanup on Marek Halter. I started expanding it today, both from the French article and from English sources, and your work made it much easier. I plan to continue, but if you interested in continuing, let me know on my talk page, so we do not duplicate our work DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

3D cell culture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Microenvironment

Adya Rangacharya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bijapur district

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

government vellore medical college

Thanks. But how can I move the article Government Vellore Medical Hospital to Government Vellore Medical College, as the latter name is the more recognisable one, and is used in the government websites - http://www.gvmc.in, http://web.tnmgrmu.ac.in/index.php/affiliated-colleges/447-ug/481

If you just wait an admin will delete the Government Vellore Medical College page (which is currently a redirect) and move the article Government Vellore Medical Hospital there at the same time (along with the page history to identify who edited what, and when). They will probably do it sometime today. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks not the world (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Asure Software

Hi Sara,

The additions I wanted to make to the Asure Software page reflect a more accurate description of the company. The information currently on the page is dated. How can I have these changes stick. I don't feel that explaining what the company does is an advertisement.

Thanks User:Jcampbellasur (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I feel that your edit was worded in a promotional way. It's OK to update the article but it must be done in a neutral tone. Reading the neutral point of view guidelines will help. Also, if you work for the company please read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest and consider suggesting changes on the article talk page instead of making edits yourself.Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sara,

How do I get to that talk page?

Thanks User:Jcampbellasur (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's at Talk:Asure Software. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-celtic

Hi

On the anglo-celtic page I feel that that is racist to not include anglo-saxon when in recent studies it has shown that there is differences apart from the welsh and english DNA. What's on that page is inaccurate at least. It will lead to confusion in my view so I was wondering if that part of the page can be deleted. Thank you.SkyJumpHigh (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how keeping that paragraph and quote in the article is racist, if that's what your trying to say. The text you removed is referenced with a reliable source and seems relevant to the article so I think it should stay. If you have other sources that contradict, or clarify it then feel free to add those in. If you still think it should be removed then the article talk page is a better place to discuss that. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Swami Parthasarathy

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi!

I have a little question, to which I could not find an answer on the general FAQ site.

Is it possible to change the title of an article (something minor such as a majuscule) . For instance Charles dickens to Charles Dickens

Thank you!

Rhâmuské — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhamusker (talk • contribs) 14:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can do that by moving the page to the new title. The move page link is at the top of the page near the history link. In the "to new title" field make sure (article) is selected and then change the text next to it. If you have any problems just let me know. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ball Packaging Europe

Hallo,

Yestarday I wrote an article about Ball Packaging Europe. You sent me the message that it should not be copied and pasted because of copyrights etc. I did it with purpose as I am working in this company and I used all information from our website. Is there any possibility that this article would be restored? When it comes to Ball Packaging Europe, I do not think that copyrights were broken. Thanks a lot, Dosionair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosionair (talk • contribs) 07:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have moved your comment to the bottom of the page and given it a section header for clarity. The information was copyrighted and therefore Wikipedia cannot host it, even if it is from the company in question. If you are the copyright holder you could donate it (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials) however it may still not be appropriate for the article as information from company websites (this one included) tend to be very promotional in nature. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has to maintain a neutral point of view. Finally if you work for the company I suggest you read the guidlines on conflict of interest and suggest any changes on Ball Corporation talk page (as Ball Packaging Europe is now a redirect again), before making any more edits to those pages. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The redirect was removed earlier today and the same stuff returned by another new one-article user; I have restored the redirect and semi-protected it. Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 13:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hello Sarahj2107,

Yes, I do have questions on how you insert references and hyperlinks like [1] that links to the references. Yes, I really love to help editing microbiological, molecular and other scientific content.

Wikipedia is the greatest, let us hope it is with us forever.

Cheers Raw937 - I can send you an email as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raw937 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I moved your question to the bottom of the page and gave it a separate header for clarity, I hope you don't mind. For references the best place to start is probably Help:Referencing for beginners. You could read Wikipedia:Citing sources as well, it goes into a bit more detail. Basically you put the content of your reference between <ref></ref> tags in the text, which will create the [1] links, and the {{reflist}} template will automatically create the details at the bottom. If you want you can use citation templates between the <ref></ref> (see Wikipedia:Citation templates). The refToolbar at the top of the edit window, under cite, can help with that.

If you are adding or editing references, or really doing anything other than a minor edit to the text, I strongly advise you not to use the visual editor and edit the source code instead. The visual editor doesn't work with references and is still very buggy. Your most recent edits to Exiguobacterium ‎ removed the reference and some of the text that I added, which I think is a know issue with the VE. Good luck and if you need any more help let me know.Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sarah,

Yes, I would like to add more references. My new paper on them will come out soon. Check this paper - http://genomea.asm.org/content/1/4/e00480-13.full Also, when you google "Exiguobacterium" you don't see the wiki as the first page how do you fix that? The Collins paper if possible should be the first reference. They are a very interesting group of organisms.

I would like to add these references:

Collins MD, Lund BM, Farrow JAE, Schleifer KH. 1983. Chemotaxonomic study of an alkaliphilic bacterium, Exiguobacterium aurantiacum

gen nov., sp. nov. J. Gen. Microbiol. 129:2037–2042.

2. Vishnivetskaya TA, Kathariou S, Tiedje JM. 2009. The Exiguobacterium

genus: biodiversity and biogeography. Extremophiles 13:541–555.

3. Vishnivetskaya TA, Lucas S, Copeland A, Lapidus A, Glavina del Rio T,

Dalin E, Tice H, Bruce DC, Goodwin LA, Pitluck S, Saunders E, Brettin

T, Detter C, Han C, Larimer F, Land ML, Hauser LJ, Kyrpides NC,

Ovchinnikova G, Kathariou S, Ramaley RF, Rodrigues DF, Hendrix C,

Richardson P, Tiedje JM. 2011. Complete genome sequence of the thermophilic bacterium Exiguobacterium sp. AT1b. J. Bacteriol. 193:

2880 –2881.

4. Crapart S, Fardeau ML, Cayol JL, Thomas P, Sery C, Ollivier B,

Combet-Blanc Y. 2007. Exiguobacterium profundum sp., nov., a moderately thermophilic, lactic acid-producing bacterium isolated from a deepsea hydrothermal vent. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 57:287–292.

5. Rodrigues DF, Goris J, Vishnivetskaya T, Gilichinsky D, Thomashow

MF, Tiedje JM. 2006. Characterization of Exiguobacterium isolates from

the Siberian permafrost. Description of Exiguobacterium sibiricum sp. Extremophiles. 10:285–294.

6. Vishnivetskaya TA, Petrova MA, Urbance J, Ponder M, Moyer CL,

Gilichinsky DA, Tiedje JM. 2006. Bacterial community in ancient Siberian permafrost as characterized by culture and culture-independent

methods. Astrobiology 6:400 –414.

7. Vishnivetskaya TA, Kathariou S. 2005. Putative transposases conserved

in Exiguobacterium isolates from ancient Siberian permafrost and from

contemporary surface habitats. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:6954 –6962.

8. Rodrigues DF, Ivanova N, He Z, Huebner M, Zhou J, Tiedje JM. 2008.

Architecture of thermal adaptation in an Exiguobacterium sibiricum strain

isolated from 3 million year old permafrost: a genome and transcriptome

approach. BMC Genomics 9:547. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-9-547.

9. Chaturvedi P, Shivaji S. 2006. Exiguobacterium indicum sp. nov., a psychrophilic bacterium from the Hamta glacier of the Himalayan mountain

ranges of India. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 56:2765–2770.

10. Yumoto I, Hishinuma-Narisawa M, Hirota K, Shingyo T, Takebe F,

Nodasaka Y, Matsuyama H, Hara I. 2004. Exiguobacterium oxidotolerans

sp nov., a novel alkaliphile exhibiting high catalase activity. Int. J. Syst.

Evol. Microbiol. 54:2013–2017.

11. Chaturvedi P, Prabahar V, Manorama R, Pindi PK, Bhadra B, Begum

Z, Shivaji S. 2008. Exiguobacterium soli sp. nov., a psychrophilic bacterium from the McMurdo dry valleys, Antarctica. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 58:2447–2453.

12. Singh NK, Raichand R, Kaur I, Kaur C, Pareek S, Mayilraj S. 2013.

Exiguobacterium himgiriensissp. nov., a novel member of the genus Exiguobacterium, isolated from the Indian Himalayas. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 103:789 –796.

13. Kim IJ, Lee MH, Jung SY, Song JJ, Oh TK, Yoon JH. 2005. Exiguobacterium aestuariisp. nov. and E. marinum sp. nov., isolated from tidal flat of

the yellow sea in Korea. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 55:885–889.

14. Fruhling A, Schumann P, Hippe H, Straubler B, Stackebrandt E. 2002.

Exiguobacterium undaesp. nov. and Exiguobacterium antarcticum sp. nov.

Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 52:1171–1176.

15. Raichand R, Pareek S, Singh NK, Mayilraj S. 2012. Exiguobacterium — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raw937 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I fixed the doi's in the references for you, I also changed class back to genus in the first sentences as that's what the reference says and what I could see from my search. If you have other references to dispute this then you can add them in. Otherwise the article is looking good, as it gets longer you might want to separate things into sections.

The reason it isn't the first result with Google is because they haven't updated things on their end yet, it might take a day or two for their web crawler to find it. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ana Kasparian

Hi,

I have been trying to launch a discussion about merging the Ana Kasparian page since 26 July (fully 5 days ago now). 4 editors have taken the time to revert my changes since then. Only one has made a substantial comment in the dicussion, here. There has been no follow-up since, despite clear wikipedia activity by the editor. I have left numerous comments in the discussion, here, here, here, here, here, and here. The most recent Afd for this article showed that a majority of editors were in favour of either deleting, or merging the article, but that more discussion was required. I'm offended that you've accused me of edit warring, when I've been the one trying to engage in discussion while being immediately reverted, largely without explanation or follow-up. There are very clear policy violations on this page, and they should be discussed and dealt with (See the talk page), or the page should be merged. Kind regards, Peregrine981 (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You can be offended all you want, you clearly reverted 3 times in the space of 24 hours which is edit warring. The bold revert discuss cycle clearly states that after you make a bold edit (the first redirect you made on the 26th) and are reverted, you should stop editing and discuss it on the talk page until consensus is made. During this time the page should remain in the stable state from before the bold edit was made. The last AFD certainly did not show a majority in favour of deleting as it closed as keep. If you really think it should be merged the correct action would be to place merge templates on the source and destination pages and wait until a proper decision can be reached. This normally takes longer than 5 days. I stand by my warning that if you revert the page again I will report you for edit warring. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD doesn't really work if no one discusses... I tried to be patient and wait for comments but none came. If I hadn't reverted, there wouldn't even have been the one comment that was made. The other user is clearly evading the discussion, relying on inertia and apathy. If you count the votes from the AfD, you'll see a 6-5 decision against keep. Not consensus, but a majority none the less. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't just leave it a day or two and then decide that there is no discussion and ignore BRD, people have other things to do and may not see it in that time. More than one person reverted you which indicates that people disagree with you, it is up to you then to put your case forward on the talk page and wait for consensus to be made. Like I said above if you want a formal merge discussion then place the merge templates on the pages. You could even start a request for comment if you think the discussion is not getting enough attention. In the past I have waited weeks or longer for consensus on merge proposals, the last merge I made was only after 6 months of no objections on the talk page. As far as the AFD goes, it was closed as keep with possible merge after further discussion, you can't go back and count votes and claim that supports your actions now. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I realise that people have other things to do. But the other user who initially objected, and at least had the courtesy to make a substantial reply, has been busily working away on a number of other articles on wikipedia in the meantime. That's why I decided to move ahead. It's fair to wait for people to have time to respond while they are busy in "real life." But if they are working on wikipedia I think it's fair to suggest that they have moved on from the discussion, unless they've specifically requested more time to think. Also, I don't disagree that other people disagree. My frustration comes from them not engaging in the specifics of the discussion. I don't think it's fair for people to revert in in an on-going discussion, but not justify their actions with reference the specifics of the particular argument. It isn't a constructive way to edit. A person reverting an edit that isn't outright vandalism has some duty to be familiar with the discussion at hand. If they think the edit isn't justified, they should make a comment to that effect. Otherwise we aren't making any progress.

With regard to the AfD, this is precisely the discussion that I'm trying to have; I'm not saying that that discussion necessarily justifies a revert, only that this is a discussion and action that isn't coming out of the blue. This isn't an article whose notability has been clearly established yet, so for other editors to act as if the discussion is superfluous or unnecessary is disingenuous. Also, not sure why a formal merge discussion would necessarily be any different, given that the formal deletion discussion advised switching to a more informal debate to air opinions, but if you think it would help we could go in that direction. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your missing the point, as you were the one to make the first now contested edit it up to you to convince others that it is the right course of action. Editors are free to revert you with a brief edit summary saying they don't agree without having to come to the talk page and justify that. You should have waited for longer for the discussion to take place and not just gone ahead and changed it again, (never mind 3 more times). I can understand your frustration at the lack of response but even AFD and prods are up for a week before closing. The formal merge proposal is a way to draw peoples attention to the fact that there is a discussion going on, as a lot of people don't even look at the talk page. It would also get the attention of people visiting the destination page. I really think this is the best thing to do now. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I take your point that by the letter of law I could have been more patient. But I really don't think that I did anything wrong in this situation. The fact of the matter is that I did justify on talk what I wanted to do, and why. Repeatedly. But not one of the editors was willing to write a serious argument as to why it should stay as is, until I'd already been forced to revert 2 times, and well over three days had passed. This is not the same as floating an idea and having it ignored (which happens all the time, and is fair enough). There is some burden of responsibility to engage constructively with an editor proposing a change if they've laid out their argument on the talk page if you oppose it. Not doing so is fairly rude, and doesn't help in any way in the goal of building a new consensus. Ignoring the talk page in such cases is a form of disrespect similar to an edit war, because it simply serves to entrench one's position without engaging constructively; the end result is much the same, even if the process looks superficially calmer. (This is of course assuming that there is some basis to the argument on talk) Anyway, I'll take your advice and launch a formal procedure. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)