User talk:Femcofounder

Welcome!

Hello, Femcofounder, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Also, I reverted your addition of Shirley Chisholm to list of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates, since that list is only for candidates who were on the ballot in at least one state, either as the nominee of a party or as independents. According to Chisholm's article, she lost the nomination and didn't try an independent run. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slot canyon articles

Hi, I appreciate the work you've been putting into the various slot-canyon related articles, but please do not write that "the length of time it took for xxx to form is unknown." First, because there are many references in the literature indicating the erosion that formed them occurred over millions of years, and second because an encyclopedia article almost never states what is "unknown." There are limitless things that are unknown, and if we were to list them all every article would be 99% unknowns. You wouldn't have an article that says, "The first person to discover Antelope Canyon is unknown. The heaviest rock ever washed through the canyon is unknown. The number of birds that have flown through the canyon is unknown." Etc. I've rewritten the statements referring to millions of years, and ask that if you want to change them you find a verifiable source indicating a different amount of time and discuss such changes on the talk pages first. Thank you. -- Moondigger 05:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your comment. I will be happy to simply take out the claim that it took millions of years. The mere fact that someone claims in print that the erosion took millions of years doesn't make it so. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that not only would the erosion happen quickly, but that millions of years would have been impossible. There has been recent research to show that the radiometric dating method is basically invalid, and it is the basis for all claims that something took millions of years. All the rest of it is speculation accepted as fact. It would probably be best if the claim is simply omitted. One can simply say they were carved out by the rushing waters of monsoons. Even if it were a documented fact that some erosions take millions of years, that information specifically about slot canyons probably doesn't exist. The number of millions is also not stated. For further information on the issue of erosion and the time it takes, please research the observations at Mount St. Helens, where a canyon 1/40 of the size of the Grand Canyon was carved out in a matter of days. This is, obviously, an erosion event. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is probably best not to put unverified information into an article at all. Your analogies don't really compute with me simply because that's not something people would comment on to begin with, though I take your point. It isn't of interest to know who discovered Antelope Canyon (since it was a Native American, and as far as I know, they don't have a legend about it, and if they did, a notation on what the legend says would be entirely proper), or the heaviest rock that washed through the canyon, or the number of birds that have flown through.

When it comes to the information about how long it took to carve the slot canyons, we don't have anything to measure. Sandstone formations are dated according to other things in the rock, such as fossils. The fossils are usually dated depending on where they are found. This is a circular situation. While I cannot claim that there are no fossils in the slot canyons, I have never seen any. Without fossils and without other types of rocks, there is nothing to date.

I will do further research on this. Femcofounder 21:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tim and Cindie Travis

An editor has nominated Tim and Cindie Travis, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim and Cindie Travis and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 20:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Down syndrome

Hi there. The article is currently only semi-protected, meaning that only unregistered editors or editors whose accounts are less than four days old are prevented from editing it. If you were unable to edit the page, you were probably logged out. Feel free to add the information you wish to the article; you may, however, want to ask for other editors' opinions of it at the Talk page. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've deleted your edit I'm afraid. The whole issue of dietary supplements in DS is incredibly controversial (as you may know) and so far there have been no valid research studies that demonstate any lasting benefits from their use - whilst I know some parents swear by them with almost religious fervour, many other parents find the issue offensive, commercially driven and unproven and leading authorities like paediatrician Len Leshin (also a parent of a child with DS) has discounted the claims made by manufacturers of supplements. Feel free to contact me on my own talkpage if you wish to discuss further - I'm a parent too (thats my son with the electric screwdriver on the DS page) and I've been tracking this debate for many years. Cheers! Excalibur 20:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would contest your deletion simply because people should have a right to know everything they can about DS. The most important fact about the research is not that supplements are being tested or used, but the general direction of the research. It has been found that DS folks have certain heightened needs for certain nutrients. What isn't clear yet is whether or not it can be fixed by supplements or whether this is a more profound problem than that. I don't think anybody has claimed that it is a done deal that supplements work. This is ongoing research. The most important information is that this is a direction some researchers are working on. It is hardly a commercial issue at this point, because as far as I know, nobody is selling these particular supplements in a commercial way. I don't know offhand how to contact you on your talk page, by the way. I will make the attempt to let you know.

Good on you that you are encouraging your son to use things like electric screwdrivers. It's important not to keep them from doing anything they're capable of.

Femcofounder 05:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]