User talk:Sabedon

I know you've been around since late August, but I just wanted to say:

Welcome!

Hello, Sabedon, 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! -- Scientizzle 18:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Phage ecology

Hi. The Phage ecology article you've recently expanded is excellent. I'd like to propose a fact from your expansion that the phage particles are the most numerous category of organisms on the planet for the "Did You Know infobox" on the main page of wikipedia. This will assure greater traffic at the page you've expanded. If I could suggest adding in-line citations (see WP:CITE for the details and instructions) and maybe one or two more external links and the article would be (IMO) a sure hit. Thanks. --Antorjal 05:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 9 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phage ecology, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Congrats!! --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 15:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microbial Biology references lists

Assuming you don't already know, those lists are up for deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massive volumes of references

You've created or contributed to a number of phage-related articles, which is great, but you tend to include very large numbers of references and further reading, to the point where several articles you've worked on consist exclusively of references and links. Wikipedia is not a collection of links and is not an article database, so this kind of content isn't really what we're looking to create and host. However, you've also made some good contributions and clearly are well-read in this area, so it would be great if you could convert these long lists into referenced article text. If you are more interested in maintaining these lists, you'd probably be better off hosting them elsewhere.

The specific articles I've found that are problematic, excluding the microbiology lists, are phage meetings, phage monographs, the entire further reading section of phage ecology, the entirety of phage experimental evolution and cyanophage. Opabinia regalis 02:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this. Having been a student of Gunther Stent's, nobody can say I'm not interested in the details of the subject. But this is altogether inappropriate for WP. The world could use a comprehensive information resource on the details of the subject, but WP is not the place for it. I see phage.org is now http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/. WeP can not be used for your website. I have just reduced the section on phage meetings, and will be looking at the others. I am not sure the article on phage monographs is suppportable at all, even in principle. Se WP:LIST. DGG (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phage.org has not moved. Phage.org uses URL forwarding. It's been in the same place for essentially a decade. Sabedon (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phage experimental evolution

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Phage experimental evolution, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ciar 04:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phage meetings

It was nominated for proposed deletion; i removed the tag, but it needs some work. I started, but please try to condense it a little, & add at least some external references to these meetings. See a rather extensive discussion on my talk page for an indication of the problems. I'd advise you to add this very quickly, before it gets nominated for regular deletion.DGG (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Phage monographs

The article Phage monographs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a directory. This article is simply a listing of bibliographical information, not encyclopaedic information.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neelix (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Phage monographs

I have nominated Phage monographs, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phage monographs. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:BP Cover1-1.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:BP Cover1-1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 00:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bacteriophage (Journal)

The article Bacteriophage (Journal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

New journal that has not even started publishing. Article creation highly premature. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusio (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sabedon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sabedon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]