User:Yilloslime/Sandbox

subpages/things slowly working on

UBX

This user would already rather be bowhunting

General

Clean-up or AfD Elisabet Sahtouris and Elizabeth Rauscher
create List fo pesticides by WHO catagory or Category:WHO Class 1a pesticides etc.
clean up Phthalates
incorporate info from Doubt is their product into relevant pages
create page with reference breathing rates and body weights and other such data (2.0L/per, etc.)
Mary Gade

DDT

To Do

John Patrick McKenzie
Global Distillation / Leap-frog effect
More on eggshells and other species besides Bald Eagle
Environmental effects of DDT production:
- Eloor pollution:http://www.tehelka.com/story_main39.asp?filename=Ne070608profitoverpeople.asp
- Velsicol and Montrose superfund sites
- Chinese pollution (check pubmed)

More Use Stats

"Some 1,268 tons of DDT was sprayed" in Ethiopia last year.[1]

EDC

DDE - anti androgen [2]
ppDDE - anti androgen, but not estrogen Cohn et al
opDDT - "extremely weak estrogen" Cohn et al
ppDDT - "little or no androgenic or estrogenic activity" Cohn et al
op and pp DDT -estrogenic; pp-DDE anti androgenic. ( J Occup Environ Med. 2008;50:1335–1342)

dfd

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

November

Elitist

E

This user is an Elitist.

sig

Yilloslime (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

old: [[User:Yilloslime|Yilloslime]] [[User talk:Yilloslime|'''T''']][[Special:Contributions/Yilloslime|'''C''']]

Yilloslime ^T_C 19:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yilloslime ^TC19:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

>Oreskes, Naomi; Erik M. Conway (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. San Francisco, CA: Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 1-59691-610-9.

Spencer, Roy (2010). The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists. San Francisco: Encounter Books. ISBN 1-59403-373-0.

Template fun

{{subst:PROD|Fails [[WP:N]]--no non-trivial sources on this "topic" could be located. Consensus at AfD is that the mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability. See, for example [[WP:Articles for deletion/Laos-Romania relations|this]], [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Canada–Moldova_relations|this]], or [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bilateral_relations_of_Ireland|this]].}}

"Greece-Latvia relations" OR "Latvia-Greece relations" OR "relations between Greece and Latvia" OR "relations between Latvia and Greece"

Greece Latvia relations -China

Draft

Intro

Articles of the type "X-Y relations" have recently proliferated on WP. Many, but not all, were created by banned User:Groubani or his sockpuppets, and new ones are still appearing. Most are stubs and many have clear potential to develop into full articles. Other [seem to be] [are simply] random pairings. Many such articles have been deleted via PROD or AfD, but there is a large gray area between the patently non-notable and obviously notable pairings. Recognizing that some gray area will always exist and there will always be a need to deal with some pairings on a case by case basis, this guideline seeks to narrow that gray area and provideguidance on which topics are notable, which are not, and which might be. The aim is prevent editors from wasting their time creating and/or cleaning up articles which will utlimately be deleted, and to save the community time by hopefully reducing the number of AfDs.

Guidelines

Bilateral relations between counties are not inherently notable.

Dates of official recognition, locations of embassies/consulates, [lists of accords & agreements] are suitable facts for inclusion in wikipedia. But whether they belong in stand alone "X-Y relations" articles or in "Foreign relations of X" or "List of diplomatic missions of X" articles will vary depending on how extensive the relations between the countries are, and how much has been written about their relations.
Certain bilateral are inherently notable, and automatically suitable for stand-alone articles:
- Relations between countries sharing a land border or a narrow water boundary.
- Relations between states that, in modern history, where formerly part of the same country. i.e. relations among former soviet states with one another, or relations between states that were formerly part of Yugoslavia.
- Relations between a former colony and its colonizer, but not necessarily relations between former colonies of the same colonizer.
The following things, do not in-and-of-themselves prove notability:
- Formal recognition
- Embassies on each other soil
- Existence of bilateral agreements
- Mutual membership in international organizations (NATO, GRULAC, ASEAN, etc.)
The lack of embassies on each other's soil and/or bilateral agreements is a strong indicator that the topic of their relations is not suitable for a stand alone article of the "X-Y Relations" type. Note, however, if there is signficant coverage of their relations in independent secondary sources, than such an article may be justified.
WP:N: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
- While they can be appropirate sources for an article, an official government website documenting ties to another state does not by itself establish notability of the pair, such that an "X-Y Relations" pair in justified.

Simplified Draft

X-Y relations are inherently notable when:

X and Y share a border
X and Y were the principle combatants in an armed conflict in the 20th or 21st century. Contributing troops to a UN operation or similar broad coalition does not count.
- Example: Argentina – United Kingdom relations qualifies as inherently notable because of the Falklands War. The fact the Albania contributed troops to Coalition Forces in Afghanistan does make Albania-Afghanistan inherently notable.
X was colonized, occupied, or otherwise part of Y in the last 200 years. Y must be the last occupier/colonizer before X gained independence.
- Example: France–Mauritania relations are inherently notable because Mauritania gained it's independence from France. The fact the United Kingdom once control Gorée does not make Senegal – United Kingdom relations inherently notable, because the island was more recently under French rule.

X-Y relations are inherently non-notable when:

None of the above are true and neither country maintains in embassy in the other and the countries are not involved in a dispute.

In between situations:

X-Y relations are notable if they meet the general notability requirement, which states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
In this context, the websites of the Governments of X and Y are not independent and cannot used to establish notability.
New coverage about state visits, sporting events between X and Y, or a company from X investing Y do note establish notability unless the topic of the countries relations is directly addressed, and discussed in detail. In detail means more than a passing mention.
Books, book chapters, and journal articles constitute appropriate sources if they treat the subject of X-Y relations directly.
- Example: A book on the foreign relations of Thailand has a chapter on it's relations with Australia. This constitutes significant coverage.
- Example: A book on the foreign relations of Thailand has a chapter on it's relations with Latin America. Peru is mentioned a few times, but always along side other countries. This does not constitute significant coverage.
Newspaper articles can constitute significant coverage, but they must directly address the topic, and spend at least a paragraph on the topic. The number of such sources required to add up "significant coverage" varies depending on the depth of coverage in each source.