This is an archive of past discussions about User:BigHaz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Can a cool admin help a guy out? I want to add one sentence to the world of Wikipedia. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, reliable (I chose the New York Times version.)
Fact: Circumcision is believed to decrease a man's risk of getting HIV Fact: Circmcision is believed to INCREASE a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia, and some think even other STD's.
The article on "circumcision" mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once.
I can sympathise with what you're saying, but I'm not sure there's much I can do about it at present. The sentence you've been trying to add is a problematic one, given the reference you're citing. What the reference says is that circumcised men are more likely to report those infections, rather than that the procedure itself is believed to increase the risk of the infections, as you're writing into the article. Secondly, the article dates from 1997, so it's around a decade old now, and as some of the reversions point out, that's pretty out of date in the medical world. Do you have a more recent study you can cite which demonstrates that kind of thing? BigHaz - Schreit mich an22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Brisbane
Just a reminder that WikiProject Brisbane needs your help. There have been a number of changes to the project page over recent days and I hope you could spare some time to take a look, be bold and add some touches yourself.
There is plenty that needs to be done to get more Brisbane articles up to FA standard. Please come and discuss this and lets see if we can build up this project.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Aust School
I nominated this template for deletion, because it had exactly the same qualities to the Template:Infobox school and inferior structure with worse aesthetics. That's why I was replacing the templates with the Infobox school, but after the first few blunders I kept the template in Australian English, although the template changed. I hope you understand. STYROFOAM1994Don't age bias me!03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I do. I was slightly careless on the reverts regarding the variety of English, so feel free to change those infoboxes back accordingly. BigHaz - Schreit mich an04:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Germany Invitation
Hello, BigHaz! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why an uninvolved user (my only experience of Slovenia is spending a magical day there early last year) is being canvassed to take part in this discussion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have the time, can you tell me why you choose in the earlier RfD to vote for the keeping of the article. Do you feel that it should be deleted or perhaps renamed. -- Imbris (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
My rationale for advocating "keep" in the first AfD was outlined in my comment there. I haven't yet had the chance to read over the arguments and the article this second time round, and may not have that chance. BigHaz - Schreit mich an22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion under way on what this project should include. Currently, the main topic is only the Eurovision Song Contest. Some believe that both the Junior Contest and Dance Contest should be included. Tell us your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Project Scope.
There is currently a backlog of assessments; the project's assessment rate stands at 35.1%. Please add {{EurovisionNotice}} to the talk pages of all Eurovision related articles if it is missing and read Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment if you would like to help assess the articles as well.
The project main page is the in middle of a major revamping. To get a sneak peak of the work in progress, see the draft.
In the coming days/weeks, instructions for the use of all Eurovision templates and descriptions for the layouts of pages will be up and running. As of now, a few templates are already complete: see {{ESC National Year}} and {{Infobox ESC entry}}.
Remember to source all information you add to pages or else it may be removed. ESCToday and Oikotimes are great places to find information.
Member News
The project currently has 35 members, 16 of which are considered active. This means that 19 of our project's members have not edited a Eurovision article in the last two months.
We now have a project invitation. Place our invitation template on the talk page of anyone you would like to invite to our project.
Member Thank Yous
The Project says thank you to the following editors for doing an excellent job within the project during the past weeks. (alphabetical order)
Welcome to the first issue of the WikiProject Eurovision newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.
About two weeks ago, I was bold and decided that our entire WikiProject needed to be reorganized. I am seeking to put into effect new guidelines on page layouts, templates, and basically to make all related articles consistent. Part of this reorganization included improving our assessment department since one didn't really exist before and completely reformatting the main page.
Also, it is my opinion that the project be renamed "WikiProject Eurovision Song Contest" and that the Junior Eurovision Song Contest be officially included. I believe that the Eurovision Dance Contest should be separate since it shares nothing in common aside from the EBU.
We also need to work on bringing new members into this project; especially during these months when not much is going on in the Eurovision world. If you would like to invite someone to join the WikiProject, our invitation template on their talk page. Now is when we need to get our project's pages up to par for next year's contest and make everything as accurate and in depth as possible. Let me know if you have any comments or suggestions for the project on either my talk or the project's.
I just remembered I forgot to thank you for watching my userpage/RLC article during those personal attacks. So thanks. I'm too poor to buy you a barnstar. Scalene (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of 't Is OK
I have nominated 't Is OK, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'t Is OK. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- JediLofty UserTalk10:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Academy of Science of the Soviet Union
I've restored the correct figure denoting the celebration of the Academy's 220th anniversary in the entry on Harold Innis. I changed the wording slightly to clarify things by calling it "the country's Academy of Sciences." I'm not sure why you simply substituted the figure "20" for "220". There is no documentary basis for your change, especially in an entry that has been extensively peer-reviewed, awarded feature article status and which appeared as feature article of the day on June 2, 2008. The entry Russian Academy of Sciences states clearly that the academy continued as a Soviet institution after the Russian Revolution in 1917 so there is the continuity that adds up to 220 years. Bwark (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I changed it because the maths seemed shaky at the time, although I didn't see the mention of it being founded in the 1700s when I checked that article. The fact that an article has been featured on the main page doesn't magically make it immune to vandalism or anything, and it is quite plausible that a comparatively minor typographical error can sneak through review. I know because it's happened to me before. In the event, yes you're quite right that this wasn't an error or vandalism, but I would suggest not being quite so defensive about process here, for the reasons I've outlined above. BigHaz - Schreit mich an23:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I guess I'm a bit defensive. Sorry about that. It's probably the product of so many months of intense work on the entry. I recognize there's a legitimate question here. How could the Soviet Academy of Science be celebrating its 220th anniversary when the Soviet Union itself was founded in 1917? At the same time though, I'm puzzled about why you substituted "20" for "220." The figure seems pulled out of the air. When I'm editing, I try to cite a source for all significant facts. If I couldn't find a definitive source, I would probably raise the issue on the entry's discussion page. Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble to look over the Innis entry so carefully and thanks for your reply on this page. Defensively yours, Bwark (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I plumped for a "20th anniversary" as seeming more probable than a "220th" for three reasons. Firstly, it's quite easy to believe that someone simply pressed the same key twice, producing 220 instead of 20 (200 could also have happened, of course, but it didn't). In my experience, that's a pretty common error (or "errror", if you will). Secondly, I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (flawed because I couldn't remember exactly when the USSR was founded, it was early in the morning here) and figured that 1925 (20 years before the anniversary in question) would have made sense as an occasion. The USSR, I knew in my sleep-addled state, had been founded at some point around the end of WW1, and saying that their academy of sciences would have taken a few more years perhaps to set up stands to reason, as there was a civil war to resolve and generally the trappings of a new state to create. Thirdly, it also struck me that a 220th anniversary is an odd thing to celebrate, although I know very few institutions which are that old. A 20th anniversary, however, is something which makes more sense to celebrate. In the event, of course, none of those three rationales were proven correct. BigHaz - Schreit mich an04:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It's good to question what's reported in entries but rationales or theories need to be checked out. As a retired journalism professor, I'd say there is no substitute for thorough research. As an historian with a first class honours degree, I'm sure you'd agree. Bwark (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Had I been thorough enough, I would have found the information explaining the apparent inconsistency on the article. As it was, I wasn't, but I'm glad we can both agree that we were both acting in good faith. BigHaz - Schreit mich an02:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
BigHaz, regarding this edit I actually agree with the removal of the birthplace in the absence of a reliable source, but as written the paragraph suggests he was in fact born in St. Louis. -SpuriousQ (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
