You've reached User talk:Scientizzle/Archive 3, an archive of User talk:Scientizzle. Please do not edit this page. You're encouraged to leave a message on my regular talk page and link to the archived discussion.
I see that you don't like my contribution. I have modified it, and put up a hangon on the talk page. If you do not approve, please say so there. -- Chris23:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've been around long enough to know better...Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. -- Scientizzle23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I agree with NPOV in principle, but when a magazine says that the greatest musician ever is actually only #27 best, I have to take exception. Sorry to disagree. -- Chris00:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If you can find a reliable source for your statement, then it's eligible to be included in the article (its inclusion would also depend on how much it adds to the development of a comprehensive article in terms of structure, flow and sufficiently notable information). Please discontinue adding your personal opinions to articles. -- Scientizzle00:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. I'd say I'm sorry but that might be deemed pointless. Cheers ChrisWright1979 = user:cjwright79. Regardless, this is my last troll. Sorry for being such a dick.
The apology rings hollow as you've repeatedly "apologized" for countless other disruptions and never changed your behavior. It's unfortunate you chose to be a troll because you have provided at least a few useful edits. Please find some other way to spend your time rather than vandalizing this site... -- Scientizzle19:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point - I hadn't realized that even traits could spread that were actively nonadaptive, under the right conditions. That changes things a bit. And it is indeed worth keeping in mind that small changes at the genetic level can have bizarre, possibly substantial effects on the resultant organism. However, that just makes my question even more important. How do we know, for a fact, that it's even possible for the things we see around us to have evolved the way they're supposed to have? Even if the results of a mutation can be large and unpredictable, there are still a set number of changes a particular organism can make that wouldn't outright kill it, and only a set number of those that wouldn't kill it long-term. How do we know for a fact that of those many, various changes available, there exist any that would (collectively) do what we claim they must? And assuming we have proven they exist (which would be hard, given that few genomes have even been sequenced and they aren't well understood), how do we prove, the burden of proof being on the supporters of the theory, that there's even an outside chance one of these series of changes would happen fast enough to fit within the requisite timespan? It's not that I think the theory's wrong, I'm perfectly willing to trust the consensus opinion of scientists worldwide, it's just that I can't find anything that explains how we've proven (again, proven, through logic or overwhelming evidence or both) that it could work. Black Carrot05:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's taken me a while to find time to respond, but here I go...
You're asking a tough question, but I'm not sure if it's the right question. "How do we know, for a fact, that it's even possible for the things we see around us to have evolved the way they're supposed to have?" This seems to be the thrust of your query and it merits a two-part response:
How do we know the process of evolution can produce modern organisms in the Earth's life-supporting timeframe? Well, it may seem tautological, but the answer should be self-evident: if there wasn't enough time, it wouldn't have happened; since it presumably did happen, there must have been enough time. (We are talking about billions of years here...) You seem to be asking for a proof-of-concept model to verify that a 2 billion year timescale is sufficient to develop a complex lifeform--I think it's safe to say that any model created within our lifetimes will be woefully inadequate. Truthfully, I don't think this is a question worth asking--if we can eventually demonstrate how & when every major evolutionary step took place, it would be de facto proof that Earth's evolutionary timescale was sufficient for evolution.
Currently we have a generalized model (evolution by natural selection) that is logically consistent and had robustly provided testable predictions for the various steps in evolution. While the data set is still thin in many places, there's been recent exponential increases in phylogenic data that consistently support the general ToE framework. On the whole, the preponderance of evidence supports evolutionary theory and has provided a rough, but generally sensible (considering what we do know of DNA mutation rates--see molecular clock--and selection models) timeline for organism evolution.
Secondly, when you ask for "proof" and "know"ing something for a "fact," please consider the scientific versus colloquial meanings of these words. Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" Statistical significance is an important notion in the way scientists digest data and trust the outcome. One must demonstrate convincingly that an effect or outcome is a defined result of the experimental condition (causative, not correlative) beyond, essentially, a reasonable doubt. That is, as Occam's razor razor comes into play, the explanation that best fits the data is to be preferred until some evidence comes along to show that the current model is inadequate, antiquated, or flat-out wrong.
In the case of models of speciation, there are very few alternative models that have any supporting evidence, and there exists essentially no established evidence that doesn't fit with the general theory. This doesn't mean that the current model of the Theory of Evolution is absolutely correct (certainly some aspects of it are undoubtedly wrong), it just means that it's the current best-fit explanation, and it's always (technically) vulnerable to be superseded by another scientific theory that better encompasses all available data.
Okay, taking these points together, let's look at your question again.
While there's no undisputable proof that ~2 billion years is "enough" time for the mechanisms of evolution to have created the complex organisms of the world today, there's certainly a lot of evidence to support the idea and no evidence (despite what William Dembski claims) that disproves that such is the case.
And since the current theory fits the evidence, the onus is on those that would support an alternate theory to provide alternative evidence and/or a better explanation.
Hopefully this rambling treatise effectively addressed your question. If not, maybe I could better respond to a rewording of your query... -- Scientizzle20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It helps. I still don't get it, though. I follow what you say (except the first bit, which is circular), and you're right, but it doesn't really answer the question, since you never say what evidence you're referring to. When you say "had robustly provided testable predictions for the various steps in evolution", for instance, what predictions does it provide that can be tested?
Okay, now we're getting to a clear question. what predictions does [evolution] provide that can be tested? These range from the obvious & mundane to incredibly complex, but here are a few simple examples:
Birds kind of look like reptiles...one might hypothesize that modern birds and modern reptiles diverged from a common ancestor. If true:
There should be some fossil evidence of early birds that are considerably more like reptiles, growing more morphologically similar as one progresses further into the past--the classic "missing link."
If they shared a relatively recent common ancestor, birds and reptiles would likely have highly homologous physical traits, from bone structures to embryonic development patterns to protein signaling cascades at the cellular level.
Similarly, birds and reptiles should show significant similarities in DNA sequence (due to common descent), and divergence in ways that underlie the physical differences between the two. Also, the rate of mutational occurance must be within reason for the timespan in question (the molecular clock principle).
These are the types of testable hypotheses evolution provides. All known evidence for this example and any others is generally in support of this sort of pattern, if not perfectly in line. I the example above, the proposed model of avian ancestry would be simply disproved if a bird fossil was found and (reliably) dated to an era that preceded the age of reptiles, if a bird "missing link" fossil was found that looked (for example) fish-like rather than reptile-like, and/or if birds and reptiles lacked sufficient homolgy.
In the bird-reptile common descent example, there's ample (& easy to find) evidence in each of the three categories. Likewise with humans-great apes. It's tougher to make a humans-amoeba case because the timescale involved is so vast, but compelling cases exist for each evolutionary stepping stone from single-celled organisms to modern complex eukaryotes.
The flexibility & consistent success of the ToE in explaining speciation, and the complete lack of well-substantiated alternate scientific theories (invoking the supernatural is nonscientific because it necessitates the abandonment of naturalism) gives evolution top billing as an established scientific theory. Scientists as a whole aren't necesarily "convinced that evolution is almost certainly right," but confident that this self-consistent framework describing the natural phenomenon of speciation has been repeatedly confirmed for many years and will continue to accurately describe future data requiring only tweaks of the overall formula.
In my own opinion, I feel that many go overboard in defending the "incontroveritble truth" of evolution largely because the subtleties of relative institutional confidence in theories is lost on the lay person. I'm personally confident in the general framework of the ToE (p<0.00001 :) ), while cautiously optimistic that if the theory breaks down it will be for a similar, compatible, but even more robust framework. (Everyone thought Newton's law of universal gravitation was perfect until it couldn't explain the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury...general relativity was the necessary theoretical upgrade--it's not so much that Newton's law was wrong, rather it was just not quite right.) -- Scientizzle07:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - I just happened to run across the excellent job you've been doing of mentoring Ironhide1975 on their talk page. Thank you for putting that kind of time and effort into helping newbies - I aspire to be that good someday. Perel04:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is NO CONCENSUS FOR adding PAUMK. No one was consulted ! People in Turkey hate him with a passion and his so called prize was given for selling out his country for fame. He is not even the greatest writer;that is either Nazim Hikmet or Duygu Asena. READ ABOUT TURKEY BEFORE EDITING ABOUT IT. Some turcophobes like jamie have been trying to ruin turkish pages for a long time now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terkko (talk • contribs) 23:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I'm far from a "turcophobe." I have Turkish friends, and I'd very much like to visit Turkey some day. I am, however, against POV agendas being pushed on any articles, Turkey-related or otherwise. Many conservative Americans were upset when Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize, but that doesn't mean we should pretend it didn't happen. No one is saying that Paumk represents all things Turkey, but it is notable and significant that he won a Nobel Prize. OhNoitsJamieTalk00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was me who put that in when I was completely rewriting half the article yesterday. It took me nearly ten hours to correctly structure, reference and copy-edit the whole damn thing. Before I rewrote it, the culture section was one sentence and had no sources or pictures. I put in links to TR architecture, TR literature, Turkish hip-hop, football, Istanbul Formula 1 along with Orhan Pamuk. I am a Turk and definitely not the kind that would be called a "traitor", in fact I have been called a pan-Turkist so many times, it would blow your mind. However, a Turkish writer being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature this year is more than relevant. I notice that Orhan Pamuk has become a scapegoat recently, and it is a shame that it is clouding his literary achievements of the last 25 years. I read some of his books and none of them were political. There are many Turkey articles that need help, please help out with them. Baristarim00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Putting that George W. Bush is the worst thing to happen to America isn't vandalism since it's true.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emokid200618 (talk • contribs).
[1]
Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.
In response to my comment at User talk:Captain Stabby:
I have removed your non-serious additions to Brendan Loy. Since the sum total of your edits to Wikipedia are 2 examples of blatant vandalism[2][3], a comment that could be construed as a personal attack[4], and your latest addition, which contained some decent edits along with contemptuous statements like "Mickey Kaus has refused to comment on whether his comment was facetious" and "uninformed journalists and blog visitors," I'll leave you with this: Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Scientizzle18:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but who the hell do you think you are removing my valid comments to the Brendan Loy article? They were thoughtful edits, and provided necessary context. Please cease your vandalism of my work.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Stabby (talk • contribs).
Your most recent edit to Brendan Loy was perfectly fine, but your previous edits were decidedly not. I reverted those comments that were simply not fit for an encyclopedia. Who do you think you are, adding statements like "Loy is wanted in no less than 4 jurisdictions for acts which common decency prevents mentioning in this forum. Suffice to say, it involves a lot of pizza, gallons of diet coke, and a monstrous hideous creature who is prone to wearing sweatsuits"[5]? It's difficult to take your contributions in good faith when your track record is simply low-grade to blatant vandalism of a single article and trite personal attacks. That you have some apparent beef with Brendan Loy is of no interest to me, but I will continue to revert any edits that I feel are vandalism on this and every other Wikipedia article. -- Scientizzle19:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that no one could provide evidence of relevence on the talk page when it was deleted, but if you would please follow this link, (and pay no attention to animation not within the series) then I think that you would find evidence of immense popularity, and hopefully lift the salted earth status.
I don't doubt that the animation has acheived considerable popularity, but until it has received some sort of notable media (or something similar) coverage it won't meet WP:WEB. -- Scientizzle23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know how this will sound, and I'm sorry 'bout that.
Doesn't the fact that it holds such CONSIDERABLE popularity kind of make it considerable. I would think the standards would be lower for a flash animation to be notable. Is wikipedia realy that strict about requiring outside media?
Again sorry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schizel (talk • contribs).
I understand your frustration, and you're making a couple of good points...but there's clearly a precedent that, say, a popular YouTube video only gets a Wikipedia article if it has achieved some mainstream attention, likewise with blogs and other websites. If you can make a case as to why flash animations should have a lower standard, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web). I personally don't think the threshold should be higher or lower for any of the types I've mentioned...and just citing the apparent number of views of a flash animation for notability wouldn't really be reliable. You'd probably be better served by spending your efforts contacting recognizable, notable media establishments about Madness Combat (and why they should review it or write about it) and develop WP:WEB-meeting credibility. Just my $.02. -- Scientizzle21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt etc. but it really was quite intentional. I've been surfing and contributing to wiki for a year or three under various IPs and I can tell you full well that the only two ways to resolve something on the info page is to either do it while nobody is looking (too bad you were on hand that instant) or to galvanize a huge lobby that votes the same way and has several prominent editors unafraid of edit wars behind it.
Soviet Union as an "axis" member is sheer nonsense but to get that deleted via wikipedia's established ways would take several months or more and attract the anti-Soviet crowd who would instarevert anything you change.
Your honesty is refreshing! While I understand that having a section on the Soviet Union in the Axis powers of World War II article can lead to some confusion, I think the writing in that section makes it clear that Germany and the Soviet Union were not allied, but merely partners in some shady military/political dealings. The section could certainly use better external sourcing and perhaps it could be made clear earlier that the Soviet Union's primary role over the course of World War II was as a member of the Allies...
Please do bring up your concerns on the article talk page, though...it's not a perfect system, but it beats unexplained section blanking. -- Scientizzle01:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been chatting with User_talk:Mr._Lefty about the status of the Madness Combat articles as well as a previous poster. I noticed today that Madness_Combat is now permitting edits --> Was this article re-opened? Did you do that? I put up a test edit, because it appeared to be unlocked. I don't want to violate the terms of service. Can you confirm that this page is intentionally now "unsalted earth?"
Note that the other spelling is still prohibited: Madness_combat - this makes it confusing as to whether this article is ok or banned.
Interesting. Madness Combat was unprotected, in accordance with Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages ("Nearly all older protected deleted pages should be permanently deleted after a few months."), but Madness combat was not. The unprotecting admin was User:Centrx, so you should just bring it to that user's attention if and when you get around to creating a solid Madness Combat article.
I had no part in the the "re-opening" of the page, as I'm not a sysop, but it does appear legitimately "unsalted". As a practical warning, recreations of MC that aren't of a sufficient initial quality will be readily speedy deleted, and poor quality entries may encourage another deletion-protection. Best of luck! And Happy Holidays! -- Scientizzle21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input on this. I've written to Centrx to find out the scoop on the article. I'm inquiring with the owners of this site to see if we can use it as the basis for an article on WP. It looks like a reasonably thorough coverage, and if the copyright is clear, it seems like a good way to make sure the early revisions are solid? Thanks for your input and help! Stevemidgley04:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply...my question was actually in regards to the bold text that would appear (prior to the color-coding of + & - changes) on significantly large deletions of data. The answer seems to have been provided, however: the bold was an indication of 500< characters deleted. -- Scientizzle21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Madness Combat article has been reopened? Did it recieve media attention recently or something, and this happened to coincide with my efforts, or did I actually do something, or what else might have happened? I mean, the former is quite a coincidence, but it seems unlikely that it would have been me and/or Stevemidgley (not to say no one else was involved), so what was it?
Schizel05:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I am triyng not to sound pretentous (I'm certain it wasn't me)
p.p.s. Is it possible to change my name, schizel sucks and I don't want to be accused of sock puppeting.
p.p.p.s. Despite arguing for deletion, you have been infinitley more helpfull than any of those supporting the article on the talk page. Thanks!
Thanks for the messages. See my responses to stevemidgley's comment above, it covers some of your post here.
If you would like to change your user name, check out Wikipedia:Changing username & follow all the instructions.
Hi. Just curious, why did that user even get a warning, in the face of his stated intention of vandalism and the fact he vandalized several pages apparently already? MadMaxDog00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've no sysop tools, and the early edits were plausibly going to be useful...but it quickly became clear that user was a vandal, especially after the userpage note about unleashing a "holy war" on the wiki. Still, I probably could/should have jumped straight to a {{bv}} warning and submitted to aiv sooner... -- Scientizzle00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, perhaps that's true, but since you've been rather disruptive today, I stand by the warning. If you quit screwing around and be a useful contributor (without further disruption), I'll be willing to remove the warning myself in a few days... -- Scientizzle18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a revert of the deliberate insertion of factual errors by this IP user, who has done the same edits to the same set of articles in the past. Either that, or has others join in. Caldorwards4 catches alot of these as well.
Thanks for the reply. On further inspection, I see the same information was [[6]] by 189.162.77.84 (talk·contribs), that {[user|24.4.219.31}}, which may be the IPs (among others) of Robert Clay (talk·contribs) who also made the same edits. I wasn't aware that this article was consistently a target and now agree that your edit summary was accurate, if brief.
A more descriptive edit summary, however, is never a bad thing--especially if the reverted "vandalism" isn't an obvious act like adding "i luv justn tibmerLake", large-scale blanking, etc.
For my own personal preference, each new user/IP that does the same thing should get a full set of warnings with an explanation that refers to talk page consensus regarding the info in question. This will ensure that those that randomly stumble upon this issue (like me) as well as future blocking admins can get a quick, clear explanation. Others can help you fight the vandal if it's clearer why a seemingly benign change is actually disruptive. Thanks, Scientizzle23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The basic configuration of the console has a 20 GB internal hard drive. The "premium" version of the PlayStation 3 comes with an internal 60 GB 2.5" Serial ATA hard drive, IEEE 802.11b/gWi-Fi connectivity, multiple flash memory card readers (SD, CompactFlash, Memory Stick) and features a chrome-colored trim.[1] Both consoles now feature a silver-colored text logo on the top face of the system. The hard drive is upgradeable, using the standard Serial ATA interface. No official Wi-Fi or flash memory card adapters have yet been released by Sony, although plans for such add-ons are in place.[2] Nevertheless, as both models feature four USB 2.0 ports, wireless networking and flash memory card support can already be obtained through the use of widely available external USB adapters. No high-definition video cables (neither component[3] nor HDMI[4]) are included; instead, a composite video/stereo audio cable ships with the system.
and replaced it with
The basic configuration of the console has a 20 GB internal hard drive. The "premium" version of the PlayStation 3 comes with an internal 60 GB 2.5" They both currently feature the magical bluray technology.
pecifications | publisher=PlayStation.com | accessdate=2007-01-02}}</ref> Both consoles now feature a silver-colored text logo on the top face of the system. The hard drive is upgradeable, using the standard Serial ATA interface. No official Wi-Fi or flash memory card adapters have yet been released by Sony, although plans for such add-ons are in place.[14] Nevertheless, as both models feature four USB 2.0 ports, wireless networking and flash memory card support can already be obtained through the use of widely available external USB adapters. No high-definition video cables (neither component[15] nor HDMI[16]) are included; instead, a composite video/stereo audio cable ships with the system.
I'm impressed too. I can just see all the interesting looking blue links branching out of the articles that you linked to though - I'll have to get reading quickly... JMiall22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like, after who knows how many times people have reverted, it's time to start pushing a block on this anon. --Bobak00:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting a little ridiculous...I thought my hidden comment was a completely reasonable message to clarify 7 vs. 11. Hopefully your message will end this pointless revert war. -- Scientizzle00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me not to vandalize but this is a friendly reminder that that man's user page asked to be vandalized. He told me to because he said he liked it. Scifiintel03:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding that section of my letter of application dedicated to my career plan, I've written:
"After completing this course, I intend to find a PhD position and begin my life-long contribution to academic research. I hope that a subsequent post-doctoral position, perhaps at the same research institute wherein I completed my PhD will serve as my entry into the area of research that explores zinc finger protein transcription factors, nucleases and/or the vectors used to apply them therapeutically. Of course I consider the Department of Therapeutic Gene Modulation of the Groningen University Institute for Drug Exploration an obvious choice for this application."
It's quite short, but except to give my reasons (mostly freedom in research), there's nothing much more I can say. I'm applying to the University of Groningen. I was wondering if you have any comments before I print, sign, and send it? Thanks --SeansPotato Business09:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty good. You might add a personal statement about why this research in particular drives your interest (how did you originally become interested in zinc finger protein transcription factors? what is it about these factors that makes them more interesting to you than other topics?), or why the University of Groningen is where you'd love to do this research.
It's never a bad idea to show within your letter that you're familiar with the university's reseachers and research paths and expressing an interest in joining such work.
Hi Scientizzle,
I just wondered if you were from Sulligent. Matthew Cox is a friend of mine from Sulligent. Check the local yearbooks or Lamar Leader newspaper for verification if you want. I just wanted to have some fun with the kid. Is Sulligent set to your watchlist or something? I just wondered who actually cared about Sulligent. Anyway, I figured vandalizing the page on Sulligent wouldn't hurt too much, since nobody actually views the page. I probably won't vandalize any pages in the future.
-kirov998 kirov998 (talk·contribs)
Ah! Finally found another user who is new page patrolling as well as me! I am hoping to see your opinion on a recently created page. I have no idea what it is about, and have no clue whether it is spamming, nonsense or actually a legitimate article! Please take a look at it and let me know what you think! Cheers SGGH20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may just be dense, but I get the feeling not too many admins are watching AIV at the moment, and I'm unfortunately not in a locale where I can spend anything more than a few seconds looking at somebody's contribs. Copied your original report over to AN/I, hoping it'll get the attention it deserves over there. Just letting you know. Luna Santin20:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just go ahead and leave the discussions, whatever, they prove my point that I made extensive efforts to accommodate the wishes of User:Spamreporter1, and that his calling me a spammer (which he continues to do) is an unfair attack. I have contributed to many different articles, and tried my best to meet him partway, but he is completely irrational. He apparently created that account just so he could attack me, since it was the very first thing he did. I'll leave the discussions alone, but am going to follow through with removing every article edit I have ever made, and requesting the deletion of the articles I've started. Other people can add them back, but I do not want them contributed under my name. I do not think that Wikipedia is a very good community, if they're so intent on driving people away like this. --Bill Clark20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Scientizzle. For what it's worth, I think information on cable operators and other utilities is useful. (although I disagree with the "fuck you" above as well as page blanking). If you get the chance, can you look at the proposal, perhaps too late, that I left at User talk:Bill Clark#Lists of utilities? Thanks, --A. B.(talk)16:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you my dear ignorant bastard, are a fool. you cant silence the america public. i have a right for freedom!!!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.149.235.61 (talk • contribs).
What the hell is your peoples problems?! Here I am trying to expand people's knowledge and you keep shutting me down. Is it because I believe in Communism? You people are discriminating and I would like for someone to appologize to me.
To answer your question: when bored, I often track changes on Special:Recentchanges. This way I can spot vandals & revert, do spot copy-editing, and read random articles that I might not have stumbled across. I happened to see one of your edits at Image:GranthamUniversityWriting.gif and checked it out. I saw that nobody had welcomed you, a new-ish editor, and figured I should.
I really appreciate you helping me but I don't understand how to change my username because I went to the page and I didn't understand. Sorry about this but could you please explain it to someone stupid like me!? L.T.O.G19:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just received a message from you regarding an edit to the swan song page that somehow was attributed to me. I am a very casual Wiki user and did a very small edit to one article a month or so ago but I have never opened the swan song article or certainly edited it.
12.99.114.13004:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the warning I gave was for an edit done by someone at 12.99.114.130 (talk·contribs) on February 27. The editor that was using the IP address at the time blanked the page. I restored it and gave a standard warning. If you didn't do anything, don't worry. It happens all the time--people's IPs change. Have a good day! -- Scientizzle05:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandal Fighter often makes mistakes about new user contributions of that size. I also make mistakes sometimes, sorry about that. I have reverted it back to your original version. Sorry about the mess up. Mkdwtalk05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the entries and would like to have them removed because Administrators aren't doing a good job of keeping defamatory content off the page. The subject of the entries contacted me as well and ask me to remove them. I have requested Speedy Deletion because they have been constantly edited with personal attacks. I tried to blank the page all together and was told that my edit was considered "vandalous" (But in the FAQ on deletion it says that if a creator blanks a page it could be considered a request for deletion). Please let me know what I need to do to remove this entry all together from Wikipedia to prevent the defamation which is going on.
Unfortunately, vandalism is a constant, real problem on Wikipedia. Any editor that vandalizes an article is subject to warnings and possible block. I vandalism occurs, reversion to a prior version is appropriate.
RE: the blanking of the page--the clause to which you are referring applies almost exclusively to new pages that have little-to-no edits from any editor other than the article creator. Your blanking is (reasonably) viewed as vandalism by any editor that is not privvy to your insider info & intent.
Rather than delete the content, perhaps it would be better to enlist administrator help. File a claim at WP:AN/I and tell them what is up. I'll try to help you as much as I can... -- Scientizzle08:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This experience has left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. I don't know what was going on, but I feel like I've been made a bit of a jackass for trying to be helpful... -- Scientizzle09:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scientizzle,
Thank you for your messages. Of course I was the one who put "Grace Bonney is a pirate who lives on the Isle of Man". I did it as a stop gap until I could figure out how to get through the deletion process because Grace Bonney wrote me and requested that I delete the file because it is constantly edited to have negative comments about her. When I blanked the page, no sooner had I finished doing so when the defamatory text was restored. I saw "Grace Bonney is a pirate..." as at least better than allowing text that insulted her and her work to stay. Thanks for your patience and instruction in helping me wade through this.
P.S. It was not at all my intention to get you in the middle of something that would draw such negativity as KP Botany's remark. I have been acting in good faith and admittedly out of ignorance of not knowing exactly how to get the ball rolling on deletion. I do appreciate your help greatly.
I have no issues with how you, User:Scientizzle handled anything, as you were attempting to handle the matter within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, while being polite. However, I did want you to notice that DesignReference was part of the problem by blanking the page and replacing it with defamatory comments about Grace Bonney. I apologize to you, Scientizzle, for my over the top tone about the matter. KP Botany02:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that KP Botany chose to fly off the handle without first learning the facts. I am even more sorry that KP Botany does not have the professional demeanor and discretion of the others who got involved. I am glad that KP Botany at least acknowledged to you that his/her behavior was out of line and over the top. It does not however justify the accusations being made about me on various Talk Pages of Wikipedia. I hope that KP Botany does not return to make any more disparaging comments about other users of Wikipedia on your page and sorry once again that your good deed was punished by someone who had no idea what was going on and no interest in learning before attacking others.
DesignReferences14:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the message. KP Botany is right, however, that it's never okay to vandalize any article for any reason. In this case, you should not have added (potentially defamatory) nonsense to the page. There are several mechanisms we have around here to fight vandalism and the article should have simply been reverted to the last non-vandalized version. In particularly bad cases, admins can step in and protect pages and issue blocks to offenders. Since the article has been deleted, there's no way for me, a non-admin, to know the details that I don't recall off the top of my head about the article and its history. This leaves me at an impasse as to where I stand on the validity of the speedy deletion, the claims by the various parties, and how well I handled the situation (including what I could/should have done better). I've little interest in deletion review, though it may merit doing.
Finally, DesignReferences, let's just move on here. Don't get invloved with a feud with another editor, just contribute elsewhere on this project. If you're interested in design (as your user name suggests}, check out Category:Designers and improve some articles there. -- Scientizzle19:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I'm available to answer questions & offer advice.
Hi and thanks. I understand the issue at hand and have acknowledged my error and my ignorance of handling the issue. However, because I was asked by Grace Bonney to delete the entry, nothing I wrote could have been considered defamation, since it is Grace who decides what is defamatory about Grace, and not KP Botany, or Wikipedia. What editors continued to restore and allow to be posted was defamatory, however, not in my opinion, but in Grace's. I have contributed to several designers' profiles here without any problems whatsoever, and appreciate your encouragement to do so. Ignorant and aggressive editors, however, make visiting Wikipedia an unpleasant experience, even though the unpleasantness is significantly mitigated by editors like you, who are professional and do act in good faith. Thanks, over and out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DesignReferences (talk • contribs).
Thanks for stopping by. I'm hoping to apply for one, myself...
Feel free to borrow any of the design elements--I basically tweaked some of what I liked at other users' pages and made it my own. -- Scientizzle18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shkëmbi 01:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Hi Mr. Scientizzle,
Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and asking me to write to you if I needed help.
I have written an article on Tsyam, the mythological homeland of the Kalash people. Today, I made the last changes (I hope) to the article. In an earlier version, I saw a tag which said that the article needed to be categorized. After having edited it again, the tag disappeared, and the situation is the same as before the tag was placed. What am I supposed to do now?
All the best
Shkëmbi Eeemte (talk·contribs)
A mutation within the protein coding sequence isn't generally expected to affect the synthesis of said gene's mRNA, but can certainly affect gene translation. If one considers the term "gene" to encompass all of the important non-coding sequences associated with each proteins's DNA coding sequence (promoter regions, splice sites, polyadenylation sites), then the answer is most certainly yes. -- Scientizzle01:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to my 6/e Campbell, that stuff doesn't count as part of the gene, and our articles concur. Does that mean transcription would not be affected by a change in the genes? --M1ss1ontomars2k4(T | C | @)05:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't a Campbell laying around, but the gene article certainly lists the promoter as part of the gene, as well as the statement "Most genes contain non-coding regions that do not code for the gene products, but regulate gene expression". Truthfully, when most people say "gene" they really mean "coding sequence". A point mutation within the coding sequence on the DNA is fairly unlikely to cause a change in the transcription of that mRNA—but it's not impossible. We've only scratched the surface in terms of how expression is regulated. A point mutation may alter, say, a DNA methylation site (CpG site), changing the expression. (On a larger scale, see Fragile X syndrome). Some genes produce protein products that regulate their own expression and a point mutation altering the amino acid sequence could affect that interaction. If one does not restrict discussion to point mutations, but considers deletions, inversions, insertions and duplications, the odds are greater that a given alteration of the DNA sequence my affect transcription.
Actually, according to my Campbell, it doesn't say anything definitive either way. And I actually meant "according to one of our articles", but unfortunately I can't remember which one, so we can't correct it. Thanks a lot! --M1ss1ontomars2k4(T | C | @)21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Now you've made it look like I vandalized my own talk page just to seem as if I was important;) Thanks for restoring the comments on my talk page--I've been using NavPop, but it was changed recently so that you can't select just the text you want. It was me, I was my own vandal, I didn't notice I'd done it, so thanks for cleaning it up.
It can be frustrating dealing with vandalism, especially when there are people who are otherwise well-meaning, but not wiki-savvy, involved. I met a great wiki editor (User:Acalamari, whose half sentence I appear to have deleted) when involved in a similar incident, with someone posting some poorly written low level biographies that needed clean-up. Acalamari tried to assist by cleaning up the article to wiki standards and got bitten badly for it, so did an admin who tried to help, so did I when I tried to help. Eventually, we got the articles to usable standards, while being called names and attacked for the efforts. The important thing to remember is that you're clean in this one, and Wikipedia, after claiming its place in cyberspace, is a great place for well-done low level biographies of the sort of living people who would not find themselves in Britannica. We live in a different world, and it's nice that it's so handy to find up-to-date and accurate information about people--eventually Wikipedia will be there thanks to its many contributors. KP Botany21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. This was certainly frustrating, if only because I felt like a complete noob even though I've been around for a year and over 7000 edits. -- Scientizzle21:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for reverting my talk page from "Johnny the Vandal". You might not be aware of this, but any user attacking both my user page and that of User:Hephaestos, or several groups (Crass, The Offspring, Social Distortion) are automatically assumed to be sockpuppets of the notorious vandal "Johnny the Vandal" and are to be permanently blocked from editing on sight. Use the {{sockblock|Johnny the Vandal}} template to leave a note on the talk page. Thanks, again! -- Arwel (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about the Shorecrest page
someone else logged on to our account and changed it themselves
sorry—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ihatesalad (talk • contribs).
CrazyBusLive-Online would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact CrazyBusLive-Online to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scientizzle. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Well, I deleted the admin request as vandalism. However, I would like to spend a little more time going over the different users edits before issuing a block or requesting a checkuser, and I probably won't get to that until tomorrow. Please leave a message on my talk page (or, better yet, e-mail me) if the user does anything obviously block-worthy in the meantime. Or you can report it on AIV, of course.
If you're interested in adminship, I can take a look at your edit history and give you some feedback on whether or not going up for RfA right now is a good idea. They say that RfA is a stressful process, but I think that warning should be accompanied by an animated gif of a guy's head exploding. This would take me some time, as I'm busy in "real life", but I'd be happy to help out. Let me know.
Thanks for getting back to me. No hurry on anything, take a look and maybe you can sort out more than I did.
As for admin stuff--yeah, I'm interested. I feel my year and 7000+ edits have me pretty ready. I'd greatly appreciate any feedback.
Finally, thanks for noticing the new look 'round here. I played with a few things that I found at other user pages and mashed some of them together. I kinda like it myself. -- Scientizzle04:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know talk pages aren't meant to be used to actually 'talk', but was it really that obvious that it was me? By the way, the nomination wasn't a joke, I was just testing new things on Wikipedia, and I know someone you should be keeping an eye on. She's caled Ellez. --CrazyBusLive-Onlinetc12:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the nomination wasn't a joke, I'm sorry for assuming it was. However, I'll wait to accept a nomination from a user with more experience...
To answer your question, it seems pretty obvious that this account is a sockpuppet. Please see WP:SOCK: socks used to evade a block or ban are no good. Since CrazyBusLive (talk·contribs) was indefinitely blocked, any sock of that account may face a similar punishment. If my suspicions are correct, and both CrazyBus accounts are socks of Andyroost (talk·contribs), then it is possible Andyroost could be blocked for creating and running at least one disruptive sock puppet account and another block-evading account.
That said, CrazyBusLive-Online (talk·contribs) has made some useful contributions (and no obvious vandal contributions), and I'd prefer not to lose any good contributions. If you're willing to clear this up...that is, ID this account as an alternate account for whomever, maybe there's an effective workaround that will keep any account from being blocked... -- Scientizzle17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since CrazyBusLive-Online admitted to being CrazyBusLive and AndyRoost, I've blocked them all for improper use of sockpuppets ("Evading a block or ban causes the timer on the block to restart, and may further lengthen it."). -- Merope18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was just writing a message to you about it. There are some provisions within WP:SOCK that allow for alternate accounts, but your reasoning is solid. -- Scientizzle18:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need help with my Industry Revamp Theory article. It’s something that I created from a neutral point of view of what's going on in the music industry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Queen Amber Rice (talk • contribs).
Could you please be so kind as to take a look at the contributions of Wham Bam No Thank You Spam [7]?
For almost a year one person has been systematically deleting all Source links that I made for articles that I started or, or on occasion, significantly expanded.
When I recently began restoring them, Wham Bam No thank You Spam suddenly appeared and began systematically and very quickly deleting the restorations:
*On 7 March he deleted 10 restorations within six minutes.
*On 8 March he deleted 17 restorations within 11 minutes.
*On 9 March he deleted 23 restorations within nine minutes.
The talk page explanations of why the Sources are not spam are apparently ignored. What do you recommend?
From the outside, it was one of the most impressive displays of edit warring I've ever seen (that's not a good thing). You both violated WP:3RR today, so don't go changing anything right now...The proper procedure would be to head to WP:AN/I to involve some admins; if you can show that your additions are in good-faith and are not spamming, then you might have a strong case against this other user for wikistalking and disruption. If you are spamming (read WP:SPAM to find out what this contitutes), then your edits may not be taken too kindly. -- Scientizzle18:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David Justin is a spammer, linking articles to his own site on the slightest pretext. One of his recent tactics appears to be copying text from the Wikipedia into his own page and then claiming his page as the source. See my comments in:
It's okay. I didn't even realise I had done the thing wrong till you pointed it out. I would just caution a little more tact - even old regular 'pedians like yourself deserve a bit of respect and understanding. The best of us make mistakes. Deb18:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I thought I was okay tact-wise, at the time, but as I re-read my statement, it could certainly seem a little condescending. Thanks for the message. -- Scientizzle18:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Man...I need to check that account more often...and fix the spam filter! Thanks for the message. I'll get back to you soon. -- Scientizzle20:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi there (you're the first admin i've been able to find:p)
this has been bugging me for a while now (it's not a moan). Since wiki is based in America, should I use use American English or English English? I've found that some spellings in English, eg colour, have been replaced with the American version (color). Jackacon22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC) forgot to sign sorry[reply]
Hello! I'm sorry I was away when you messaged. I see, however, that Merope (talk·contribs) has answered more than sufficiently. I'm generally around, so feel free to ask me about anything in the future... -- Scientizzle05:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sneaky, sneaky. I figured my vandalism of choice was apropos for the circumstances through which our paths crossed. Now feel free to feel important. :) -- Scientizzle05:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments on my my recent RfA in which I withdrew because the oppose votes were almost equalling the supporters. I then decided to leave my account (Tellyaddict) and start fresh under a new username, however I quickly decided to reconsider after another user persuaded me not to leave the account - I am now glad I did reconsider because leaving that account and creating a new one was too hasty so I've decided to improve rather than starting again! I hope we can remain civil and that there were no negative feelings caused. Again, thanks for your support even though you opposed and I withdrew it, your vote is much appreciated! Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tellyaddict, I'm glad you're sticking around as-is, rather than "starting over", because (as I said) I feel if you keep working at your current production & learning curve, I'll gladly support your future adminship. I wouldn't be surprised if, in two or three months, you had readily dealt with many of the criticisms that prevented the RfA from passing. For what it's worth, I had no qualms with you stating a desire for adminship early, I was merely held back by edits only a month old that didn't have the grasp of policy I feel an admin should have. Keep up the good work (your vandal-fighting is top-notch), participate in some policy & guideline discussions, and cool your heels on Category:Cleanup when you get too wrapped up in dafcon levels. :) Happy editing, Scientizzle05:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments left on my user page about my above RfAm it will be a little while until my next one andthis time I'm going to be patient and directly address the concerns raised. Again thank you and happy editing to you too! Best Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 12:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awwwww, thanks! Categories are the most horribly boring thing -- but I'm obsessed with them right now, and it's nice that somebody noticed. Thanks again!! Magichands22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I purposely added content so people like you would waste your time as I am wasting mine at work right now. Don't you think your depleting the point of true research and essentially dumbing people down who search through what your write? Who are you? Are you a published author who has done the neccessary research, or have you merely plagarized various references and accepted it as your own knowledge?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Osufan900 (talk • contribs).
As regards the article "Tsyam", you wrote to me about the need to find sources. Since this is my first article, although I have checked out the relevant policies on verifiability and reliable sources, I am not sure yet of the practical aspect of the issue, that is, the technique of inserting the sources I have found, in the "edit this page" text. Any suggestions you might have would be most welcome.
Best regards
Shkëmbi [Shkëmbi 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)] Eeemte (talk·contribs)
Hi again,
Wikipedia:Attribution has all you need to know about what is required of articles, namely that all information within an article can be attributed to a proper, reliable source (avoiding a writer's own original research). This is important to preserve the integrity of the information presented and the encyclopedia as a whole. Reliable sources may include published books, television shows or newspaper articles, for example; they rarely include personal websites, search engine results, or word-of-mouth, for example.
Once you find a proper source, it's important to give the source information within the article. Wikipedia:Citing sources has useful information on the where/when/why/how of sourcing within Wikipedia articles. I prefer this technique because I think it looks nicer and is less intrusive to the text.
A few practical notes:
Have the major sources within the article before submitting it the first time, this will help prevent over-zealous editors from tagging an incomplete article with speedy deletion tags and may help other editors to contribute to the article earlier.
Use the "Show preview" button before submitting any edit to be sure things look like they should.
FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING PIECE OF DIRTY ASS SHIT. I WORK HARD TO PUT SHIT ON HERE AND YOU DELETE IT BECAUSE YOU THINK YOUR SOME FUCKING HOT SHOT. WELL FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING COMPUTER ASS NERD. GET A FUCKING LIFE!
ROT IN HELL—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maw6969 (talk • contribs).
This user has been driving me nuts recently, editing and creating the same pages with nonsense and nn inclusions under a myriad of different usernames. I'm going to put a formal report together later when I have time. Deiztalk03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you blocked the user...Keep me updated. Here's the related stuff I found as I was diggin into this user...
I noticed the label's "website" is a MySpace page for some kid.[8]
False claims keep being published.
Brent Turvey (user: Bturvey) has repeatedly published untrue statements on Richard Walter's wikipedia page-- [9].
Brent Turvey has been known for this type of sabotage against Richard and other criminal profilers. He has created a false pdf file that appears as a court document that he posts on his own websites to try to "trash" forensic professionals. Richard Walter was cleared of pergury allegations [10] and remains in good standing with the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the foremost forensic organization. Mr. Turvey has been refused admission to this group.
I am asking for your help in dealing with this problem.
Thanks for suggesting that we talk about it. I've trying to do just that. However...
Not only has editor 24.240.17.187 repeatedly removed the accurate edits made to the Richard Walter article that I have made, but this individual is also removing my attempts to discuss it in the talk section. Clearly, his person is attempting to further the perpetration of fraudlent information in hopes of staving off the inevitable discovery of Walters as a fraud by the public.
See: "The Forensic Fraud Archive", which my company maintains to document such cases. Walter is listed alphabetically at the end, with links to supporting court records.
Bturvey is adding LIBELOUS information to the biography page of Richard Walter
Mr. Turvey is upset because Mr. Walter had blocked his admission to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. To try to get even, Mr. Turvey has created libelous websites and is attempting to vandalize his wikipedia page.
I strongly suggest that the page be LOCKED at the point before Bturvey's vandalism.
To accuse someone of "perjury" and "fraud" is libel.
Please contact me so that we can settle this dispute.
Unfortunately, I have had to forward this dispute to arbitration. I have never known anyone so intent on disseminating harmful content as Brent Turvey.
Buzzle45 (talk·contribs)
I am sending you this message because you edited Food Safety Network. I added a merge template to Dr. Doug Powell proposing that it be merged into Food Safety Network. There has been some debate about whether Dr. Powell is sufficiently notable to have a separate article. It appears that the FSN is much more likely to be considered notable than its director. Some of the info about Dr. Powell is already in the FSN article; perhaps a bit more could be added, then delete the article on Dr. Powell. If you wish to comment, please go to Talk:Food Safety Network. Please do not delete the merge templates until there is adequate time to discuss, generally about four weeks unless there appears to be significant agreement earlier. For details about the merging process, see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. Thanks. Ward300123:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for taking off the speedy deletion tag, I put my reasoning on the Squirrel Tag talk page. I think this should stay, please let it stay, this is a very informational article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redneck16 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Looks like it's too late...The article was clearly nonsense and not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (and at least a deleting admin agreed). Please contribute more constructively. -- Scientizzle00:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it was not nonsense it is a real life game that needs to be known about! Wikipedia lately has been pissing me off.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redneck16 (talk • contribs).
Dear Scientizzle,
Tonight, I entered a few sources in my article "Tsyam" on the "edit this page". After I clicked on Save, another page showed, which referred to spam regarding a hyperlink. This surprised me. Besides, before typing in the sources, I could not find the article on the Wikipedia website. It had already been removed. Why? If I have done something wrong unknowingly, I would thank you if you guide me to do the right thing.
Sincerely
Shkëmbi 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you could not find the article...Tsyam is still there, just as you left it on March 7. Sometimes the search functions can work funky or the database can lock up. Were you, perhaps at a slightly different spelling?
Regarding the "spam link" page, that's usually related to the metawiki spam blacklist. If you find your source is from one of those many domains, that would explain why it would not let you publish the link. If you feel this is in error, you'd need to find an administrator to edit the spamlist...I'm not an admin, so I couldn't help you there, but Wikipedia:Administrators has info that can help you contact an admin for assistance. I hope this all helps... -- Scientizzle03:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bobbybilly90 appears to be a vandal, he has left a comment on my talk page which was a personal attack, I reverted that. At first he just added some experiments to Five Knuckle Shuffle but then he did the talk page comment. Just giving you the heads up about this user.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redneck17 (talk • contribs).
Thank you for your 'welcome' to wikipedia. I'm finding my way around ok for now, but still much to learn! I'm keeping myself busy checking Recent Changes for obvious vandalism, or reading up on topics that interest me. Work calls again next week so less from me ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suncloud (talk • contribs).
Can you help shed light on this ColdDiablo blocking, then reversion by you on my talk page? Whyfor/wherefore/whence did it come, and how did you catch it so quickly? --MalcolmGin02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure, lemme explain as much as I know. ColdDiablo (talk·contribs) was a vandal-only account that I ran into when s/he made this edit. I warned (test4), and the user continued on commiting several more acts of vandalism before being blocked. The user did the same thing--adding a {{blocked}} template--to several other editors. I haven't been able to figure out why you were a target, though. In any case, you're obviously not blocked, and this vandal is definitely blocked. Happy editing! -- Scientizzle06:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I was cogitating why I might be a target too, and thought it might have been because I'd just made an edit to another page (because on LiveJournal, sometimes folks get targetted by scammers and are chosen because it's easy to tell who just made an edit (and is therefore active)). Either that or it's because I've been involved in a pitched discussion on Talk:Klinefelter's syndrome (now archived to Talk:Klinefelter's syndrome/archive_1), but I rate that as less likely. I honestly don't know why, not being familiar with ColdDiablo (talk·contribs) at all. Anyhow, thanks for chasing it down. I was just curious. Thanks also for my welcome! :) --MalcolmGin12:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon[omg plz]20:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comments on Talk:The Wikipedians apparently warrant a warning.
I am curious as to how my comments on the talk page are being construed as "personal attacks". The articles validity was in question and I explained calmly while it was important. Perhaps the hasty deletion of the article by the editor was a personal attack aimed at me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thelochness (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I placed the db in the first place, but then another editor put the notability conflict template up, so I thought he had more hope/information on the article. Altosax456 04:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I double checked and I didn't place it, you did. Now I'm confused. Lol Altosax45604:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scientizzle - I would like to get my page back for the above entry. I just placed this message for the editor who marked it for speedy deletion. If you could tell me how to go about getting it back.
Andy:
I have read through the Criteria for speedy deletion, and to be honest with you, I am suprised at your action.
I say this because the first few lines of the article state:
'Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets; it would also be considerate to notify the original author.'
Presumably - 'it would also be considerate to notify the original author' is written there, so that the author has a chance to repond to any comments. However, I note that the article has already been deleted, in less than 24 hours, before I was even able to provide a response to you. This does feel like a bit of a knee jerk reaction to me, and I am not feeling that you have taken the time to become aquainted with the entry, or with any responses I might make.
Though another editor did not come to quite the same drastic conclusion, but rather (highlighted concerns - actually - which I understood), and also provided me with a bit of assistance to improve the page, you have made a claim under:
Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. If a page has previously gone through a deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion.
Andy, you may feel that the entry was blatent advertising, but it was not meant or intended as that. Actually, I felt the entry was a clear and cool description of the books contents. The fact that the contents of the book are so compelling and interesting to many people, and in my view, that there is nothing else like it in publication - does not make the entry advertising.
I believe strongly in the Wikipedia concept - and use it extensivly myself - and I wish to enhance its knowledge base - not in any way diminish it. Actually, I have never considered Wikipedia to be a place to advertise - rather I consider it an expression of the worlds knowledge base - and as such I consider that one of the most useful and original books on a subject that is important to millions of poeple deserves an entry here.
If the page needs editing - then fine - I have no problem with that - though I have to tell you - that I was at a bit of a loss - as to what to say on the page - apart from providing a cool and dispassionate summary of the books contents.
A part of me is feeling that you have deleted it under the 'blatent category' method - because you saw the concerns about notability were met - in my understanding, by the two references to reviews of the book in appropriate media journals.
I would therefore like to ask you Andy, to reinstate my page - or explain to me how I can have it reinstated on an immediate basis - and if need be - put it through a proper process of improvement and/or anything else that needs to happen.
I mean - really what do I care if Wikipedia doesnt include this article. But then Wikipedia wont have an article on one of the only books of its kind.
Scientizzle: I dont think I am going to be able to meet the Notability guidelines for this article. I am thinking that I will just have to wait until later for it to be reentered.
I am still new to wikipedia, and today I started a new article, Leptasterias pusilla, not realizing there is a Wikispecies wikimedia site. Do I need to move this article? If so, how?
I wouldn't worry about it. There's an abundance of precendent that species articles are notable & welcome on Wikipedia. Just keep up the good work and source things as well as you can. Check out Template:Taxobox, too, as it's a standard inclusion in species articles. Best of luck, — Scientizzle01:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Thanks, I had been wondering why the robot had been trying to change that warning. I will remember to subst in future. Cheers A1octopus22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well jeez, at the very least you could have put that information at the top of the page...or in large type or maybe even bold...something to make things clearer. Then again, what else would one expect from a Yankees fan? :) — Scientizzle23:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a newbie here, but have some sense of the history of the effort. What's the problem with my Rave claim? It is a tentative, dated claim - and certainly one for discussion, not deletion.
There are a number of documented referenced items you deleted as well, the reasons for which are not immediately clear.
I fixed the minor, unintended deletion at Hampshire College. Your statements at Hampshire College[18], that "A claim has been made that the Rave was invented [at Hampshire College] during the early days of the availability of Ectasy at US Colleges" and a related, more expounded-upon statement at Rave[19] need to be verifiable, shown by reliable sources. If you can find an appropriate source, please re-add the content. Wikipedia, is not, however, the place for original research, so un-attributed claims should be removed. — Scientizzle21:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused about what you are suggesting. I might be able to dig up a flyer from the event in question, however I don't think that's what you are concerned about.
I understand your concern about cites, but this is not a subject that merits the rigorousness you suggest.
"this is not a subject that merits the rigorousness you suggest" Au contraire, it is exactly the type of thing that needs to be cited, for many reasons.
Although I respect your procedural thoroughness I must disagree with you on their applicability to this situation.
I've notice in the quick review of your contributions you make claims yourself, though I did not read them. I will consider your comments regarding specifically how that claim is worded. It is however my understanding that the edits of pages are in fact an ongoing debate and that nothing is completely settled.
FWIW I've never done the drug - the period was **almost** the end of my psychedelic phase. I am probably only a degree or two of seperation from the people who did originally promote and distribute the drug, but such speculations are definitely not posted for review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrTead (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hello, there is a vandal on here that is vandalzing my page and trying to get me block, will you please help out, the user is User:Glfootball92. Southluver12:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you still put '04 down...why? Also, I identify as male, so in the future, feel free to use masculine & gender-neutral terms rather than something like "gal". — Scientizzle15:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding me. I put '04 again. Somebody needs more coffee. Thanks for the head's up.
Merope would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Merope to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scientizzle. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I checked out my userpage.. There is a ton about me, although I speak in 3rd person (Patrick = I) as I am not an "I, I, I." kind of guy.
Much of that info I admit, came from a full page article about me, in a magazine with a circulation of over 80,000 people monthly, and an e-version with near 3 million hits (since Jan 2005).
http://nightflying.com/new/tigerman.html
I really wish you or x treme racer would actually read the Tigerman Saga, (it never really ends though), as there is not another single art/literary project on the net like it. How does one define something that has never been done before?
How does someone go to Webster's printed dictionary to define an e-literature work, containing 3d digital art? How does one open a dusty book and click a link to see a screen come alive?
What other place on the entire internet can define this type of work, other than wikipedia? Your an "Jimbo" says "BE BOLD". I rescue and take care of tigers and other big cats (for near 20 years). How much bolder can a human get? I created an org for numerous other non-profit sanctuaries to come together under, with a permanent plan for sustainable survivale for numerous endangered species. We are getting there too.
With Tsunais, Katrinas, Hurricanes,,, there is nothing left for simple things like saving the last of many species of big cats. Your grand kids will know only of tigers from the sides of gas pumps and cereal boxes.
READ THIS: I am trying to develop a literary/artistic e4-book, that asks nothing from anyone, but to think. I am advertising only contemplation. You may search Wikipedia high and low, but you will find no real catergory for the art work that is Tigerman.
I am following "Jimbo"'s advice and being as bold as possible. You may feel free to delete that wikipedia definition of Tigerman (Place in your own search), and may even delete my profile (that say a LOT about me), that is your's and x treme racer's perogative.
But even though Tigerman is just a fictional character, I, my sanctuary affiliates at National Wildlife Humane Society, and the 100's (maybe 1000s) of endangered species are NOT Fictional. :)
(There is nothing more real thatn an 800 pound tiger)
The ink to my own sanctuary was removed, even though it was shown on a National Geographic Explorer Special.. And I believe the4 About The Author link (me) was removed... These are the links of Notability (and noble work). These are also a mans life work, such as any noble man, who appears in vast amounts on your pages.
I didn't write a hit song, but many a hit song writer knows of me, and appreciates my work, and the others who work with the numerous other affiliate sanctuaries.
I know this is a lot to read... But there is a single link (off of the magazing article turend into a Tigerman saga e-book page) that sums it up rather well.
About The Author
I went through the aticle and tried to the best of my ability yo meet all criteria and followed very closely the first editors changes. I even included internal links on things I referenced.
I am very sorry if you thought that I was advertising "my" band. firstly it's not my band, and iam not in it, secondly if the language I have used to describe the band has come across in a advertising mannor my apologise. Sameemtak20:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In keeping in a vein of being candid and honest to a fault, I must admit I first wanted to strangle you for the nomination for Deletion of my article. Ironically, now I also would like to give you kudos for assisting me in my endeavor to learn the ropes here.
Consequently, I no longer want to strangle you. LOL.. I have learned a lot in this process. (I am a very mature, gentle and tolerent human anyway, so never prone to any actual violence). You have caused me to do a lot of digging through Wikipedia to learn proper protocol, codes to make my comments, text and links work properly (including Indent). heh heh... This has been a good learning experience for me.
So, I hope we can now find level ground for mutual respect in your efforts to adhere to strictest of policies, and possibly my due diligence of learning them. Yet, at the same token, also finding precedent for latitude and leniency (which in itself caused some deep digging).
I also want to make absolutely clear I had nothing to do with the comments supplied by Chakal. I could never in my wildest dreams, come up with the comments he supplied (or depths of eccentricities). That guy added a very entertaining (and possibly compelling) comment, and I am sure there were deeper points there (some lost on me).
I would however, like you to review my comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tigerman, especially the current last two. It addresses all editor's concerns and provides very compelling precedent as counterpoint.
So much so, that I would like you to give serious consideration of taking it from Category:Deletion, to Category:Web Comics, where it will be in an area that is requesting "build", and shows many articles void of Reference and much leniency (going back to 1993).
I cringe a bit at "Web Comic" nomenclature, because the subject of my artcle seems more dignified and above that, but I can certainly swallow my pride, if this is a possibility.
Thanks for not strangling me...I'm really only trying to help you and this project out. I certainly respect the energy & effort you've put into this, and the civility that you've shown. — Scientizzle15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. LOL (I'm an old guy, so would probably be easily defended against anyway). I left a reply to your comment on my User Talk page (a test to see if it was still on Watch). I know you're surely as busy as a tiger covering up (well, nevermind), so I will be brief (shock!!).
I am searching to create proper Verifiability, NPOV, and References for the deleted article Tigerman. I would prefer to not contest the deletion formally, but I would rather work it in Sandbox. Since there are so many vagaries in webcomics, rather than use them as precedent, I would prefer to create a standard (or example). Then, only bother you when I feel something is worth of a "look-see". Is this within Wiki proper protocol? (Please always feel warmly welcome, to my User Discussion page)
Scientizzle~
The article about San Diego Christian College is biased, and appears to be written from a soap box, for which Wikipedia is not a platform. The present day relationship of the college to ICR is not as the article depicts. Further, the article was incorrect as to the accreditation ~ and your later updates have left it biased. The college is accredited and the article should be left at that.
Mkfoss16:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)MKFOSS[reply]
The obvious corollary to Wikipedia is not a soapbox, is that it's also not a place to suppress legit information that may reflect poorly on the article's subject. If you can explain why the provided source for the accreditation section is incorrect, I'll edit the article myself to fix it up. I check out the source and it states explicitly that the university was found partially noncompliant and that it is still currently accredited. That's what the article reflects. — Scientizzle16:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no person, business, or entity that does not have something about it that others perceive as negative. Yet, that negative information or perception is not routinely broadcasted on Wipipedia as you have chosen to do in this case. The fact that you have chosen to quote only negative sources on the school has called into question the independence of Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is that the school is accredited. The source you quote states that the school has shown substantial progress, and that only more time is needed to ensure the steps taken are fully implemented. I do not see other school's accreditation processes being broadcasted on this website with all the negative comments WASC has about each school. There has not been a final resolution to the matter ~ to air this information before anything has been resolved is both inappropriate and misleading. The school is currently accredited. Unless and until that changes, the article should reflect just that.Mkfoss17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)MKFOSS[reply]
So, you're admitting that the source is fine, right? I don't see how the information presented in San Diego Christian College is an inaccurate account of the information presented in said source. If you find sourced accreditation info for any other school, you're welcome to add it into those articles. Criticism sections are commonplace in Wikipedia articles, and this seems like valid, useful information. — Scientizzle17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information you chose to include from the WASC source is biased because it does not include the language that the school has shown substantial progress, etc. Nor does your article include any other useful information about the school, with the exception of a partial listing of majors and sports. The only other sources you've included are completely biased. This is inappropriate for Wikipedia.Mkfoss19:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)MKFOSS[reply]
First off, it's not my article--I only ever stumbled onto the page when I noticed you had wholesale deleted a section without explanation. I've never added sources, only used those that other editors had placed. Secondly, I have re-added the text that you've removed yet again, but I included a "made significant improvements" clause. I know nothing about this school, so I'm not in a position to add further information, so feel free to do so yourself. You'll find that a lot of articles are incomplete. Improve them. It's why you've got that edit button on top of the page. — Scientizzle20:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I noticed you blocked this IP, but I'm not he should have been blocked. You see, his/her last edit was at 19:14 UTC, and he was warned by zzuuzz the next minute. There was no further vandalism, but a last warning was given anyways (I presume it was a mistake). Therefore, the IP either didn't see the warnings (and shouldn't have been blocked), or did see them, and stopped vandalizing (and shouldn't have been blocked). Of course, I could be completely wrong about this because I've only been an admin a couple of days, and still don't know how everything works. I see you're new too, so congratulations! · AndonicOTalk20:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right...I saw the ling list of recent vandalism that would have warranted a block. Had the user received the final warning earlier it would have been appropriate. I'll unblock. Yeah, I'm only minted a few hours, so I'm still learnin' the ropes. — Scientizzle21:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
