User talk:Scog

Welcome!

Hello, Scog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Kusma (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your article B. E. J. Pagel! I have renamed it to Bernard Pagel following our naming conventions. His homepage also seems to use this version of the name. Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Audrey C. Delsanti

See the article's talk page. Urhixidur (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For doing exactly the right thing in taking Stephen Thorpe to AfD

Philip Trueman (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Mayer

In response to your comment to me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo J. Meyer (2nd nomination) what I was getting at was at the time I placed my vote there as no indication that a DRV had occurred - the information in the "past nominations box" did not include any reference to DRV. That is the fault of the nominator. Another user has subsequently updated the box to reflect the DRV and I have withdrawn my vote. 23skidoo (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolffenstein

Thanks, but you betraied him on a whole milenium of his life ;-) --Stone (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community Outreach

Ooops! THANK YOU...I use Twinkle...it usually takes care of everything...and then opens the AfD page. Thanks again! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Physics D

You have reverted my prod tag, and I have since reverted back. While the journal may be legitimate and widely cited, the article does not show notability, or use any secondary sources. The only external links, go back to the article itself. A random passer by such as myself sees this article as a blatant advertisement and nothing more. I would appreciate a discussion on the articles talk page (which I have already started), to resolve this issue. I would not oppose to removing the tag if any of these issues are resolved. In the end, its all about improvement of Wikipedia. Here is the link to the talk page. Thanks. Angrymansr (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD of Steven M. Greer

You wrote:

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that you've forgotten to state a reason for deletion in your AFD nomination of Steven M. Greer. Scog (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did put it in, but for some reason it did not take. How do I put into the AfD now? I would appreciate your help, because getting WP forms to work for me is a chronic problem (I admit to being computer impaired) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I might have gotten it worked out...I hope. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request as I wade through 500+ names in a RfD

I was afraid of multiple edit conflicts as we try to peruse all of the names in the list, but please do not unstrike those that others have struck. Certainly we don't want to risk an edit war while we are trying to manage the unmanageable, and it only makes sense that if we assume each other's good faith we can get this all done. Thanks! B.Wind (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - some of the conflicts I misread as removals. 500+ article lots are extremely awkward to update, let alone peruse. B.Wind (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello, Scog, and thank you for your recent participation in my RfA, which was closed per WP:NOTNOW after reaching a vote tally of 5/15/2. While I am disappointed in the outcome, I understand that it - as well as the comments left by yourself and others - was in the best interests of Wikipedia at this time. I plan to take everything that was written to heart and improve myself here on Wikipedia with a goal of perhaps accepting a nomination again in the future, should someone choose to nominate me. As a way of gathering further feedback, I have created a page in my user space for other editors to leave comments about things that they might have observed during my RfA and to continue my "education process," as it may be considered. If you would like to contribute to that page, it may be found here. Again, thank you for participating and I appreciate your comments! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA

Thanks!

Thank you, Scog, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable academics ...

Hi! As you seem to be better at this than me, please could you take a look at Graham Kendall? Thanks. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excavated

Hello Scog- Re There's no content because it's a redirect!: thanks, I know. I just picked the best reason I saw from the criteria I saw on the speedy deletion page. My real reasoning for proposing deletion is that there's no need for a blank page titled Excavated. I can't imagine anyone going to a reference work and searching under that word when they're looking for an article on archaeological excavations. -Eric ^talk 14:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Although I agree that it's a somewhat unlikely search term, it is already in use in a number of articles as a redirect, as you can see from

Special:WhatLinksHere/Excavated, which suggests that a number of articles writers have found it useful in the past. This being the case, I don't see a compelling reason to delete it. Even if you disagree, I think it's clear that it shouldn't be deleted without discussion, and so the next step would be to take it to Redirects for Discussion. Scog (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- I see your point, but I think it's a drag when we end up reinforcing those writers' not-well-thought-out links. That moves in the direction of institutionalizing the chaotic and sloppy side of WP, something I like to keep in check. I'm willing to update the links in the above articles if that would make the speedy delete more palatable to you. -Eric ^talk 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scog- I updated all the links to the page and re-nominated it for speedy deletion. Hope I did everything right. Eric ^talk 15:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PROD

Thanks for the information, I'll try that instead. Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrolling

Hi there! I've been going through the New Pages log, particularly the back end of it. I've come across an article (BioMOBIUS) that you've added a tag to that hasn't been patrolled. I was wondering if you could make sure that you mark an article as patrolled before you tag it as then it won't show up on the list, which will save people patrolling an article that has already been looked at by an experienced editor like yourself.

Please accept my apologies if you are doing this and the software is lagging behind, or if you're just tagging articles that you're coming across from a different source that doesn't allow you to patrol them. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Bach proposed for deletion

Thank you for your comments on the Tamara Bach discussion. Would you be able to add just one of the major book awards, with inline citation, to the article? --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scog for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I was wrong about this case, I was motivated solely by the similarities between the rationales. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry about it. After finding out about this, I went back and looked at the AFD, and I agree it looks suspicious, particularly given that all of the other people using that rationale are new, single purpose accounts. If I were in your shoes, I might well have done the same thing. In any case, I see that the case has been passed to the Checkusers, and I've had my say on the investigation page, so I think the best thing to do is just wait for this whole thing to play out. Scog (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Scog. You have new messages at MuZemike's talk page.
Message added 04:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

MuZemike 04:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lobachevsk(i)y

Based on the name of the mathematician and this source - http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1971SSRv...12..136M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf - listed on the page, I believe that Lobachevsky is the correct spelling. Rather than get in to an edit war, I'll leave it up to you but students of non-Euclidean geometry will be very upset that you misspelled the discoverer of their discipline . . . :) TheSix (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

"access-date" is deprecated, use "accessdate" instead.

Hi, Scog. I noticed this edit. Please note the "access-date" parameter is deprecated in cite tags, use "accessdate" instead. If some tool was used to create your reference, please let me know so I can ask the maintainer to update it. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]