User talk:SuperEditor

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, SuperEditor, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Declined at Lemonade Mouth 2

Greetings! I declined your speedy deletion nomination at the above-referenced article, as the article clearly identifies its subject and, as such, CSD A1 does not appear to apply. I have, however, sent the article to Articles for Deletion because there is no evidence that this film has commenced principal photography. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SuperEditor. You have new messages at Ginsengbomb's talk page.
Message added 18:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am slowly working my way through proper posting of appropriate information, and was curious why the article I wrote recently, entitled, "Institute for Population Studies" was speedily deleted (try speedily saying that three times!).

Many thanks for your guidance and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopulationStudies (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)</sp--PopulationStudies (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)an>[reply]

FYI - I don't have tildes on my keyboard to sign off with.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work (book)

The article Work (book) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adenosine and ADHD

First of all, my apologies for the late response. I'm sure it will be disappointing but I'm no expert on adenosine and neither on ADHD, but after checking your hypothesis in the scientific literature it does seem to be a hypothesis worth testing. The animal studies are quite convincing but modeling psychiatric states in mice is really problematic, they are not the smartest animals and not the best model for such a sophisticated disease as ADHD. The only study in humans I could find is too small to give a definite answer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7028238. I'm going to talk to a few people who are working as neurologists and see if they have any idea about it. If you don't get an answer in the next two weeks, kindly remind me. Panoramix303 (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work (book) deletion

Hi -- I didn't delete this article; I only participated in the discussion that led to its deletion. The administrator who actually closed the discussion and deleted the article was Cirt (as you can see at the top of the deletion discussion). If you want to request that the article be restored, I believe you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review (which I realize may have been your intent in addressing me).

However, from what you wrote on my Talk page, I think that instead of attempting to overturn the deletion, you may have a better chance if you simply write a new article that (unlike the original article) establishes that the topic meets the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (books). Best of luck. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SuperEditor. You have new messages at Talk:Gaia Saver.
Message added 18:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SuperEditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Alright, I have a few problems with this block. First of all, I was not informed of it on my talk page or elsewhere. I logged in as I normally would and started marking some new pages as patrolled (which, yes, I was able to do without any problems). Then I went to go clean up an article that had been on my queue for a while, and the edit link only said "view source." So I was like "What the hell? Did they change the rules on my or what? Does this have something to do with my dynamic i.p.?" But noooo. It was an INDEFINITE block intended for me based on an edit I did something like two weeks ago! In any case, I am pretty sure that verbally encouraging vandalism is not grounds for a block, and certainly not an indefinite one, although that is subject to debate. The bottom line is, your block isn't doing to help the encyclopedia; in fact, it's going to do considerable harm to it as I have some much-needed wiki-work lined up. So let's make a deal. You unblock me, I don't have to create an alternate account, and I'll be good from now on. Update: I now see the message on my talk page that was added a minute ago. --SuperEditor (talk) 2:44 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Why, with edits like this, would it be a good idea to unblock you? Also, threatening to evade your block does not help your cause. TN X Man 19:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SuperEditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why, with edits like this, this, and this, would it be a bad idea to unblock me? Look, you need to weigh my good contributions against the bad ones. Even if you assume that I am going to continue this pattern of behavior, which I am not, the encyclopedia is better off for having me around. We are talking about one edit here. And I don't believe I ever threatened to evade the block. SuperEditor (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. This isn't just the one incident. You made a horrendous personal attack on another editor and requested an unblock because "it was only one edit", "you were never warned", you're "a pretty productive editor" and "it won't happen again". Does that sound familiar? That tactic worked last time, not this time. -- Atama頭 17:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And as far as threatening to evade your block, how should we interpret, You unblock me, I don't have to create an alternate account? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Crimethincwork.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Crimethincwork.jpg, which you've attributed to Packard Jennings et al.. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]