Jump to content

User talk:ZayZayEM/archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Influenza pandemic

[edit]

Hi there, I notice you are doing some editing of the pandemic page. I did quite a lot of work previously on the Influenza article to bring this up to FA, so if you need any advice, access to sources or production of figures then please don't hesitate to get in touch. All the best Tim Vickers 16:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

And good luck. I will pray or appease various dieties, if you think it will help. Or, more useful, hit me with your best shot before you post, and I will do as much editing as I can. KP Botany 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Tim Vickers is an excellent and careful editor, do take him up on the offer. KP Botany 20:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Official - international
Official - United States
  • PandemicFlu.Gov U.S. Government's avian flu information site
  • USAID U.S. Agency for International Development - Avian Influenza Response
  • CDC Centers for Disease Control - responsible agency for avian influenza in humans in US - Facts About Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) and Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Virus
  • USGS - NWHC National Wildlife Health Center - responsible agency for avian influenza in animals in US
  • HHS U.S. Department of Health & Human Services - Pandemic Influenza Plan
Official - United Kingdom
Technical
General information
Wikinews has related news:

WAS 4.250 17:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Trying to get along

[edit]

I would like to apologize for any hurt feelings I may have caused by my use of the word "ignorant". I only mean that you lack the knowledge that is contained in the references used to support the claims in the articles and I find myself very frustrated in attempts to answer your questions about those articles that you don't seem to be able to find the time to read those sources. WAS 4.250 12:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't addressed any particular questions I've had. You've parroted long strings of information from reference, which I have skimmed quite a few of, without addressing the actual questions. This shows a very shallow understanding of the topic, and to me, this is reflected in your editing tone.--ZayZayEM 02:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to solve that by letting you research the answers to your questions instead of trying to answer them myself. This will save you the aggravation of wasting your time asking questions that are inadequately answered and save myself the frustration of trying to help you and finding that I'm just wasting my time as well. The superior insights you get from that research will surely be reflected in an improved Wikipedia, so we all win in the end. Good luck to you. One article with good data but poor writing is H5N1 genetic structure. I'll bet you could improve it and learn a lot at the same time. Go for it! WAS 4.250 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What no one knows about H5N1

[edit]

Dr. David Nabarro, chief avian flu coordinator for the United Nations, says avian flu has too many unanswered questions:

  • No one knows how many could die.
  • No one knows how far it has spread. In Africa "surveillance is so poor that deaths of chickens or humans could easily go undiagnosed for weeks."
  • No one knows much about future pandemic mutations, except they are increasingly likely due to millions more birds in many more countries leading "to an exponential increase of the load of virus in the world [...] Each infected bird and person is actually awash in minutely different strains, and it takes lengthy genetic testing to sequence each one - so if a pandemic strain were to appear it might be quite difficult for us to pick up that change when it happens."
  • No one knows why "the disease, after years of smoldering in poultry, suddenly start hitchhiking in migratory birds."
  • No one knows why "the northern China strain - the one now spreading westward - cause[s] so many false negatives in diagnostic tests".
  • No one knows why so many people fell sick so quickly in Turkey.
  • No one knows the significance of H5N1 spread by mammals such as cats.
  • No one knows enough about what virus strains are in which bird species to make useful predictions.
  • No one knows enough about bird migration patterns to make useful predictions. Bird species' migration strategies can vary according to age, sex, weather and season, among other things.
  • No one knows how lethal the next influenza pandemic will be.
  • No one knows when it will occur.
  • No one knows if any of the prepandemic vaccines now being tested will have been of any use when the pandemic happens.
  • No one knows if any of the nonvaccine drugs will be of any use against the pandemic virus when it comes.
  • No one knows if H5N1 will ever go away.<ref> [http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/27/news/worrier.php NYT article picked up by IHT]</ref><ref name=IISD>[http://www.iisd.ca/ymb/ais/ymbvol123num1e.html International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)] ''SCIENTIFIC SEMINAR ON AVIAN INFLUENZA, THE ENVIRONMENT AND MIGRATORY BIRDS ON 10-11 APRIL 2006'' published 14 April 2006. </ref> Copied from where I added it at Reporting disease cases. WAS 4.250 17:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One man's (albeit informed) opinion WP:UNDUE
  • Speculative WP:CRYSTAL
  • No content. "No one knows" really isn't information. It's information about lack of information.
    • Please stop spamming my user talk page. Post a link. Don't summarize it for me. I've already let you know I don't think your summaries are all that helpful.--ZayZayEM 00:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PCR hell

[edit]

You poor thing. It's a pain in the ass when it doesn't work isn't it. Are you trying to clone something and add restriction sites, or just detect if a sequence is there? As to "failing", we have no time limit in Wikipedia, so if you want to work on and off to improve an article over many years, your contributions are still valuable. Tim Vickers 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flu articles

[edit]

Thank you for helping with the flu articles. We got off on the wrong foot somehow. I'm trying to edit wikipedia less, and another set of eyes on those articles is helpful. Also, a second mind making sure the content is understandable is helpful. I moved the "unanswered questions" data to avian flu where it is a better fit. The long quote about surveillance needs for avian flu is very interesting to me, but needs too much background material for me to add it in any form at avian flu, which is designed as an introductory article. Since most of the avian flu sources are high quality and related to your field of study, I hope you find them both interesting and career enhancing. WAS 4.250 13:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The #What_no_one_knows_about_H5N1 points just aren't encyclopedic. I do accept Nabarro as an acceptable authority figure, but you really have to provide context as to what these bullet points. It is just simple miscelleneous information that can way to easily be taken the wrong way when presented in this manner.
Firstly, Nabarro labels himself as a scare mongerer, not a bad one, but someone who is promoting his personal (albeit informed) opinions of fear (look at URL too "/worrier.php")

Nabarro ... admits that he has been accused before of being an alarmist

Secondly on looking at the source [1] there is very little resembling a bullet point list of "no-one knows X", in fact Ctrl+F "no one" has this one quote, it's about AIDS:

The skepticism reminds him of his stint in East Africa in the 1980s. No one realized then how widespread the AIDS virus was, and it was unclear then whether it was transmitted by sex.

Oh, I saw "Nobody" here:

how many does Nabarro now say could die? "I don't know," he said. "Nobody knows."

This is a news article. It's not a WHO press release. It's not a Lancet journal. It's an almost tabloid piece designed to play into the hearts of an easily scared public who don't know better.
It's not notable that there are so many unanswered questions, these are questions that could be claimed to unanswered about any outbreak, epidemic or pandemic of a high-mortality disease such as SARS, Plague, Ebola, Smallpox etc. For the informed this sort of "news" really isn't news at all, and it's certainly not of any real encyclopedic value.
I might also finally point out that article ends with Nabarro pointing out his purpose, raising money to fight flu. I'm not really into this, but it just might be conceivable that playing up avian influenza alarm bells might suit his agenda. (I think I'm rather hoping he's just a scared little man being quoted out of context).--ZayZayEM 00:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we are finally "talking turkey". But I have a limited desire to engage with you for a variety of reasons, so please don't take this as an offer to debate. On the other hand, do take it as an opportunity for a nice conversation.
I disagree with your opinion that What_no_one_knows_about_H5N1 is not encyclopedic. It is in fact what motivates billions of dollars of research funds, some of which could wind up in your pocket if you pay attention. You say "you really have to provide context as to what these bullet points [mean]" and I agree totally, but I am very poor at putting myself in the shoes of people like yourself who lack the data, so I need your help to know what to say. ::#Nabarro is not a scare monger. He is perceived as such by some, and his job is to motivate and inform so as to generate activity that is needed.
  1. You say "there is very little resembling a bullet point list" yet the source supports the claim. I quote and I'm told to paraphrase; I paraphrase and I'm told what you just said. Please.
  2. You say "This is a news article. It's not a WHO press release. It's not a Lancet journal. It's an almost tabloid piece designed to play into the hearts of an easily scared public who don't know better." Actually, it is part of a deliberate concerted effort by the world-wide community of flu experts to try to prevent a billion human deaths from a flu pandemic by drawing attention to research efforts that need funding.
  3. The influenza A virus is mutating and spreading in ways never before seen and infecting species never before infected by it and is killing in increasing mortality in mammal species while still remaining viable in avian species so that the idea of decreasing mortality is not needed as the reservoir can remain in birds and need not decrease in mortality just cause it wipes out one or more mammal species ... am I communicating??? The experts are universally in a state of deep concern.
  4. You say that "It's not notable that there are so many unanswered questions, these are questions that could be claimed to unanswered about any outbreak, epidemic or pandemic of a high-mortality disease such as SARS, Plague, Ebola, Smallpox etc. For the informed this sort of "news" really isn't news at all, and it's certainly not of any real encyclopedic value." but that ignores the opinion of the experts that H5N1 has the ability to kill a billion people in the next 12 months and none of the other diseases you named have that possibility. WAS 4.250 06:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've numbered your points to make it easier to look at.

  1. Nabarro is someone who has self confessed to being a scaremonger. I even quoted him. He is very wary about people (notably news sources) taking him out of context, while still trying to maintain a sense of seriousness. I feel the way you are using his comments is probably the very form of out-of-context use his is wary of.
  2. Paraphrasing is not the same as summarizing. You need to keep a flow of text, and not include too much unnecessary information. I think earlier I had attempted to summarise the Nabarro points into one sentance, which did not seem to meet your standards. But really thats all that is warranted from this one news article "Nabbarro has expressed concerns". Bullet points, in the manner you are using them, are not encyclopedic - it looks like someone's (dodgy) powerpoint slide. Some pages that might help are WP:MOS WP:BETTER and WP:SS, but I will look for one that specifically deals with how to write encyclopedic prose (I'm surprised I couldn't find one easily just now).
  3. I stand by my claims here. I see no concerted effort by a world-wide community of experts beyond what would be expected. This is part of a media effort, not a science one.
  4. I think this is continuing on from the last point. It just disintegrates into alarmism. I'm sorry for this caricaturisation, but as someone who does have training in public health and sociological reception of science I'm not going to accept this extra stuff as an argument.
  5. Again standing by my claims here. Other diseases do have similar capacity for disaster, maybe not in the next twelve months, and maybe not perceived. Wikipedia is not journalism, so time frame is irrelevent, and wikipedia is not a warning system.

You provide some context in your commentary here "[The points] are in fact what motivates billions of dollars of research funds". If this is so, then please find a citation for this. This would provide context that would augment a one or two sentance statement regarding Naborro's comments on a page like Influenza research. Hope this is of some help.

I would advise also reading through WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not a forum for raising alarm over H5N1. It is useful and encyclopedic to write about other people raising alarm, as long as it is done in a neutral, albeit non-partisan manner.

Finally I would appreciate it if you stop characterising myself as someone who lacks data or expertise. This is not true and it just makes you sound arrogant. It also forces me to call on my credentials, something I am loathe to do.--ZayZayEM 07:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "I stand by my claims here" please read [2] In response to "If this is so, then please find a citation for this." please read

Is Business Ready for a Flu Pandemic? (Also see [3]). WAS 4.250 10:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Everything you say in advance of a pandemic is alarmist; anything you do after it starts is inadequate."

— US HHS Secretary Michael O. Leavitt, Virginia Pandemic Influenza Summit
This refutes your contention that it is media driven. WAS 4.250 10:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Over 80 countries and 8 international organizations agreed to raise political attention on avian flu.[4] This is not media driven. WAS 4.250 11:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No, sorry. If you refuse to actually formulate a discussion. And instead insist on posting a bunch of links for me to read (you can use links, just let me know what I am supposed to be doing with them, or what you think of them) then I can't respond appropriately. I am reading these links, I just don't know what you want me to do with it. If you can't communicate with other editors (see your comments above), that's going to be a real issue with you working on Wikipedia--ZayZayEM 11:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


My deleting these comments before was wrong. However it is important that you are not giving me much context to interpret these links. I read them, gain information, and interpret them, but obviously in a very different way to you. I suppose the one thing that comes into my mind, is that if you need all these other links to make sense of the original text you added to the encyclopdia, it would make sense to combine all this information into a single well referenced paragraph (as long as it doesn't make contentious conclusions - WP:SYNTH)--ZayZayEM 23:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Aside

[edit]
  • In other news I had my hands on an Avian Influenza special issue of the Journal of Wildlife Diseases [5] yesterday. Hopefully I'll be able to borrow it in November after I'm done with my theses. Lots of stuff on Disease surveillence, assessment, evolution, virology etc. on a global scale. Oh, even better, I'm getting complete access through the university computers so I won't even have to track down that hard copy again This one looks good--ZayZayEM 00:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fooly Cooly Ecchi Time

[edit]

FLCL=Ecchi every anime site and reviewers(even the creater and U.S.Distributor likely caled it an ecchi! It was once placed as one! THE SCECES IN THE OVA EVEN SCREAM ECCHI! Sr? Whats the problem? With all due respect I belive you have clue what Fooly Cooly is do you? --Lolicon-r.us 14:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FlCl is not Ecchi. I have seen the complete series and own a bootleg. The English usage of "Ecchi" is synomous with Hentai and may not reflect the Japanese usage. This is an English language wikipedia, it should reflect English usage of terms, not Japanese ones.--ZayZayEM 23:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not an Ecchi? Bulls***!
  • In English, the word is often used in the context of manga and anime. The term ecchi is applied to anime or manga that has vague sexual content (such as skimpy clothing, partial or full nudity), but does not show sexual intercourse.

The ecchi art style is loosely comparable to pin-up girl artwork, as well as to provocative fantasy and comic book art in the United States and other countries. Typical features include:

  • Clothing that outlines the shape of the breasts, nipples, and labia, suggesting tightness of clothing and arousal.(Like FLCL...I cant remember)
  • Uniforms, costumes, or outfits that may be provocative, but are worn as everyday clothing by the character.
  • Characters who are unaware of their sexuality, appear innocent or cheerful, or sly and mischievous.(Like FLCL)
  • Clothing that is falling off or being pulled off, notably swimsuits and "sailor"-style schoolgirl uniforms.(Like FLCL)
  • Upskirt panty shots and cleavage.(Like FLCL...right?)
  • Suggestive or phallic imagery, such as Japanese mayonnaise bottles.(Like FLCL...I think)
  • Exaggerated sexual attributes, often on normal or petite figures to give a sense of contrast. **Especially used in dōjinshi and fanart, where a character may appear more sexualized than normal.(Like FLCL)
  • Cute or innocent character with obvious sexual appearance or clothing.(Like FLCL)
  • The occasional bare breast(s) , but no nudity below the navel or vaginal slit is included on female model.
  • Skimpy bathing suits with crotch lines showing and sides of breasts showing.

Now what your saying is that the ecchi list is B.S. so why not take down that? Can you offer ANY GOOD REASON To not call it an ecchi? No opinions just Wiki Rules and Proff to say it) --Lolicon-r.us 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please see my comments at Talk:Ecchi. I was merely following suit with another editor I agreed with. Are you discussing this with that editor as well. I would recommend you direct them to Talk:Ecchi as well. If this is the correct usage of Ecchi in English I will accept FlCl as an ecchi anime - however, this is not what I consider ecchi to be.--ZayZayEM 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O_O

[edit]

Nonononono I should applogise for the disruption I caused and time I wased for you! Please forgive my "Lolicon Ways" ZayZayEM-kun! As for the lolicon thing Lolicon is the sexualizationh of underaged anime characters! Real kids in the USA are ugly(compaired to Anime)! The Lolicon Characters are SO cute(w/ those big eyes, sweet look and those Super Happy Fun Time way of theres! Thats whats my name is for....oh and I am the Spokesman, Head of User Safety and Scurity, and Chief Legal Officer for www.lolicon-r.us.com as of 9/13/07 in an agreement w/ the owner and admin. of the site! =^_^= HAPPYEST DAY OF MY LIFE!!!*Oops* Anyway I look forward to working long side with you!--Lolicon-r.us 12:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ID

[edit]

I have no particularly strong desire to leave theory in the lead, but it seems to fit both its common description and the more scientific usage of the term (generally a system of thinking supported by a hypothesis and evidence). Testibility might be a bit hazy here, but it is to an extent with all subjects of this type...so yes, Popper would strike it down in a heartbeat, but then he would evolution too. I personally think ID is pretty far fetched (or perhaps, not even wrong...), but I'm curious if I missed something as to what the common use of theory in WP articles is or if there is a reason why claim fits better; as I'm only just looking at the article for the first time and not all too familiar with ID I reserve the right to sound completely stupid if I missed something obvious! Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you peruse the Talk page on Intelligent design. And then raise any concerns you have. Using "theory" in any relationship with ID, except "ID is not a scinetific theory" has been decided a very big no-no by consensus. You will be opening a big can of worms. And not the usual fishing kind.--ZayZayEM 02:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read through it...while I agree with "ID is not a scinetific theory" I'm not sure about not calling it a theory, it seems reasonable that it can justs be called a theory with little justification/evidence. Perhaps its because I'm starting with the assumption that the word "claim" in the intro describes an a priori belief that the theory is wrong (which it likely is, but we can't start out by assuming it is). I will dutifully look at the discussion log though. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
follow up Perhaps hypothesis would be better, or assertion...Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothesis is still too scientific. A hypothesis requires some sort of experimental prediction, if X is is so, we should see Z. ID fails at this. Amazingly. Assertion is a weaker version of claim in my books, claim is very neutral, assertion IMO requires perserverence on behalf of the asserter. Wikipedia can start of making "judgements" on things, because it isn't an impartial juror, it's a tertiary resource, therefore it reports from various reliable sources. these reliable sources say ID is not a theory and not a hypothesis, and not science, it's a pseudoscientific claim that is a stalking horse for creationism (or by some sources, simply, is creationism).--ZayZayEM 18:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not violate WP:NPA

[edit]

I am insulted and shaken by your conduct at Talk: Emo (slang). You accuse me of being a crank because I am asking for a reliable source before you rename an article in an effort to introduce particular unsourced analytical claims. Citing unaccepted theories in sociology in conference abstracts, unpublished papers, and nonexistant books is exactly what a crank might do. Am I calling you a crank? No. But I'm doing the opposite of what a crank would. Do not continue to fling accusations at me. I've made my case very clearly, based on policy. The RfC drew multiple third-parties, most of whom agreed that the sources are unreliable and that the argument I've presented is sensible - consensus may not be on my side, but it's not on yours either. Do you have some interesting, if unreliable, sources? Perhaps. Is your analysis sound? Not necessarily. Is it obvious? Maybe according to you. Do we generally make conclusions based on whether or not other things also exist? No - Wikipedia is not a source for itself. Don't accuse me of being a crank again - it's rude, agumentative, and a personal attack as far as I see it. And it's inapplicable. Discuss the content, not the editor, please. I've made my case, others have made similar points, and with outstanding objections that haven't been addressed, you cannot make such bold edits. Until we resolve this matter to consensus, such drastic changes cannot be introduced into the article. --Cheeser1 04:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack intended. I specifically phrased it to not attack. It is a warning of what your behaviour is sounding like. I did not call you a crank. I said this is sounding increasingly crank-like, and even provided a link to where I was coming from. It is perfectly legitimate to say this and does not constitute a PA.--ZayZayEM 04:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're sounding increasingly hostile. Turnabout is fair play, and even if it's not a personal attack, it's certainly not your place to start discussing how much of a crank I may or may not resemble. Argue facts, not personalities. I honestly consider Lundse to be an armchair-sociologist wannabe. Do I use that to discredit him? No. I point to WP:RS instead. If you can find a policy that says "asking people to cite reliable sources makes you a crank" then feel free to point me in that direction. And don't toss pseudo-insults in your edit summaries either - I will notice. --Cheeser1 04:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't create a battle. I was casually referring to a website I read recently. --ZayZayEM 02:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were calling me a crank for absolutely no sensible reason. DISCUSS FACTS NOT PERSONALITIES. How much clearer could it be? Accusing me nonsensically of being a crank, or of seeming like a crank, or of resembling a crank, or of being like a crank, or anything like that is complete nonsense (I'm the one arguing for properly sourced material) and has no bearing on the conversation. --Cheeser1 06:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not create a battle.--ZayZayEM 06:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're confused, but telling you to follow etiquette guidelines and to keep conversation on-topic is not creating a battle. No matter how many times you tell me not to "create a battle," you're the one who stooped to calling me a crank instead of discussing the content at hand. If you're not going to engage in a good-faith discussion about your actions in this matter, then this will be my last comment on the matter. --Cheeser1 06:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not create a battle.--ZayZayEM 06:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might also point that you are still citing several guidelines and policies out of context. Talk:Emo (slang) already covers why SelfPub is not relevant in this case. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is in regards to arguments for article deletion, and is more on existence of content, not on something such as using standard naming conventions. And Synthesis in presenting arguments on a talk page is sound, as long asno synthesis is used in the actual article content. One can just as rightly claim synthesis in your arguments against using Emo subculture as an acceptable term.- Consensus is being gathered (I will directly point to the last WP:RM as having more votes for moving than leaving stationary, and the move camp has bolstered its numbers and strengthened its arguments. -ZayZayEM 04:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You think the exception to SPS applies. I do not. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an example of the fact that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOURCE FOR ITSELF. If "emo subculture" is a term that people sometimes use then we put a redirect there (oh wait, there already is one). You cannot honestly expect me to believe that you want to only change the title without ever providing any evidence that the term subculture applies. That's utter nonsense. Also, a move is not a vote. Don't tell me a 6-4 margin is honestly consensus. Consensus is when everybody agrees. If I disagree (not to mention the 3-4 respondents to the RfC who also object), you do not have consensus. Especially when I'm citing policy and you're citing unpublished manuscripts and "the obvious." --Cheeser1 04:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not being used as a source for itself. I will note the current references at Emo (slang) explicitly violate this rule.--ZayZayEM 05:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current sources we have now are not in question at the moment. You said "emo is mentioned at subculture" - this is irrelevant, and you are trying to use content in Wikipedia to justify other content you want to add to Wikipedia. Don't dance around the issue. --Cheeser1 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have said no such thing in recent times. Please do not confuse editors with one another. The current sources are in serious doubt at the moment, especially ones that use wikipedia as a reference, please see my summary on the talk page. Most are non-notable self published works by non-experts, others suffer from POV bias, lack of content, and unreliability.--ZayZayEM 00:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about the current sources though. Their (un)reliability has no bearing on whether or not completely unrelated sources are reliable. Slightly less unreliable (but still unreliable) sources don't meet WP:RS, and when trying to make analytical or academic claims, one must be far more weary of basing things on "common knowledge" or unreliable sources. --Cheeser1 01:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Slightly less unreliable is better than blatantly unreliable. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and I see impeding improvement because it is not perfect as disruptive. Gradual improvement is how articles become featured, they do not become featured overnight. --ZayZayEM 02:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can tell me that my impression of WP:RS is disagreed with by multiple editors, but so is yours. Remember WP:CONS? It's that thing where you're not allowed to just tell me "you disagree, you're getting in the way of progress, we shall outnumber and ignore you." That's not how Wikipedia works. I'm done discussing this here - we've already been through this on the talk page of the article at hand. Slightly less unreliable sources aren't any better if the claims they're allegedly supporting require more authority than what we have now. --Cheeser1 06:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block.....

[edit]

Nonono wait hear me out! That block! Was a misunderstanding! Please hear me! At least give a chance to defend my self here! I was blocked for Talk: Lolicon and Talk: Pedophile Ive now avoided that! Please dont! Please! I will not let wiki down PLEASE Zayzay-chan please! Be fair here sr!--Lolicon-r.us 14:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. I was just pointing out. If you behave yourself, you will have nothing to worry about.　そして、　「～くん」　もいいですね。僕は男だ。
Oh I see you have been blocked. I will see if I can help you out here. You seem to be playing by wikipedia rules with this account.--ZayZayEM 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at WP:BAN#Appeals_process. You should try and get the original User:Saikano account unbanned by appealing to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. You will need to show that you have furthered your understanding of wikipedia policies you broke, and also establish that you have something to contribute to the community. I would advise maintaining a civil tongue, swearing at a blocking admin [6] is not teh best way to get unblocked.
You really need to understand wikipedia's guidelines on NO Original Research and Attributing your sources. While none of your edits with User:Lolicon-r.us have violated these rules, but you are evading a block. The Moe diagram is blatant POV/OR; Copyediting at List of H anime and FLCL is constructive,a dn I think you should emphasise this if you wish to be unblocked. --ZayZayEM 01:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping to talk to Saikano. He's heard all of this countless times; the original account was given 3 or 4 chances after first blocking, while the first several subsequent accounts were all given ample opportunities to right the ship. He is often able to avoid the subjects of main interest, like pedophilia and lolicon, at first, but he inevitably gets embroiled in a confrontation that ends with him making legal threats and lots of shouting and personal attacks. I invite you to read the talk pages of some of the other blocked accounts, and you'll see a similar pattern. There was a time when it seemed like he could focus on positive contributions, but he always reverts to the original behavior. Leebo T/C 01:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics in Showa Japan

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=162559712&oldid=162548100

Flying-Tyger starts relating the war crime and the eugenics of Japan. However, the eugenics of Japan developed after the war. (It was not supported while fighting at all. )　I introduced a Japanese document, and pointed out his fact. I have the preparation and the material thoroughly discussed. Please point out the mistake of me concrete. Let's start a discussion.　--Azukimonaka 06:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the major problem here is WP:RS and WP:POV. Should we really be trusting enough to report only "Eugenics doctors in Japan insist that the eugenics of Japan are not related to Nazi Germany and militarism". Are Eugenics doctors an impartial reliable source in this matter. It probably should be included as a statement, but not as something abosultely credible.
That Eugenics started pre-war is obvious by the creation of 優生運動 in 1926 (which is not post-war).
Just because soemthing was not explicitly called Eugenics doesn't mean it wasn't. And also remember this article is Eugenics in Showa Japan, not Eugenics in Japan, so it really needs to focus on Eugenics, and eugenic-like movements, and eugenic-related movements in the Showa Period of Japan.
I'm also having a very hard time understanding your grammar here. I'm really sorry. But this is a problem in some of your reversions, as you make changes that are not consistent with Native English.
I see none of Flying Tiger's edits or the article directly relating war-crimes and eugenics to Japan. It is a relevent see also though, as the topics are relevent to each other as motives in this time period.--ZayZayEM 10:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the war, the eugenics of Japan developed. And, eugenics was promoted by doctors who believed in not the nationalist but Western medicine. Therefore, eugenics is spoken by the medicine history of Japan. Is there a question?　To this explanation. --Azukimonaka 17:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to reply to your concerns. I cannot understand them completely. I do not wish to misunderstand you, or have you misunderstand me.
あなたの言葉 ぜんぜんわからん から "reply"すること 出来ない。　ごめなさい。　--ZayZayEM 06:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
いえいえ。別に返事はしなくていいですよ。ではでは。--Azukimonaka 16:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if I can't understand your question/point, I can't answer it. And even when we do answer it you seem to lack the comprehension. None of the article relates Japanese War Crimes with Eugenics. The article does relate Eugenics in Showa Japan with wartime history and politics, because it was that time period.--ZayZayEM 23:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your post on the Ja Project Talk page. Lepers were the subject of the law. Please see Ja:優生学#日本 and Ja:ハンセン氏病#断種・優生政策. Oda Mari (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can answer your question but please be patient. I've got to translate the diseases from Heibonsha Encyclopedia (1958 ed.). Little by little. According to the encyclopedia, one of the subjects of the post-war law is people with genetic deformation like bone deficiency, polydactyl and short digits (sorry, I don't know the correct English medical term) brachydactylia. As for the post by Azukimonaka, I think he/she wanted to tell you that it was not nationalists or nationalistic doctors but doctors who influenced by Western eugenics theory promoted to enact the post-war law. Hope my English is understandable. Oda Mari (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your English is fine Oda. Azukimonaka doesn't seem to understand the meaning of home front. While Eugenics in Japan wasn't a military effort, it did gain prominence during the Pacific War, and also had implications within the political climate of the time. It is not in the categories he objects to because it was military issue, but because it was a political issue during a time of war.--ZayZayEM 00:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other diseases are:

  • Criminals with genetic predisposition to commit crime.
  • Patients with genetic diseases (total color-blindness, hemophilia, albinism and ichthyosis).
  • Mental defective.
  • Psychotic (schizophrenia, manic-depressive and eplepsy).

According to the Ja-WP, these last two were added to the law in 1952. That's the all diseases mentioned in the encyclopedia except mental defective/retard. There must be other diseases, but I'm afraid I have no idea. Oda Mari (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the diseases list here. There are a lot! Oda Mari (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you have the source. I would prefer you edit the page directly. I think it would be most helpful. FlyingTiger and myself may make cpyediting changes to it later, but that is what wiki is for.--ZayZayEM 09:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the encouraging words, but no. I don't trust my English. I don't make a large edit in articles. I only make a small modification or add Japanese in here. But I'm willing to get more facts if you want. Just tell me. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this might be a help. Oda Mari (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


前々大丈夫だよ。上手英語のレベルだと思う。Your English is fine. It's actually pretty great. Don't be so shy. I'd give you a thumbs up if I was still doing eikaiwa teacher interviews. I wouldn't have even thought you weren't a native English speaker until you said so. (僕は五年ぐらい日本語を勉強しましたから日本語を出来るですげど少ない言葉を覚えたからボチボチだけだと思います ^_^）--ZayZayEM 10:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please abide by WP:NPA

[edit]

Your comment here is a gross violation of WP:NPA. Please refrain from making such comments about other editors. Given your history of violating WP:NPA and being called on it, I would think you'd know better. Further violations will result in stronger action against you. (Now please, try to hide behind WP:SPADE. Jinxmchue 16:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree. You called me a crank, and pointed me to a website that defines (and subsequently analyzes and belittles) cranks, which (if you'd read carefully) was not what's going on in that article. --Cheeser1 01:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: what wasn't going on in that article?--ZayZayEM 04:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crank-ism. Crank-ing. Me being a crank. The fact that administrative action was not taken does not endorse or validate what you said (which is a personal attack, by the way, even if you had been correct). --Cheeser1 07:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. What article? You mean the talk page right? And the talk page is what I'm not reading correctly?--ZayZayEM 07:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, talk page (to me, "that article" includes the pages associated with it). You decided to call me a crank, despite the fact that such an insult had no bearing on the discussion and was followed by a link to a site about cranks. I'm just asking that you not misrepresent the interaction - as if you were absolved or as if there was ever any resolution or indication that what you said was anything but out-of-line. --Cheeser1 07:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I"m not discussing this any further. I'm pointing out that having been accused of NPA once in recent history is not a "history" of it. I'm regretful I made the comment. But it wasn't meant as an attack.--ZayZayEM 07:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Staate00

[edit]

You could have reported him to WP:AIV. I'm going to do it now. Is that the reason you left me that comment...for me to report him? I'm a little confused. - Rjd0060 03:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI-He's been blocked for 24 hours. See the block log. Hope thats what you wanted. - Rjd0060 03:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:The Singing Ship, Emu Park.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. However, you may still consider claiming fair use.Jusjih 02:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Cook University

[edit]

Hey there, I noticed you flagged this article as needing a clean-up. I'm currently working on it and as you've gone through it already, I was hoping you could tell me what areas still need work. Thanks! Niël 11:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

Oh, the list of diseases in English is here in ref. #2. I think it's a helpful source for understanding the 1948 law. And the ref. #7 is an incorrect citation. The book has nothing to do with the law during the war. It deals with the 1948 law. I think it's better to remove. Oda Mari (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Chapter 5 of #7. The history of Eugenics from 1938 to 1947 is being written. [7]　--Azukimonaka 13:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is being written in #1 & #2 "The purposes of this law are to prevent the birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect the life and health of the mother as well." This source was quoted like this. "while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions that led to them being viewed as "inferior" contributions to the Japanese gene pool." Please explain the reason to disregard "and to protect the life and health of the mother as well."　--Azukimonaka 13:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. #7 is an Amazon co. jp. page. I don't think an Amazon page is good enough as citation. Oda Mari (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think its referencing the book, and just providing the Amazon as a link to the book to show it is a real book.--ZayZayEM 02:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, The link of amzon is deleted, and ISBN is added. --Azukimonaka 10:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is Oda Mari a character of "High School Kimengumi"?--Azukimonaka 10:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No comment. Oda Mari (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sockpuppetry queston

[edit]

I've done a quick look on it, and here's what I see:

  • There's no abusive sockpuppetry.
  • Editors are being a bit too harsh on the anon, IMHO.
  • You're entitled to blank your page and not keep an archives; many admins do so and the differences between the and the anon is that they have more buttons and more experience, hardly reasons for harassing the anon
  • I don't think your behaviour is poor.

Hope that helped, --Maxim(talk) (contributions) 19:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Would it be possible to just report User:67.135.49.147? I'm sure I can find in wikipedia that sockpuppeting and deleting ones talk page contents isn't tolerated. Kevin 22:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem here, is that the sockpuppetry isn't malicious. And you won't find the latter.--ZayZayEM 00:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Azukimonaka rides again

[edit]

As User:Azukimonaka has done again disruptive editing on Eugenics in Showa Japan and is still obsessed with his imaginary "conspiration for the propagation" of "cruel Japan" by "falsification", I suggest you to join me in [[8]] to make a complaint against him as it takes two users.

I already asked for an administrator's intervention on [[9]] as he showed the same behavior on three other articles since two months.

Frankly, there seems no other way to act as I do not have time to waist on such childish war edits... --Flying tiger 21:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. [[10]] --Flying tiger 04:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, this time I hope it's OK.... Such time wasted on this issue !! [[11]] P.S. You forgot to sign your comment here :

[[12]] --Flying tiger 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your comment and understand you changed your mind on mediation VS RfC, I did not had the "Wikipedia signal" to look me page before I had registered the mediation request... I'll check the process tomorrow.--Flying tiger 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your last message. Sorry but I find your changes of mind a little hard to follow... Meanwhile Azukimonaka had the time to delete ALL the edits I made about Jeniffer Robertson and is keeping his work on Japanese expansionism... We'll then wait if he agree to go on mediation. --Flying tiger 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will slowly （まったり）controvert this article. Yoroshiku-Onegaisimasu　--Azukimonaka 22:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pandemic vaccine puzzle

[edit]

FYI: CIDRAP (Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy - Academic Health Center -- University of Minnesota) has an interesting series of articles called "The pandemic vaccine puzzle" available here containing:

  • Part 1: Flu research: a legacy of neglect
  • Part 2: Vaccine production capacity falls far short
  • Part 3: H5N1 poses major immunologic challenges
  • Part 4: The promise and problems of adjuvants
  • Part 5: What role for prepandemic vaccination?
  • Part 6: Looking to novel vaccine technologies
  • Part 7: Time for a vaccine 'Manhattan Project'?

WAS 4.250 18:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds good. I've finally gotten some progress on my cloning project. Hope to be all done and back to graduand status by December. Influenza will be my top wiki-priority. I'm really gonna try and get a hold of that Wildlife journal special again - which will hopefully expand Disease surveillance too--ZayZayEM 00:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck to you. And US and European and the Australian governments (among others) are spending big bucks on flu pandemic mitigation. I hope you get in on the gravy train. Maybe the contribution you make will save ... um, well let's not get carried away here. But you know, for the want of a nail, a horse-shoe was lost and for want ... WAS 4.250 04:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearing edits...

[edit]

What do you make of this? -- -- SpiralingMusic 03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

[edit]
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eugenics in Showa Japan.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Areas of current flu research

[edit]

Boy, oh boy, my goodness, you have pestered me until I finally found where the information should have gone in the first place ... and now you are insisting that it be written in a non-half-ass manner that can be understood and verified by readers who haven't yet read a dozen other articles or sources. Well! If that's the way you are gonna be, I'll just have to give it a shot. But you have to help and not just keep deleting.  :) Seriously, I think we both have a little time at this point and we get along a lot better now; let's try working together on it. I think we should add data from the recent CIDRAP series and provide each listed item that we keep with its own ref and perhaps quote and perhaps specific context. But that's a lot of work. Are you up for helping? WAS 4.250 18:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please call Flying-Tyger

[edit]

Flying-Tyger doesn't participate in the discussion so that you may answer by the representation though I questioned Flying-Tyger. Please call him. --Azukimonaka 06:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

umm, no. not my role. I have no contact details. He is probably wisely not engaging in fruitless discussion.--ZayZayEM 07:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flying-Tyger has thrown out the mediation. He is starting the following edit disregarding the discussion.[13] Please bring him back. --Azukimonaka 14:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Participation

[edit]

In answer to your message, I give three reasons why I won't answer to Azukimonaka's lists. 1) As you wrote is an obnoxious, agressive user with no respect and bad manners; 2) In addition, he is unable to understand how a source, such as a book, can be cited on wikipedia ; 3) This user is either malicious or unable to read the history of articles as at leat 5 points in these lists he attributed to ME were not added by me.

This is the core of the war edit between he and me since two months. The last remark by user:Saintjust who went back in the history of the article is very representative and revealing : [[14]]. In all war edits, Azukimonaka has attributed to me sentences that were either added by other user or in the article since the beginning. Maybe he doesn't like my pseudonym, maybe is paranoid... Besides, Azukimonaka's name should had been let UNDER the list whic is attributed to me...

Whatever the reason, I do not have time to waist with this kind of freak. However, even if the mediator does not seem to want to show up, discussions with SaintJust could be productive and bring new points.--Flying tiger 13:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Speaking of the wolf...Look at his two latest edits if you still think mediation is still possible with this obtuse vandal. [[15]]--Flying tiger 17:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

本当に二人は仲がいいですね。--Azukimonaka 19:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)　I'm sorry. I withdraw the slander to ZayZayEM. I was temporarily upset by the abuse of Flying tiger. --Azukimonaka 19:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Bindeez

[edit]

I already contributed so I'm not sure why you are inviting me there. Your other changes in your edit were against policy; linking dates that needn't be linked, and changing to American spelling, so it was easier to revert the lot. --Stephen 05:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an Australian product article = Australian/British spelling. Dates should always be linked except when it's detrimental to the article.--ZayZayEM 06:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BonziBUDDY

[edit]

"not fair without a cite" is a very poor reason for reverting Jimbo when he's responding to email communications form the company. The company disputes that BonziBUDDY is spyware, and those sources stated to support the claim actually don't. Please be more careful in future. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 10:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal communication is not referencable. Please read the first line of WP:V - threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is verifibility not truth.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banning ikedanobuo

[edit]

You wrote.

I have put up a draft of the Rfc to ban Ikedanobuo on my talk page. I need your help cleaning it up and filling it with evidence and citations. Also, if you know of any other users who would want to sign it, please notify them of it as well. Thanks! Yaki-gaijin 01:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So, I guess we just have to wait for Ikedanobuo to be an idiot again! Yaki-gaijin 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As the Beatles would sing : It won't be long!!... --Flying tiger 13:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when this RFC goes live. Ikedanabuo seems a more extreme version of Azukimonaka. I might tolerate Azukimonaka, as he seems to be more obsessed with *neutral* balance, but not complete whitewashing and wingnuttery like Ikedanabuo.--ZayZayEM 06:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure.--Flying tiger 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

.

I am unrelated to Ikebukuro. I am not interested in the fight over Flying tiger and Ikebukruo. Please do not relate me.--Azukimonaka 12:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

違いますよ. Again. You are misintrepreting my words. I am contrasting your behaviour with his.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not write my name in an irrelevant topic to me. （私の名前を出さないでください。）--Azukimonaka (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for protection of Eugenics

[edit]
Hello ZayZayEM. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [[{{{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Eugenics_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29}}}]] regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

-- ------ --Flying tiger (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshimi

[edit]

Hi, having created and written most of the article on Yoshimi, I do know well what's in it but I think the sentence should be reworded to change the word «campaigner» for a more neutral expression. For example, that Yoshimi is one of the more prolific historian on the subject. --Flying tiger (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But it is not a historians role to ask for responsibility to be accepted. In this role he is a form of political campaigner or activist.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saruhashi - shocked vs surprised

[edit]

not a big deal, but the reading I got from the cited article was that it was more than a 'surprise' that he changed his name, I'm fine leaving it as 'surprised' but shocked would be consistent with the source... now back to my bottle of wine.... Statisticalregression (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eugenics in Showa Japan

[edit]

I prepared the ongoing discussion. However, you must prepare the problem for the solution if you are dissatisfied. --Azukimonaka (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow the mediator to fill their role. The previous discussion had been archived. Please do not continually reinsert it.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I indicated the errors. And, it is not yet answered. To cheat the answer, did you store it?　--Azukimonaka (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What errors? Answered where? Store what, and where? How is it cheating? Please you do not make sense. I cannot answer or respond to statements that make no sense, or are the result of complete misunderstanding.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Boldly Go

[edit]

Thanks for the catch on the sub-heading. Does the change satisfy your concern? ASpafford (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a start. The article has absolutely no third party sources. It's all straight from TBG mouth. This lends itself to an overall proimotional feel, and excessive linking to official sites.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What did you mean in your history comment "wow, tagging aricles can do something"? ASpafford (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You actually modified the article to improve it. I tag a lot of articles (probably 1000s) and the usual response is to revert the addition of tags and complain I am harrasing editors.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Good job. Impressive. I like the way you think. TableManners (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCID

[edit]

See reply on talk page of Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (non-human). Thanks Montanabw(talk) 07:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slifkin bibliography

[edit]

A bibliography includes the texts and other references used to compile an article or book -- it is not to list the books written by an author at the end of that author's biographical article - despite the possibility that the bibliography might include some of the books that he wrote. Please respond; thank you! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I think a bibliography is. I do not think it is what a lot of people editing biographies on wikipedia think one is. Almost all bibliographies I have seen in wikipedia have been lists of books authored by the article's subject. Even on non-biographies they seem to be *related book* lists rather than actual sources used to construct the article (which at least fits another definition wikt:bibliography)--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the bibliography includes texts that were not authored by Slifkin; how can the bibliography refer to his texts and at the same time refer to texts related to the article, including both those texts authored by Slifkin as well as those, by other authors, related to the article? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so. I just don't think the same books need to be listed in the article twice. You are more knowledgable in this area than I. Do as you please.--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well...I will remove mention of his texts from the "bibliography". DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese extremist

[edit]

Hello. Way back in August you slapped a POV tag on an article on some blowhard. The template points people to a non-existent complaint on a non-existent discussion page. That matter aside, I think that the people who think that this person deserves an article have had more than enough time to come up with evidence that his existence is noted outside the blogosphere, low-circulation flyers, etc. Time for AfD? -- Hoary (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Doronpa is notable enough. I have vaguely heard of him (perhaps I spend to much time in teh blogosphere). However this is rather biased article, so I am going to stubify it to remove POV.--ZayZayEM (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's blowhards for you: most of their efforts are directed toward getting themselves heard. Though I've never heard of him. -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

[edit]

With regard to your comments on Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed‎: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk 05:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. No personal attacks have been made. Would you rather I be non-specific about which edits (and by virtue, whose) I am expressing concern about?--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack -- unwarranted accusation of POV-editing on an article where I had not even made any substantive edits. You weren't being "specific" you were simply randomly mud-slinging. HrafnTalkStalk 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a comment on editing. Not editors. It was a poor accusation (and I've taken it back), but it is not a personal attack. I'm sorry if it was taken as random mud-slinging. --ZayZayEM (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]
Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane meetup

[edit]
Brisbane Meetup
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Delivered on behalf of Dihydrogen Monoxide. Sorry you got this later than some other people - took the lazy botop 2 days to run :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ESJ Tags

[edit]

Hi, I noticed your edit on ESJ. I wonder why you put back those tags ? If I remember, those were added by Azukimonaka/KoreanShoriSenyou and now that he has been blocked as a sockpuppeter [[16]] (I now understand why he was so obsessed with korean bashing...), is there a rational user who will argue that there is not enough citations in this short article ? There is almost one in each sentence !!

More, if you dispute some of the content, you can always make constructive edits and add yours. I may be wrong but I do not think you're willing start a silly war edit like Azukimonaka... --Flying tiger (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am still fairly convinced these articles should wholsale be ugraded outside of the Showa era, and then progressively formed into summary style. Not only is the "Showa period" limiting, it is also hard to define precisely in terms of social idealogies such as xenophobia, eugenics etc. which may not follow the same pattern exactly. I will be back to active editing in next couple of weeks. ttyl--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street Children article

[edit]

Greetings, I have been trying to contact anyone interested in this article with regard to a better version. I've not had much success so far and hope you will reply. almudo (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?

[edit]

[17] Whenever someone want to change something from the previous edit, he/she should provide at least one source. So "definitely" is not warranted.--Appletrees (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source didn't fit in edit. Check the next edit when sources are added. "Definitely" was warranted. Please try not to expouse own ignorance. [18]--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying there was no room for adding sources "on the page" at first? So "definitely" is not warranted. Please be careful not to expose your rudeness.--Appletrees (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lolz?--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camden

[edit]

I've removed the sentence you queried in the Camden, New South Wales article but I do think it's a bit of a stretch to call it original research. The rest of the paragraph was referenced statistics and the sentence in question was really just an overview of the stats which you acknolwedged seemed reasonable based on the reference. I can understand where you're coming from in that to draw the conclusion from the reference you have to look at every statistic in the reference but, in reality, I was looking through the stats trying to find something interesting to draw attention to and the most notable thing was there was nothing notable! The sentence isn't critical to the article so I'll accept its deletion but if you were to rank all the original research crimes, this would have to be very close to the bottom of the list. Crico (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the conclusion is reasonable or not. If it is not in the sourced reference, it should not be included in Wikipedia.It did require me to go beyond the sourced reference (I had to look up Australia's national demographics). This makes it textbook OR.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be picky, you didn't need to go beyond the reference because the reference compared Camden statistics on the left side of the page with Australian national statistics on the right. But I don't want to make a big deal about it. I was just annoyed at the time at what seemed like a petty criticisim. Crico (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane meetup invitation

[edit]
Brisbane Meetup
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hey there, you're invited to the second Brisbane Meetup. Please see the page at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/2 for more details. Hope to see you there!

Automated message delivered by Giggabot (stop!) to Wikipedians in Queensland and known Brisbaneites, at 04:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Insectivore

[edit]

Hi. I thought before I took it up on Talk:Insectivore, I'd ask you here about what was wrong with my good-faith edit of Insectivore, and what does your revert summary "NOR" mean? --arkuat (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR no original research. I removed your edit as good faith. It just wasn't useful where it was. It also presented information without a resource. Something to be avoided on wikipedia. You can't go inserting metaphors that you think are helpful. That's not how wikipedia works. I hope it doesn't discourage you from contributing to the project - and may encourage you to look up guidelines on writing articles, using reliable sources, and things not to do.--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. The article as it stands needs to be substantially modified, so that it doesn't confuse readers about the fact that Insectivora is no longer in use as a mammalian taxon. The subject of the article is indeed an ecological niche, not a taxon, and I was trying to make that clearer, as a first edit, rather than just rewriting the article from scratch. I will certainly provide citations for any facts I state that you challenge as such, but the only one you seem to have challenged so far is my claim that Insectivora is no longer in use among professional mammalian taxonomists. If you specifically reassert, on Talk:Insectivore, your challenge of my claim, I will be happy to provide a citation. The only reason I didn't cite in the first place is because it didn't occur to me that anyone would challenge the claim; it's common knowledge among people familiar with recent mammalian taxonomy.

I apologize for the markup error; I've corrected it.

Certainly none of the claims I made in my edit constitute any original research. --arkuat (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If its not sourced, it can (and should) be deleted. It's a pretty basic tenet to wikipedia. See Common knowledge. It's not a real excuse.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the citation policies. If it is not sourced and it is false, then it may be challenged and deleted. You can't go deleting relevant true and uncontroversial statements without challenging them. The protocol is challenge, discuss, then delete. --arkuat (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Anything not sourced may be deleted. If it is not sourced I (or any other user) have no way of checking it. This is why we have a policy on citing sources. I'm not discussing this issue further. Please address content issues. In light of your information I removed the entire paragraph as misleading, confusing and/or internally inconsistent. You appear to have good grasp of the content, perhaps you should draft a new paragraph on the talk page and we can discuss content.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odwalla

[edit]

Hey, I saw you contributed a while ago to Odwalla, so, if you can, could you please spare a wikimoment and come on by to help? Thanks! Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hape Kerkeling

[edit]

As part of WikiProject: Wikify I've been keeping an eye on new articles tagged with {{wikify}} to help prevent an enormous backlog. I noticed you tagged Hape Kerkeling just today, however when I took a look at it, it didn't seem that it needed to be wikified. If there is something I am missing please let me know and I'll fix up the article. Thank you! Bvlax2005 (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears I've been using the tag wrongly. I will replace it with {{cleanup}}. I just did a spate of drive by tagging, feel free to change any of my other tags to cleanup as appropriate as well. I think these articles need proper sectionising, and prose cleanup.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I just didn't want to remove the tag, if you noticed something that needed fixing  :) Bvlax2005 (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting ahead of yourself

[edit]

Hi, just letting you that it's still August :-P [19] ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 11:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I come from the FUTURE!!!!! wooooo.--ZayZayEM (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Female wartime crossdressers in the American Civil War

[edit]

Category:Female wartime crossdressers in the American Civil War, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

[edit]

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reverts

[edit]

I'm sorrry that I have found it necessary to make so many reverts. Each one was carefully considered. For example seasonal flu. Google it. You will find that it is a term that is used as a synonym for "human flu". Flu season on the other hand is flu season for other animals as well, birds for example. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google ≠ wikipedia. The Wikipedia article Flu season makes no mention of non-human influenza seasons. Please take a look at my comments on Talk:Flu season and Talk:Human influenza regarding making the title, topic, and direction articles more clear, appropriate and accurately reflecting their content. Seasonal flu clearly refers to flu occuring in seasonal nature see US gov, Can gov google books etc. --ZayZayEM (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh any response to my Skype request? not requiring voicechat, just wordchat. that way we can compare notes on websites in real time and discuss what things are saying and how best to write them to reflect sources and attribute to stakeholders.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force

[edit]

I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? kilbad (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment. My wiki-powers are focused on Influenza related articles.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization. kilbad (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Talbot

[edit]

Thanks for your help - position is is not strong enough for the article to fight off speedy delete at present - so not worth effort wasting time trying to create it yet. Still searching for documentation. FoolesTroupe (talk)

Requested moves

[edit]

Hello ZayZayEM. I noticed your two move proposals, but wonder if you can find any backup in our existing policy for the convention you're proposing. WP:MOS seems to regulate everything but the price of tea in China but I couldn't figure out if it had anything to see on names of diseases or viruses. If there's no existing recommended style, it would be helpful to find more examples. Since there is uncertainty, it might be better to relocate these move requests down into the section below, 'Incomplete and contested moves.' EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


That Mucoid Plaque Article

[edit]

Greetings ZayZayEM. I agree with your arguments on the mucoid plaque talk page. Please take some time to study my recent revision as well as my edit history. I believe I have been able to make some improvements and helpful additions to the article. If you study the talk page you will find that you are not the only skeptic that has complained about the article. Heelop (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful. Heelop is a true believer in this scam, not a scientific skeptic. He has a pretty dubious history here which has gotten him into a bit of hot water, and following his advice and encouragement would be unwise. -- Fyslee / talk 05:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be very careful. WP:NPA. --ZayZayEM (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I do love Anderon's response to pathologist calling on his quackery

Surgeons and regular doctors are not trained in the subject of mucoid plaque and therefore remain unaware of this important bowel condition.

— Richard Anderson[20]
  • Maybe because doctor's are not routinely trained in fictitious diseases. You'll be surprised they aren't trained about Verucca Nomes either... I also like the idea there is such a thing as an irregular doctor (oh maybe that is what a naturopath is), and yet there are not any irregular surgeons?). --ZayZayEM (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again ZayZayEM. I'm having problems with one of the editors and I put the neutrality dispute sign back up again. In order to prevent an edit war, can you come and add your two cents? I have explained the problem on the mucoid plaque talk page. Heelop (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said.

[edit]

I really like your quibble in an RfC at Talk:Chiropractic a few weeks ago. Very useful analogy which clarifies the situation quite well.

While scrolling through your contribs to find the diff for the above comment, I notice you've commented at Talk:Mucoid plaque. I've edited that article in the past; maybe I'll go and have a look and see what's happening there. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bioluminescent GM Plants and Trees

[edit]

Hello, ZayZayEM!
Are you a genetic engineer?
Right now, via Google, I have found, that it is not a new idea, about creating of Bioluminescent GM Plants and Trees (including Christmas trees). Look at these links:

Krasss (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not an engineer. More plain ol' genetics and bioinformatics. And not right at the moment. Anywaaaay. The issue with genetic engineering plants, rather than say a cat, to have luminescence is that plants are not very good at keeping their genes to themselves. Plants release pollen into the wind, and it can be very difficult to control where that goes. Genetic material from GM Crops almost always leaks into the natural environment, particularly into related species of plants. The environment is one big plant inter-species orgy - and that's why you get hayfever.
With bioluminescence, I just don't think it gets bright enough to be similar to a street light. Christmas tree, maybe. Safety lighting in parks, maybe.
Bioluminescence seems very weak and hazy. More of a glow than a piercing light beam. It is normally found in environments that are very dark (deep ocean, dark forests, caves). It could serve a purpose in similar environments for humans (deep sea exploration, spelunking) where other lights are not readily available. In a city, where other light sources are plentiful, it just wouldn't work that well as a replacement (maybe as an emergency, but how would you turn them on as an emergency?)--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About your question, see this link [22], especially the text at the bottom of the page:
There are futuristic visions of glowing Christmas trees, plants that light up along highways, or even crops that glow when they are thirsty, but this type of light emission doesn't have an ecological context.
About plants, that releases pollen into the wind. Of course, GM-lighting genes must not be included to a grass, - but only to trees (for example, to pine trees or palms), that grows very slowly and can be easily controlled (by theirs lighting ability).
Also, these links means, that this subject is well-known, and is not confidential. So, I think that this information can be added to the main article, and can be discussed at the talk page without any problems (I mean so called "original research", did you meant something else?). Krasss (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mucoid plaque nomination

[edit]

That was an excellent nomination on Mucoid plaque —one of the most thorough and complete nominations I have seen in several years on Wikipedia. I added a comment to remind people not to vote for deletion just because it is a fringe theory, but actually you said it well in your nomination. •Life of Riley (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you thank MastCell. I actually thought we could make an article at first. Most of the commentary comes from discussion with MC.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ZayZayEM. Thanks for your note regarding the AfD on mucoid plaque. I am respectfully going to sit this one out. Best regards -- Samir 07:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pro/Con in AfD

[edit]

As someone who has nominated articles for deletion and who has otherwise had some commitment to this-or-that AfD debate, I quite understand the desire to reply to many or all of the comments with which one disagrees. But, in my opinion, trying to treat an AfD discussion as a pro/con debate is usually a waste of time. One is very unlikely to get a significant share of one's opponents to reverse themselves, and the closing admin is not supposed to be acting like a judge of an adversarial process. (And, well, when they do their judgment is as likely to be insane as to be reasonable.)

Unfortunately, while attention to the counter-arguments that one is providing might persuade a rational reader than one has all one's ducks in a row, and a rock-solid case, the more likely impression (of a typical reader) is that one is emotionally over-committed, or fanatic. I'm not saying that one should make no replies to the views offered; just that one should carefully pick the sub-battles. Select only representative opponents of the important contrary views for replies. —SlamDiego←T 09:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each individual editor should be offered a chance to participate equally in this discussion. I believe individual replies would be more pro-active in encouraging that. You will notice that several of the replies have been individual tailored. I believe in equal treatment of editors until they show a need for otherwise.--ZayZayEM (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the perception problem that I've already mentioned, the problem with that rationale is that it ignores the implicit size, complexity, and redundancy that results were every participant to embrace it. With 5 editors on each side, we'd start with 10 comments, each followed by 5 replies, each reply then followed by 5 replies specific to it, and so forth; and that all on the assumption that each group of five did not reply to comments within their own group. In the real world, people would miss important points simply because they'd quickly tire of wading through repetition.
It's really “no skin off my nose” for you to approach discussion in this manner, except insofar as I think that Wikipedia will sometimes be improved when your views are clearly apprehended, and I think that you're hurting the chances of such. —SlamDiego←T 16:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But as you notice. Most editors do not reply. If I do not reply to those editors who fail to qualify their claims, their claims go uncontested. --ZayZayEM (talk) 23:49,' 26 January 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't change the point that the principle that you express, if generally embraced, would make Wikipedia unworkable. And what you need to see is that contesting each variant of assertion can be less rhetorically effective than simply contesting representative, important assertions. If you proceed in like manner through-out Wikipedia, then we will be lucky if jerks do not censure you for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. (I say “we” advisedly, and “jerks” advisedly, because everyone ought to recognize that you're simply making an earnest effort at reasoned discourse, and Wikipedia needs more sincere attempts at reason in its discourse.) —SlamDiego←T 10:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing disruptive in my behaviour. The worst I can be accused of is making the AFD discussion unwieldly long (and perhaps malicious compliance?). I haven't started making wild accusations, made no mention of a cabal, and generally done my best to avoid personal attacks. And the major point is that I am not, and do not propose to proceed in a like manner throughout wikipedia. --ZayZayEM (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that your behavior was disruptive; I did not say that it would be disruptive if you proceeded in like manner elsewhere in Wikipedia. What I said was that jerks could be expected to accuse you of being disruptive if you did so. Being thorough and systematic is in some cases sufficient to produce such accusations, often from admins. (I've seen it done repeatedly.) And it's not necessarily that they're acting malevolently; they simply don't recognize and appreciate systematic and thorough argument (especially if they're in the opposition).
I'm glad if this point is moot. —SlamDiego←T 11:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FfD for Time cover image

[edit]

As you were involved in some of the recent discussion and debate, I thought you might like to know a separate proceeding was brought to remove the Time image. It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_12#Time_evolution_wars.jpg . ... Kenosis (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

citation templates and auto-formatting

[edit]

Hello - I just came across this discussion and am trying to find out if anyone actually figured this all out. I have also been blithely going about using citation templates (which, contra Tony, are not at all stupid - they are very useful), with ISO dates which I have been assuming are formatting properly according to pre-set preferences, or display as ISO dates. I think that was a fine system for references, but now I'm wondering if that's still a valid way of using the templates? Do you have any idea where we stand now? thanks Tvoz/talk 01:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clue. Just do what you do. I think the issue with me saying, "use ISO", is that it doesn't work for very old texts. I think if you are using from the last two centuries, you should be fine just following ISO. If you are really concerned talk to the MOS squad--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I work mostly in the last century, so shouldn't be a problem. I wonder why they didn't leave well enough alone but then I see that a handful are very agitated about this. Why, I can't guess. Thanks anyway - nice meeting you! Tvoz/talk 03:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Avian influenza

[edit]

Thanks for the clarification. I understand now. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Swine influenza

[edit]

I have tried to structure the article as per MOS:MED. Also, I added a bunch of review articles under "Further reading" incase someone wants to read through them and add some facts. ---kilbad (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rocketbook (study guide)

[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rocketbook (study guide). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocketbook (study guide). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

Hello ZayZayEM! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 51 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Steve Abbott - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZayZayEM/archive2&oldid=1128377194"