![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Remember when using inline <ref>, make sure the article itself contains <references/> otherwise they wont work. PS. Thanks for your work on [Vegetarianism], we need all the help we can get. -- Mig77 12:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The Israeli salad - don't think I should have done this and was a bit over enthusiatic - sorry -- Nigel 19:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, which areas of the page need attention. I can provide some sources on the subject of on site only accidents. Most of these happened in medical product irradation units but these are very similar to those used for food. Also some of the medical product irradators are used to treat spices. Cadmium
Thanks for your work on the above articles - some good cleanup and NPOV amendments. Bastun 18:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You listed Escherichia coli O157:H7 as a potential copyright violation. While I never contributed to the article nor am I officially investigation could you describe (probably on the article's talk page or you listing) in more detail what exactly makes you think it's a copyvio? From a quick comparison, I couldn't really detect any blatant problems, especially with consideration that one of the sources of the wikipedia article as mention in the article is this US government (and therefore public domain) source [1] which shares similarities with the commercial link as well (it was likely one of their sources) Nil Einne 09:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Because it's quoting from the report. Otherwise that section is an attempt to deflect attention from the actual involvement of chiropractors in the rate of injuries. They are still the major players. That report just showed that there were a few cases where injuries caused by a non chiropractor had been attributed to chiropractors. This is an error of misattribution. Another more serious error is underreporting. I have collected much of the research on this subject here. The risks are small, but are catastrophic when they occur. The lucky ones die. There is no excuse, considering that most upper cervical manipulations/adjustments are unnecessary, and other -- less risky -- techniques are available. - Fyslee 18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, please advise -- the ref is from, "The China Study", which I added in the footnotes. I can ref it to the book but I've noticed all ref's are online, whereas books are noted below is that not sufficient? Thanks. - Scribner 18:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Per this edit, if it's not immediately obvious what the "suspected hoax" is, you should indicate it on the talk page so people can work on it. Otherwise, the tag will probably just sit there for ages untill someone decides to remove it. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 23:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
We don't generally block IPs unless they've vandalised recently after a final warning, to avoid collateral damage due to the frequency with which they change hands. As it says in the green AIV header, please do not simply repost reports if the IP is not blocked; either take it up with the admin on their talk page or post to WP:ANI. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thanks for your edits to fruitarianism -- hunting out those weasle words is always important for maintaining npov. however in the future it would be great if you could fill in the edit summary on your edits. there has, in the past, been a lot of vandalism, pov-pushing and revert-ing on this article and edit summaries really help keep track of the article's history for those of us who have chosen to maintain it. thanks again! -- frymaster 16:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
(The following sections were added by Wekee and an apparent sockpuppet based on the peculiar interpretation that I am a vandal)
because I am contesting their submission of unrelated material to the Fruitarian article. Directly counter to WP:OR,
they contend that sources saying "pre-human ancestors" were "primarily frugivorous" is a valid source for an article on humans choosing a fruitarian diet. Their vandalism
of this page follows my signature: Mdsummermsw 18:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
{Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Wekee 18 December 2006
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Wekee 19 December 2006
Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Owoce 08:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wekee 22:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
When placing the {{ PROD}} template on an article, please be sure to follow the guidance at WP:PROD and use an appropriate edit summary. Neier 12:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for culling the non-notables. However, I think Furly was a bit notable as he has got an ODNB entry. What criteria are you using? Vernon White . . . Talk 17:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hallo. I noticed you made some edits to the Vasectomy and PVPS pages. Do you have any particular interest in these topics? User:Luqmanskye 01:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. You added a POV tag to the Black gold (jewelry) page. The text displayed by that tag says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page." However, there IS no such discussion on the talk page. It's kind of hard to fix a problem without some idea where the problem is. Could you add a note to the talk page explaining the POV problems you perceive? -- CWesling 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
A {{
prod}} template has been added to the article
Frank Palumbo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{
db-author}}.
FisherQueen (
talk ·
contribs) 15:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
You are invited to participate in
WikiProject Philadelphia, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about
Philadelphia. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!
You can also add yourself to the list of people to be invited to our next meet-up! |
I've listed the page for deletion. Feel free to join the discussion. - Etafly 18:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Look, it seems you have good intentions and you agree to devote a lot of your time to this site. But it also seems most of what you do is deleting/censoring (depends on the interpretation) stuff. You have to realize that if you enter 100 articles and delete stuff, than with the click of the mouse you delete more than 100 people's maybe days of work. You also rarely use notifications templates or talk pages first, but just delete without blinking, sometimes almost full articles (and only then report in the talk pages). Also, your reasons are pretty wild sometimes, to say the least.
For example, you might put a certain warning template that may not belong there, and then delete everything that obviously crossed it. Or you might delete a whole citation and then delete everything that was based on it. But a better example is that it seems you entered basically every article that stated an adult actress' large breasts were used as fetish, and deleted said statement because..."there's no proof she's a fetishist"? I don't even understand what that means. The point is movie makers casted such an actress, and fans watched her, due to a very certain quality about her. As an objective encyclopedia editor, you have no choice but to realize that is the cold hard fact and the fetish part. What does it have to do with the actress' personal life? I doubt you actually believe your own reason for deleting such a thing. But I digress - sure, deleting others' work is easier, but - since I do think you have good intentions - why would you not devote more time to actually add your own work and less to censor others'? - Kumarules 20:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to thank you for your third opinion at Clifton High School (New Jersey). While I am glad that you concur with my view, I want to express my appreciation for the time and effort you expended to analyze the underlying issues and to provide a clear and concise explanation of how and why the various Wikipedia guidelines and policies come into play. This was well-researched and well-written, and I hope to be able to quote some of your analysis in the future and to use this in making notable vs. non-notable decisions. Thanks again for your time and effort. This is exactly what third opinions should be. Alansohn 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Religiosity and intelligence, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religiosity and intelligence (2nd nomination). Thank you. WotherspoonSmith 13:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The rain in Spain.... nicely spotted. By Jove, I think you've got it. DS 19:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi -
The IMDB reference clearly documents the R --> PG on appeal statement.
The other reference (Commonsense) documents the content statments. Actually, a ref isn't formally required to keep this since it is verifiable (by watching the movie), but there it is.
"Both versions" isn't mine, but I took it to mean "both the version that was originally rated R and the version that was finally rated PG". This wouldn't necessarily imply that more than one released version exists. If you can clarify this aspect, please do.
I think you are confused because the Commonsense link also shows the film being rated R; this may be because there is at least one video release being marketed stating an R rating (as I added in the recent change). Jgm 15:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for alerting me to my NPOV issues on
The Last Mimzy article. I am embarassed I missed the bias in my phrasing.
Jim Dunning |
talk 00:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, thanks for nominating these for deletion! I was doing a sweep of the old AfDs when I noticed that these hadn't been closed, so I went ahead and deleted the pages and closed them. In the future, could you please list related pages for deletion together? The instructions are here. Thanks again and keep up the good work! Glass Cobra 23:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I got your note about the edit summary. Don't be a putz. Stop your obstructionist actions on the Mummer articles. I've tried to stay neitral, but you're now being a pain and not working constructively. -- evrik ( talk) 20:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, as you did to
User talk:68.33.140.194, don't forget to
substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. —
Mears man 03:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep an eye out for "Yung D." as well. Seems to be the same person adding it. I took a scrub-brush out yesterday, and eliminated 12 references to him. Kww ( talk) 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Since you seem to be tracking him (from your "vandalism" section), I found references to Yung D in
I already removed the text, and didn't bother to go looking for the edit that added the bad info. Kww ( talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is part of the Wikipedia Rivers project. For rivers there are criteria for notability, every river, however small qualifying for an article. For the time being it is just a stub until the entire hydrologic network is defined. After that it will be expanded. 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mdsummermsw - You removed a number of redlinked evo psychologists from the List of evolutionary psychologists, stating in your edit summaries "not notable". Are you familiar with the field such that you can state, definitively, that these people are not notable, or were simply removing them based on them being red-linked? I question because, for instance, you didn't know Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's notability, and she's gotten quite a bit of mainstream media attention even as a scholar. -- Lquilter ( talk) 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Mdsummermsw 13:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You sent me a warning about a comment/edit I made on the rape page. But you failed tell me what you felt was objectionable. The only thing I can see is where a person suggested a sub-heading for "pooper rape" and I told him to grow up. Did you actually bother to send a warning for that? Niteshift36 ( talk) 07:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you think the source is enough to remove the tag? -- Topspinslams ( talk) 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Copied discussion to talk:Louisi-animal for further discussion. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 13:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |