User talk:Someguy1221/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Someguy1221, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! SatuSuro 06:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick question

Hi, I noticed you left two warnings on "User talk:87.54.8.195", and that leads me to ask a question. That IP address belongs to a school (my school). There are over 900 people here using that ip address every day. And though I now realise that there are people at my school who totally disregard for wikipedia, I know that we are many, many, students and teachers here who rely on wikipedia. That's why it would be a real shame if we were blocked. Do you have any suggestion as to what I should do? Is there any chance that you could not ban us? Who should I contact here (I'm still very new to being a user here). I intend to make an announcement at my school and ask people to stop the vandalism, but it's difficult when i don't know exactly who is doing it. Thank you. Dr. Marzipan 11:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response Dr. Marzipan 11:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to William Blake

Thanks for assist. I followed the vandal from his actions on several other pages and was calling for an assist from Admin who last blocked the Vandal IP and couldn't keep up with the vandalism. As you see, she finally saw the pattern and fact he continued to vandalism even after you reverted the pranks. Cheers, HJ 11:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you get the time

WP:VAND worth a read - keep up the good work SatuSuro 12:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well worth

Populating your user page - one word or a million its up to you SatuSuro 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Congradulations!!!

You are now recognized as a recipient of the Big Boss Award. Thank you for undoing the vandalism on my userpage. This is my way of showing thanks to dedicated wikipedians. Big Boss 0 14:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This user has been recognized as a Big Boss Award recipient.

Just a tip...

When using certain template tags on talk pages, 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. Glen 09:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

there is a new account for vandalising, not that bayakuya person, I think that he changed an account to User : Lorenzo Borje. If you are admin please bann them. KGV 09:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh!

Im not vandalising the site. im trying to add some info about my school.

some people in my class are messing about but i am not...

Please can you wait till 2:50 as this is when we go home, if there is crap there then you can undo it but im gonna add some info to it aswell.

langleywood school —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.110.149.93 (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

A hand if you need it

Just dropping by to say that I just blocked 89.242.14.38 for 24 hours for the vandalism to your userpage; if it continues and you need the page semi-protected, or if there are other issues related to this that need an administrator, you're welcome to let me know on my talk page and I'll do what I can to help. Essjay (Talk) 11:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent IP vandalism to your userpage

Just thought I ought to let you know that I reported the IP who's been vandalising your userpage and it's been blocked for a day. He may well come back with a vengenance afterwards, though, I don't know. ^{Rocket71048576}∞_Talk 12:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re : Deletions

Mozilla FireFox, csdhelper, a mouse, and a hand. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

• Thank you for reverting my talk page after it was blanked. Luis¹⁹⁷² (Talk • My Contribs) 04:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

• Thanks a lot for your explanation !! i was really confused !! Persianknight (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RV on my user page

I've forgot to thank you!

I really appreciate your Counter Vandalism work ;-)

Keep going this way.

Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

McElroy Gang article, AfD, & speedy

I didn't Speedy it since I'm 99% sure I had seen it get speedied once last nigth already, and didn't want to rip the guy's head off without a secondary review by others. If someone makes one, and it gets deleted like that (with speedy/A*), and then remade, should I just re-speedy then? Or send it to afd? thanks! - Denny 14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Downey's Musical Pride

But how do I make my page notable? I'm really angry right now, and all I want is for people like you to leave my page alone, so let's get this problem solved WITHOUT deleting my group page. Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan 19:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't know how to make my page important enough for you guys. - Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

IMVU article

I wanted to get your opinion on what parts of the IMVU article seemed non-NPOV. I have added a section to Talk:IMVU Thanks! TJJFV 18:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Amusing

You might find this amusing: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/February_2007. Michaelbusch 03:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Much appreciated. Leuko 11:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion of your username (Someguy1221)

Hello, Someguy1221, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Wikipedia has a policy on what usernames editors can use. Unfortunately, concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with that policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it here. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name here following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. -- // DecaimientoPoético 21:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Someguy1221. While there had been some discussion here about whether your username met Wikipedia policy on what usernames editors can use, the result was to allow it, and that discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can still find that discussion in the archive (here). You do not need to change your username. However, if you ever wish to do so, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name: simply request a new name here following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. -- Bubba hotep 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Bubba hotep 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Someguy1221! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Templates are not needed on every nonreferenced sentence because the entire page for Luther Vandross is practically unreferenced. Instead the article has been tagged at the top and adding 1000 "reference needed" all through the article is overkill. It just makes the page look bad and I have seen very few articles this badly done. All others state at the TOP of the section or the page that the section or article does not site it's references. The quality of the article will be improved by removing the countless "citations needed" and placed at the top of the section or the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.226.14.246 (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

The article will be improved by actually referencing the numerous flagged statements. Someguy1221 03:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

No worries, mistakes happen. Thanks for catching it! Philippe 21:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

regarding your message

Hi, after visiting wikipedia today I saw a new message notification. Apparently somebody with the same IP address as mine, has made a edit to one of the topics and the edit has later been reverted by you. I would just like you to know that this is a proxy and more than one people can be accessing Wiki through it. I hope this vandalism that the editor wrote won't influence all people that use this IP and I hope there won't be any restrictions in the future caused by this childish behaviour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.65.192.44 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Hello anonymous user. Unfortunately, wikipedia has no way of distinguishing between anonymous users of the same IP address. If vandalism continues to occur from that IP, it may be necessary to block edits from it. This would only restrict editting privileges, and not viewing privileges. If you would like to distinguish yourself from anyone else who shares your IP, you may create an account. Users logged into an account will not be affected by blocks to their IP address. Someguy1221 22:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A question

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Spacecraft chart. I figured you'd know where to find this ;-) Someguy1221 22:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got nothing. Given a particular spacecraft, it can be looked up in the Horizons database (from ssd.jpl.nasa.gov). Michaelbusch 22:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher Application

Dear Someguy1221,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 09:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hilarity

Apparently there was an organized recruitment drive against me. Thanks for the help. --Philosophus ^T 11:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Regarding the edit to Karoo ISP to which you objected - there had been some confusion between Karoo ISP and the internet service MyKaroo.com. The edit was done in an attempt to address any confusion. Apparently it was not seen in that light and for that I apologize.

When that website meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for websites, then your edits will be appropriate. Until then, it is considered spam. Happy editing. Someguy1221 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Topics in ufology

This case has been opened, please see the case page at [1]. Thank you! JodyB 14:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

She Thinks His Name Was John

You said that the NPWatcher was bugging out on you. Does this mean that you didn't actually intend to put a speedy on She Thinks His Name Was John? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. The program seems to be placing speedy tags on the wrong articles. Someguy1221 22:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind welcome!

Thanks for giving me a list of articles. I'll read up on article deletion and then start practicing! Again thanks. Mseliw 18:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What The?

You don't go around deleting people's pages! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Princenoodle2000 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Kopru revisions

Thanks for keeping an eye on newly-created pages. My first draft of my article for "Kopru" was indeed poorly written; I hope that the second draft is a little better.

It's amazing how much one can learn, just by reading the instructions.

Hopefully my contribution will be enough to provoke other, more talented and informed writers to expand on the article. I'm just another fanboy, not a writer.

Anyway, thanks again, and let me know if I still need to put some polish on my article. I'll do my best.

-Trav —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trav laney (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Sources on Reeducation through labor

from 128.170.136.227:

The percentage of the political dissidents currently jailed in Chinese penal system have gravely exaggerated in by west in attempt to demonize China and the actual percentage has been repeatedly quoted by the Chinese media outside mainland China, including those from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and ethnic Chinese media in the United States and Canada. More importantly, these overseas Chinese media is labeled by the Chinese regime as "Anti-China" because of either their pro-democracy stands, or being part of Chinese Democracy Movement itself. These Chinese media includes:

China Spring (Magazine published in USA & Canada) Beijing Spring (Magazine published in USA & Canada) Epoch Times (Newspaper published in USA & Canada) Chinese Daily News (Newspaper published in USA & Canada) Lien Ho Pao (Newspaper published in Taiwan) Content (Magazine published in Hong Kong) Trend (Magazine published in Hong Kong)

Article in these pro Chinese democracy movement publications included the memoirs of those political dissidents who were jailed in the Chinese penal system such as reeducation through labor system, such as those jailed immediately after 1989 Tiananmen Square Protest, and according to these former politica dissidents, the ratio of true political prisoner had never exceeded over 0.2%, and these fact has never been reported in any mainstream / major western media.

As for the general Chinese population's support for harsh penal system and death penalty, there are numerous anonymous surveys done in China, such as those completed by the most famous survey firm in China: Zero Point Investigation. It is important to know that the Chinese populace's general support of harsh penal system and death penalty does not mean the support of the regime, and in fact, there are only 10% approval rate of the current Chinese regime and its cadres as shown in the surveys, the latest of which has just been published in local Chinese newspapers in the United States and Canada this year (2007), such as the Chinese Daily News. Again, this information has not been reported in any mainstream western media because western racists' attempt to demonize China by proclaiming everything is evil in China so the Chinese regime could not have let such surveys be revealed, despite the fact that in reality, such negative opinion regarding the regime is increasingly been allowed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.170.136.227 (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

And right there your argument miserably fails WP:V. I am not arguing fact, I am arguing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as always. It is not Wikipedia's mission to be an arbiter of truth, but verfiability is extremely important, especially when making accusations such as yours. Someguy1221 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions with Wikipedia verification policy

One of the rule listed that English source should be quoted since it is the English version. However, when the English media is unanimously one-sided about a non-English subjec, and the only opposing view is in languages other than English, is it sourcing from non-English media is a violation? If not, how do you source it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.170.136.227 (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

It is permitted to make citations to non-English sources but doing such is highly questionable in terms of verifiability and reliability, and for a viewpiont in contradiction to all major English published media, will likely be very ill received. I would suggest looking for help from the Chinese Wikiproject, here. Someguy1221 20:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Connection

It's actually made in 1961--IMDB lists official release dates as the dates films are made, so sometimes they're a bit off. Hence I put the "release date" in the infobox as 1962, but the film was completed and screened independently in 1961. A good example of this effect in IMDB's taxonomy is Le Petit Soldat, by Godard, which was his second film but is listed as his fourth because it was banned at time of release (it was finally in theatres 3 years later).--Iivishnevetsky 22:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your revert to Big Bang

Their additions weren't vandalism - it's a content dispute. I suspect they are active cosmological researchers so using VP to revert them is unnecessarily provocative. I appreciate they were pushing 3RR but they think we are suppressing their information so edit summaries in these cases are really important. If you could do any reverts the long way with an edit summary it would be appreciated. Thanks. Sophia 05:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the content in question was written as an essay, I felt at the time that using VP was not provacative due to the overhanging POV and OR appearance. I see your point of view though, and will not use VP to revert further such edits. Someguy1221 06:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I certainly didn't mean you were being provocative but just that that is how they will see it. Anything we can do to not feed their paranoia will be good! Sophia 08:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

changes to Ott

That was actually a quote from him that his parents liked the name —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.81.28 (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

AFD comment

You made a comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of time tracking software that I thought was interesting. For lack of a better place, I opened up a discussion of the underlying premise here: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Shopping_Guide?. Not really sure if I agree with you or not, but, again, an interesting idea. Thought you mind want to weigh in - MrZaius^talk 11:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion has changed in light of the recent alterations to the page, I'll be writing up my new opinion shortly. Someguy1221 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI re; Ankimai

This user is following a friend of mine around and undoing all of his edits on every topic, ranging from Nobel Prize winners to Iranian politics. S/he should stop this childish behavior, or see what it's like it have someone do it to her. I'm normally very respectful on Wikipedia and expect the same.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.238.118 (talk • contribs)

Your friend has been inserting POV into articles, in violation of wikipedia policy. By continuing to do so after being informed of this policy, and editing for the sole purpose of disrupting Wikipedia, you are all vandals. Someguy1221 06:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Vacuum Cleaner

Thanks for the help, btw. I hope I can withstand whatever shall come out of this little nagging idea of mine. Vacuum Cleaner 01 09:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete on MIAC

Hi! I just noticed that you placed a speedy delete tag on the MIAC page. Can you please respond to me on the talk page so that we can discuss this tagging. Thanks!

Done. Someguy1221 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Checking your comments, I have just restored the article, as importance does seem to be asserted. I don;t think it has been demonstrated adequately, so I've put it on a delayed deletion process for references to be inserted into the article in the next few days. When you have done so, including at least one addition 3rd party article testifying to its importance, feel free to remove the "proposed deletion tag"—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Old AFDs

I'll try to remember that. Thanks. GreenJoe 01:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Userbox

I just assumed it was, because...what else would it be? NIRVANA2764 19:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

---

No problem. It took me a minute there to figure that out. I hope it's ok, however, to list a brief summary of his powers (Just in a sentence or two for quick reference). Thanks. 76.102.15.100 06:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

idahoIZ.com

Thank you for your advice concerning idahoiz.com. I will consider new wording.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.123.4 (talk • contribs)

Vandalism

Hey, come on, his English does suck. Just look at some of his contributions. He deserves a wake-up call for saying he can contribute with professional English. --81.167.226.14 06:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at his contributions? Someguy1221 06:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article that he mostly wrote: Syretsko-Pecherska Line#Ghost stations. Read the first sentence of that section and tell me. --81.167.226.14 06:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people wrote that article, I'm not hunting through the history to find out who wrote that sentence. If you don't like his english, you're free to be bold and correct it. But changing his userpage to fake his saying he has poor English is still vandalism, and a personal attack. Someguy1221 06:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, en-2 isnt that bad. --81.167.226.14 06:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD

No, it wasn't my intention. I just didn't notice it. Thanks, Anas ^talk? 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks For Advice

Dear Someguy1221,

Thanks for your post on my Talk Page, will certainly followup on your advice.

Habbo sg 08:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Tunguska

Hey Someguy,

your message: "You recenctly removed a section from Tunguska event with an edit summary "see discussion" although I don't see a discussion on the removal of this information. Personally, I don't care, I am just left wondering what your reasoning was. Cheers"

Thanks for pointing it out. I was not logged on as User when editing the discussion page. I now have added my signature.

Cheers Christoph Scholz 10:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. I really appreciate it. --Arad 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. Someguy1221 03:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My Sig

Thanks for notifying me about my signature Chaza1000 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Please copy your reply to my talk page Chaza1000

You're welcome. Someguy1221 21:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Asteroid deflection strategies

Why wouldn't a giant robot work? ;) --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 05:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist the movie

Thanks for the message. Probably so, but (sheepishly he admits) this is my first day as an admin, so I will be a little less WP:BOLD than I probably will be a week from now. Carlossuarez46 01:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: your comment about WP:AIV

Thanks for the heads up.--Markisgreen 02:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Coaching

Someguy, I noticed you signed up for a coach. I'm available. I do have a couple of conditions though, and they are that you...

1. don't go for your RfA or accept an RfA nomination until I think you are ready (I generally post my students' RfAs, co-nominating them with the other cocoaches involved their training).
2. take the advice provided by me, your cocoaches, and your fellow students to heart (this will be a group effort).

Please let me know if you agree, and we can get started.
I look forward to your reply.
The Transhumanist

I will heartily agree to those points, and thank you for offering. Someguy1221 01:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, then let's get started!

I've added the Virtual classroom's template to your talk page above, and on there you will find links to a bunch of lessons (new ones will be added from time to time, and hopefully, one will be added by you!). Also, there are links to students' coaching pages, including yours. I'll meet you there. The Transhumanist 09:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, why thank you. I've moved the template to my userpage (and fixed my name on it too). Someguy1221 09:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You got to it just before I did.  :-) The Transhumanist 19:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For anyone reading this, I have withdrawn from this coaching offer. Someguy1221 06:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

2d, 3d vs 2nd, 3rd

Regarding the use of "2nd" vs "2d," I thought I'd add that a good chunk of military units refer to themselves with these types of numberings. For instance, on Fort Lewis, 2d Infantry Division's sign reads "2d Infantry Divison." Down the street, my unit's sign reads "62d Medical Brigade." The general population may be unaware of the "2d, 3d" rule, but when referring to military units, it might be a good idea to maintain what such military units refer to themselves as.

Well I can't vouch for the signs, but their own website used "2nd." And please note that I was not reverting you out of "general rule" for the population, but rather out of Wikipedia's manual of style for numbers. Although it is also useful to note that rules on what to refer to things as on Wikipedia are trumped by what said things are referred to as in the outside world, should they differ. I won't revert you again, although it would be useful to place your reasoning in the edit summary or the talk page of the article, so it doesn't appear you are just randomly altering the format of the numbers. Cheers. Someguy1221 20:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a reply on your coaching page

The Transhumanist 00:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Six Flags America

On the "Six Flags America" article, citations are sought for Criticism. One I found is this article, "Striving for More Family Value -- Six Flags Looks to Clean Up Its Parks and Finances With a Focus on Fun for All Ages" by Alejandro Lazo in The Washington Post, July 2, 2007; Page D01. Here is the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070100888_pf.html As soon as I figure out how to format the citation for the article, I'll add it. I don't know the format for citations, how to add footnotes, etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.227.133 (talk • contribs)

Insulin degradation

Hi, thanks a lot for your answer at the reference desk about the degradation of insulin. Do you happen to know a bit more about the mechanism? Does the receptor shuttle the insulin to the inside, or is there a separate insulin channel? The paper you linked to irritated me somewhat, because they use erythrocytes, which I thought don't even respond to insulin. As you see, lots of confusion on my part. Cheers, AxelBoldt 03:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I just found this which I think answers my question; it's basically endocytosis of the receptor-insulin complex. Still a bit troubled about the erythrocytes though. AxelBoldt 03:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The paper consistently used the term "erythrocyte extract" and identified the enzymes of interest as cytosolic. This leaves open the possibility that they lack insulin receptors on their membranes. I don't know the answer, although certainly there wouldn't be much sense in their having any. Someguy1221 05:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Virtual classroom discussion

I've restored the Virtual classroom's main discussion area. The previous one got chopped up into student coaching pages.

The current topic of discussion Trends on Wikipedia and where we are heading. Please come and join us.

The Transhumanist 22:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been participating much, things are pretty hectic at times over here...I'll return to my normal wikimadness in a week and a half. Someguy1221 05:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

West Island College

I highly disagree with your charge on West Island College. It is in fact important as it list parliamentarian members of the community.

So this means we shouldn't list in an encyclopedia the president of the United States? They are both forms of government which fall within proper boundaries on an encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.130.241 (talk • contribs)

Reply is on your talk page if you haven't seen it already. Someguy1221 05:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be mean. I was just slightly annoyed, that's all. As for the principal portion, you list branches and other government functions in Wikipedia. But I suppose I understand your point, I just do not see the harm of having it.

It is factual about the school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.200.130.241 (talk) 00:48, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Gig Harbor edits

Who the heck are you, and what gives you the right to revert the edits of people who actually LIVE in Gig Harbor?

Several local people have tried to edit the page to reflect the FACT that the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge has in completed, not under construction...

Several local people have tried to edit the page to reflect the FACT of who our elected representatives are, with appropriate links to their official Legislative (not political or campaign) websites... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.167.44 (talk) 03:48, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is, re-read the message I left you, perhaps just skip straight to WP:SPAM. External links should only exist that pertain to the topic of the article itself, not associated subjects. Someguy1221 03:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

You said I vandalized some St. Thomas something or other, which is not true. 65.3.169.199 00:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the edit history. The edit is indeed vandalism, by introducing factual inaccuracies of the notable alumni. Please do not do that. Optakeover 00:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My reply is on your talk page. Someguy1221 01:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Photon duality

Please reply to my recent questions., I appreciate thoughts from someone of your calaber --Aaron hart 11:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Someguy1221. You wrote me a very kind [2]. You are right.. but it wasn´t me. How could it be? Sorry for disturbing you, but I was sorprised for your message. --87.219.170.38 17:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dipping Tobacco

my bad just putting in general steretypes that people say around here—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.193.19 (talk • contribs)

Just stopping by to thank you for keeping your eye on that dipping tobacco vandalism.—oac old american century ^talk @ 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a reply for you on my talk page

The Transhumanist 02:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

...And some new assignments on your coaching page. The Transhumanist 02:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats So Raven The Musical Movie

A couple things you should understand, wikipedia is dose not want to delete it users ask wikipedia for the page to be deleted. Users asked for the deletion because there is lack of sources. You said the director confirmed the movie, where is the source? Exactly there is none :) So I hope this clears things up a bit. --Yankeesrj12 16:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Someguy1221 17:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Click on Thats So Raven The Musical Movie page, and click the talk page --Yankeesrj12 03:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad, i thought you were someone else --Yankeesrj12 01:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy Madison discussion

Hi Someguy,

I only deleted the discussion of that page because it was a question I asked many months ago about the copyright, in regard to the Happy Madison logo I had uploaded. The copyright issue was resolved a very long time ago so I thought it was ok to get rid of my question.

I don't mind if you think it needs to stay there.

Cheers,

Nick. AussieNickuss 09:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Negroid

Thanks for making certain that everything I said was completely ignored. It wasn't really necessary, though, because Wikipedia is quite capable of ignoring common sense, not looking at the facts, and missing the most idiotic crap right before its very eyes without the little extra boost to make sure any attempt to get the crap off the radar ASAP is ignored. Why don't you just read the damn article and what I said before you assume I'm just joining in some pre-existing idiotic edit war? The references are NOT ABOUT NEGROID. They are modern genetic studies on admixture mappings--a topic that didn't exist at the time "negroid" was used. And the edit-warring contigent has no interest in the facts of the article, they're just fighting about some picture. I hope this gets front page news on some blog--then maybe the lot of you fighting me will look at what I already said and see why Wikipedia is once more getting written up for crap. KP Botany 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but find this response of yours humorous, because I've been following this debate for over a week and I've sometimes (but silently) agreed with you. But that doesn't mean ANI is the right forum for it. Someguy1221 20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You haven't read anything I wrote at all, so you haven't agreed with what I said--I've posted only on one issue, and, what, you've agreed with me on the issues, sometimes but not others? This is my first post, on September 2, not a week ago.[3] KP Botany 20:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, I fear I've mistaken you for someone else. Apologies. In any event, ANI is still not the correct forum, unless you would like to make an accusation of bad faith. Someguy1221 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Medical advice on the Ref Desks, redux

I'm bringing this here, because I don't want anyone to feel that they need to play to the gallery, and I don't want this side dispute to distract from the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. It looks like we're still talking past each other, and we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot.

When I was referring to 'sneaking around' the guideline, I really didn't have your remark in mind. Frankly, I was thinking of StuRat, who has a long history of interpreting the medical advice rule in...unique ways. In that particular thread, he flatly states that offering a diagnosis is all right as long as it's a scary diagnosis that encourages the questioner to see a doctor and includes a referral to a physician [4]. StuRat also uses the rather iffy tactic of referring medical questions from here to the Help Desk over on the Wikiversity project to answer them. One of the more recent threads where he has done this is one you might have seen: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 August 11#Intracranial pressure, referred to give this answer.

I grant that I was a little bit concerned about your approach as well—the rule bars offering any prognosis, good or bad. I know that your heart was in the right place, and that you were trying to be helpful. But when you say "Just about everything [that causes your symptom] is reason to see a doctor as soon as possible"[5], you're offering a prognosis along with a set of (scary) diagnoses. The questioner was explicitly seeking medical advice (diseases and outcomes), and you gave him just that.

I don't think you were attempting to break the rule, and I'm quite certain you had the best of intentions in offering your answer. I do think that you inadvertently stepped over the line anyway, and I'm asking you to look carefully at your answers to medical questions in the future. I only brought up your response on the Ref Desk talk page because I was hoping for advice on how to convey this point more clearly, and given your rather rude response to my comments, you seemed to not want to have anything more to do with me. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I still don't believe that providing general information is against policy. However, I am beginning to see the multitude of reasons for not doing so much as informing an individual of the proper medical terminology for his symptom, most stemming from a possible misinterpretation by either OP or answerer resulting in directing said individual to the wrong page. And further, I had never considered the possibility that scaring someone might make them less likely to see a doctor. And funnily enough, StuRat's actions on this answer had me balking as well! (If you'll note, I provided the standard disclaimer above his response on our own ref desk.) I'll make sure to be more curt with painfully obvious requests for medical advice in the future, it's better for everyone. And I appologize for any rudeness I have sent your way, this was entirely the result of my interpretation of your comments as veiled accusations of bad faith. Someguy1221 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's okay; the rules have been neglected or so spottily observed for so long that it's going to take a little while for everyone to feel out where the lines are actually drawn again. As you've observed, some editors have set a painfully bad example, and in comparison your edits were certainly the soul of restraint.

For what it's worth, your response really wasn't so bad—I've already had another editor draw comparisons between me and a Nazi war criminal for asking him to follow the guideline.

Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Shiloh shepherd pages

Yes-I have a question for you. Where are you getting your info that a male Shiloh should weigh 180#?? It is not in the breed standard & I was merely correcting innaccurate info that someone put in there. Perhaps before you go accusing someone (who has a male Shiloh & is familiar with the breed standard) of "vandalism" you should do some research! So, before you go deleting my info again why dont you go dig up the real Shiloh breed standard (not your Wiki version)& read it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.124.191 ([[User talk:71.66.124.191|talk]]) 07:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My response is on your talk page. Someguy1221

07:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay- I am sorry--what is a hard return? Am i hitting a wrong button or something?71.66.124.191 07:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to pressing the "enter" button. When I say "wrapping" of text, I'm referring to how a line that reaches the edge of the screen "wraps" over to the other side. Forcing text to do this by pressing "enter" (this is called a hard return) is not necessary, as your browswer will wrap the text by itself. Inserting hard returns can make the text appear ugly or unreadable depending on browser settings, and can disable various HTML coded objects, like the section headers you've been breaking in half. Someguy1221 07:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

VP

Glad it's not just me. I wonder if it's the program or of something happened with Wikipedia code. It was working fine about 5 hours ago (noon my time), I took a break and then it was fouling up around 3pm my time. Dreadstar † 21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to file a report at AmiDaniel's bug tracker, and throw in a screenshot of the bug. It's really irking me...Someguy1221 21:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm checking to see if there were any coding changes to wikipedia today too. Dreadstar † 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a picture to your bug. A pic of a skipped edit. Dreadstar † 00:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

replies

You have some replies on my talk page. The Transhumanist 17:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Man vs Wild

Thanks for your input on whether the issue qualified as SYN (despite your input going against my stance). I've been trying to get outside opinions for a while on this specific issue, and you're the first to weigh in. I really appreciate it. -- Rei 22:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Quicken

They seem really keen to keep editing their page don't they! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.113.91 (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have delivered them a final warning. One more edit like that and they'll be blocked. Someguy1221 19:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've replied

Psst, hit my talk page. :) RainbowOfLight ^Talk 07:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Useless?

Should 'useless' qualify a page for deletion? What is your opinion on the page CIA triad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JA.Davidson (talk • contribs) 02:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at it but...did we bump into eachother somewhere, or is this just completely random? Someguy1221 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, at first glance this appears to be an article on a non-subject. I can't even tell what this is supposed to be about aside from a collection of random ideas. Usless isn't a reason for deletion, nor is being a sucky article. What the article really needs is to be rewritten or substantially added to so it's clear what the article is actually about. Short of that, deleted for lack of notability. You can't very well have notability established without having enough sources to explain what the subject actually is. Someguy1221 03:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

I noticed that the deletion review has not unprotected the page for US Petrochemical that I wanted to create new using your guidelines. Please advise where I should create and who I should submit to.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Achtungberlin (talk • contribs)

You can create the article at User:Achtungberlin/Sandbox. Upon its completion it can be submitted for review at WP:DRV (I can do that for you if you wish). But please be aware that the article absolutely must comply with our notability guideline for corporations. The article must be referenced by at least two (at the bare minimum) independent (which means not from the same publisher, and not from the company itself) reliable sources. The easiest way to do this is to provide news or business articles from major newspapers or magazines that discuss the company. I regret if I've made this seem overly buerocratic, but all subjects written about on Wikipedia must be notable. And if the article reads like promotional material, it will be refused by DRV, as this is the same reason all previous versions were deleted. And finally, please note that you would get the same criteria from anyone here versed in Wikipolicy, as meeting my above requirements are the only way for the article to pass a review. (and please stick to one username.) Someguy1221 02:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Hey, thanks for your vandalism reversions at Stephen Mandel, Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, Mark Norris, and Ed Stelmach. One request, though: if you're reverting the edits of a vandal who has made a series of consecutive edits, could you make sure you're reverting everything they did? Some stuff slipped through your reversion in both the Norris and Stelmach articles. Sarcasticidealist 06:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I only missed vandalism in the Mark Norris article, which I only failed to notice due to the curiously constructive addition that accompanied it. Someguy1221 06:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, oops. I missed it on Stelmach too, my bad :-( Someguy1221 06:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you contesting Caffe D'Amore's Article

I'm sorry you feel this is an advertisement, but it is simply a historical documentation of a company forumalted over 100 years ago. If you feel this is an advertisement, then Peets coffee, Folgers, The Coffee Bean, the San Antonio Winery and other articles should be removed.

There is no advertising in this article.

The are the facts of this company which started many trends for the beverage industry. I think that is valid.

Dreambuildersco 18:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I did a large rewrite of the page. You may wish to reexamine it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RedirectCleanupBot

Is your comment/oppose a serious comment? You do realize it's a bot, right? - auburnpilot talk 15:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Last Piece theory

Just wondering, what is the last piece theory? HarrisonB Speak! 05:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The theory that humans become more generous to one another when food supplies become scarce. Someguy1221 05:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks; I was reading your userpage and had no idea what you meant, because of the page being deleted now. HarrisonB Speak! 00:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't revert the reference desk

You are approaching violating the 3rr. The post you are reverting, while you may feel is funny, contributes nothing to the discussion, and only serves to ridicule. If you continue in this, you will be reported to an admin. Malamockq 03:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Malamockq, step back and take a look at what you're removing. The OP asked for a way to stop a bullet with a magnetic field, and Sean suggested a way to stop a bullet using a magnetic field. You can't get more on topic than that. When considering removal of an otherwise harmless comment from a discussion, always give the poster the benefit of the doubt. Someguy1221 03:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, for your sake I'll just quote straight from the guidelines (in case the humor is an issue for you):

The desk is not intended to present an overly formal atmosphere; responses may be lighthearted while still maintaining their purpose. Humor is allowed in reference desk answers, provided it is:

• relevant to the question,
• not at the expense of other people, including the questioner, and
• not needlessly offensive to the "typical" reference desk reader.

Someguy1221 04:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

parallel versions

Greetings

I think you may have noticed that I created a disambiguation page for Rohullah. It looks like we both prepared parallel versions of an article about the 2006 Bagram captive Rohullah.

Can we agree they should be merged?

I made a point of not naming any articles about Muslims as if Haji, Mullah, Maulvi were their given names. These are honorary titles, like Reverend. American military intelligence analysts have treated these titles as if they are part of the individuals' names, and I strongly suspect that this played a role in their inability to keep track of the captives, resulting in the mistaken release of Mullah Shahzada and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar.

I believe your version has an error. It wasn't Rohullah who was transferred to Afghan custody, it was the ohter guy named in their joint writ of habeas corpus -- Razutullah.

Cheers! Geo Swan 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason of the delete in the Mexican Army page

Hello: This is my reason to delete some parts of the Mexican Army page. I was trying to improve the Mexican Army page with the information of Military of Mexico that has the same information but with more explanations and data. Please, forgive my rokyness. Best regards. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.167.98.246 (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy-paste of Physical layer

I appologize for copying and pasting, but the default scheme for Capitolization of each word was off on Physical_layer, this was causing some broken link issues on a page I was composing. Every word in the filename should start with a capitol letter to avoid this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.nelson (talk • contribs) 00:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My reply is on your talk page. Someguy1221 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Redirect tip, I'm still relatively new to editing wiki's and didn't know about that little feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.nelson (talk • contribs) 01:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the deal?

Can you tell me what the real deal is? Are you a fellow Brit? or is there another reason why you think it is ok for someone to make inflamitory remarks on a discussion?

KITCARLSON —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitcarlson (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's go over this once more for the record, then. As for the soapbox/vanity comment: The article was created by its own subject, so while presuming it to be intentional self-promotion or advertising (which would qualify it as a soapbox) may not be assuming the best faith, I hope you can comprehend that many editors will arrive at this conclusion. In fact, we even have a guideline specifically for this sort of thing, since this has happened so very often in the past, and is generally discouraged. As for the spa comments, don't argue that; your contribs speak for themselves. Every edit you have made is either to the ICOF article or adding links to ICOF (both internal and external) to other articles (or to ICOF's AFD, or, now, to my talk page about the ICOF AFD). There's really nothing to discuss here. Someguy1221 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

message

hey thanks for the message check out my website www.freewebs.com

)

Zeitgeist (video)

• A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 21:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Moo?

moooooo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.100.86 (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Impatient, aren't you?

:-)

I recreated it because I'm working on it now. Takes between 1 to 3 hours. The Transhumanist (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My reply is on your talk page (or will be in three minutes). Does no one notice my note? :-( Someguy1221 (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping on Crossing the Ditch

Your suggestions and help with formatting are much appreciated :) Captainmax (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Any time. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

hi..

I created a page, as I am new to wiki, my page was removed. Can I submit it again, as it was removed because I deleted the speedy deletion code from the page...

let me know

Thanks Deepak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakbisht1 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Your article was deleted because it appeared to be advertising for the company. While I no longer have access to the article, I recall its containing subjective phrases that appeared to glorify the company. It is Wikipedia policy that articles ideally only contain information that is verifiable by reliable sources. Additionally, the article must assert the notability of the company. What this all means to those new to Wiki is that the company's article should be written based upon sources that are independent of the company (ie, not the company's own website). The best sources to write such an article on include (but are not limited to) reviews or articles about the company that appear in major national magazines or newspapers. Since the original article you submitted did not meet these requirements, you would have to rewrite it to submit it again. The person to ask permission to return the article to Wikipedia is Caknuck (talk · contribs), as he is the one who deleted it. I would highly suggest writing a draft of the new article at the following link: User:Deepakbisht1/Sandbox, so he can decide if it meets the criteria I have just described to you. If you are unclear about anything I have just told you, feel free to ask me again, or ask your question at the help desk, as I will be largely unavailable today. Best of luck. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Quicken loans edit

The post about them firing people was not vandalism. It is soemthing that has happened. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071015/BIZ/710150366/1001 Here is an article speaking to them letting a large number of people go and not changing employee goals.

Sorry I am not overly familiar with the html editor to properly add sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.141 (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You also have to work on your compliance with neutral point of view. Sentences "they constantly look for reasons to fire the employees who don't perform at top levels." would be considered vandalism even if you'd included the source, as the source certainly does not say anything like this. As Wikipedia prohibits original research, you cannot include your own analysis when adding content. As for the sourcing itself, it's sufficient to add a link to the news article at the end of what you are writing, and someone else (possibly me) will come along and format it. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

starting new article on living person

I am (obviously) very new to Wikipedia. I tried to start a new article on a person, a one Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland. This new article is on a person that is somewhat similar to Otto von Hapsburg so I copy-and-pasted that article to start to make the new article. Apparently that method as a quick-start to a nice new article was met with some objection (the new article appears to have been deleted entirely). Is there a template similar to the layout for the article on Otto von Hapsburg available for such a purpose. I barely know how to edit anything, let alone anything complicated, so I could certainly use help with this endeavor. Can you either start this new article for me or show me how to apply some sort of template towards starting a nice comprehensive article of the kind intended. Thanks for any help with this. -William.F.Richards (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My response is on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re. Reverts

I have replied at my talk page. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Gmail storage

Hi. I've just seen your post on Talk:Gmail about your storage space. How did you find out your size in GB (even if you can't figure out the conversion between the two)? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you try to buy more storage space from google, it gives you your current capacity in what is labeled as GB. [6] Someguy1221 (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you multiply the size (5.17GB) by 1024, it gives 5294MB, which is a few megabytes bigger than given on your mail page. So it would appear that Google uses binary GB (GiB, 1024 MB) instead of decimal GB (GB, 1000 MB). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently I can't read (oops?). Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL! No worries, glad to help :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Clem Tholet article

As you can see, I've added quite a bit of information. Would you consider removing the speedy deletion tag from this article, Clem Tholet? Sf46 (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it look slike someone else beat me to it. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 in film

There is also a separate page for films released between January and Mar. It makes the article shorter? If not then should we delete the page for January-March 2007 films? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagarin (talk • contribs) 05:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Newbie Q

I've seen company profiles on wiki yet it seems to go against wiki's policy on company advertising info. How is the line of "importance/significance" drawn? Thanks in advance. Mortex123 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The line for minimal significance is two articles or reviews of the company in two different reliable sources. The best reliable sources include (but are not limited to) well known and respected newspapers and magazines. These articles/reviews also have to actually discuss, not merely mention, the subject at hand. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. You mentioned reliable sources. Would well-known online forums be sufficient? Also, would these articles have to mention the company itself or product reviews would suffice? Another thing would be if the sources are rather "foreign" to US in nature, would that be a problem? Mortex123 (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If by online forum you mean, literally, a forum thread, then no. If by online forum you mean a group-blog that's acting like an online newspaper, then maybe. There are a few rules that can help you decide whether something is a good source. Firstly, is the content in the source just the freely spoken opinions of one or more people? If yes, bad source. If instead it is content subject to review by editors and peers (ie, you only get to see the end product after review), then it's possibly a good source (this rules out basic forum threads). Secondly, does this source have a Wikipedia article whose references include multiple reliable sources? If you can say yes to that as well, then you can assume it meets the reliable sources criteria. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel I've neglected to fully answer your question, so here's the rest. "Foreign" sources are ok. The best sources are those that meet my above requirements, and also appear online and in english. But this is by no means required (it is ideal only in the sense that it's very easy to convince people with such sources). As for the products, if you can prove company makes notable products (where notable means above the significance threshold), then it will usually be assumed the company is notable. Alternatively, if you can prove the company has won a notable award, it is usually assumed the company is notable. And now I'll probably be gone for 12 hours, so if you would like help before then, feel free to drop by the help desk. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I got your msg and thnx for all the great help. I'm still trying to get used to the wiki interface and on top of that my boss just gave me loads of new tasks to work with. So i think i'll polish the article in my sandbox for a while when i actually get some free time. Again, appreciate your help :) Mortex123 (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xantheif src (talk • contribs) 00:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User Page

How do I construct my user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xantheif src (talk • contribs) 00:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You should see a row of links across the top of this webpage, starting with your name, then my talk, my preferences, etc. Just click on your name, and start editing. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

??? The glumbert 69 factor

This is my only post to this site and I am seeing ALOT of unfamiliar messages, errors, and conflicts. And since your name appeared as possible "wikipolice" I am curious as to why if I am understanding that message right. This is a game informally held by the viewers of the site as a kind of joke amongst us and a reason to berate and mock each other. The Wikiposting is my joke w/in the game to establish myself w/in the upper ranks as I am chronically the #2 finisher under the current rules and I wish to further include more nuance to the challenge which actually does include other members of the game. The "game" in it's current state is actually becoming a little bit of a pop culture fad in itself, wholly unsupported by the company "glumbert.com" It is strictly user based and user rewarded, if only in accolades and contestial remarks by the other players/members. There is no commercial validation involved in any way, there is no designated financial reward for any entity involved other than incidental repeat viewership by the posters checking on responses, and perhaps new viewers joining in more regularly and assisting the dialogue. If you are in fact involving yourself in blocking this entry, PLEASE let it follow through for our enjoyment. We (I in this case) are not necessarily advocating or advertising the site itself. The wikipost is merely a footnore w/in the game for OUR enjoyment which happens to be exclusive to "glumbert.com" as they are the only site that actually records and shows the first viewer of their content provided they are logged in. The rules of engagement are STRICTLY for the guests of the site who choose to enjoy the interaction, and we invite you to join or participate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinkingboat69 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is Wikipedia policy that only subjects that satisfy the notability guideline may have articles on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it alright

Is it all right to upload a file such as an entire book and makeit it a wikipedia page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xantheif src (talk • contribs)

Generally no (but a good question!). Wikipedia articles are not meant to be as utterly comprehensive as a book, and for this purpose we have Wikibooks. A book on Wikibooks could certainly start as a book already in print. However, it is very important to note that books are generally copyrighted, and publishing it on a Wiki would violate that copyright. Only books in the public domain may be uploaded to a Wikimedia project. The general rule is, if the author died over a hundred years ago, you don't have to worry about the copyright at all. I hope this answers your question. If you have more questions specific to Wikibooks, I recommend you ask them over at their help desk. Cheers. Someguy1221 18:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:T-rex and Jim Kelly

I left this user a few message on his/her talk page, with a polite warning for edit warring. I assume good faith and assume the warning has been taken seriously (despite the WP:DICK tone of the users response) and consider the issue closed for now, however, I will keep an eye on things. --Quartet 03:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's nice to know that WP:NPOV is still a policy, and I haven't gone insane. Someguy1221 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Gravity

Thanks for the efforts but no one has considered what I was most concered about.That is when below the surface of the earth, or sea,the mass above you has to be considered as a separate sphere and it is alot closer than the one below you and its effect will be against the main pull downwards.82.15.53.173 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have left a very detailed response on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

American Apparel Edits

The edits I made were of items that did not have any citations linked to the comments. If that is not the proper way to handle such items, please let me know. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarina123 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Coral calcium

I'm really tired of his ceaseless edit-warring, so started an ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Magnonimous.2F24.36.201.161. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment there right now. I hope some admin comes along and reiterates to him how unacceptable this is, before his 3RR block comes along. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Someguy1221, It is not original research, the studies have been published. Magnonimous (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the reliability issues I mentioned on the talk page, these studies are about calcium, not coral calcium. It is your claim that these studies apply to coral calcium that constitutes original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Someguy1221, I've been thinking about it, and you are absolutely right. Let's stop all this fighting. I've come to the conclusion that this whole article is a content fork, and should be reintegrated into the main calcium article. Or made into a series on calcium. My feeling is that calcium and coral calcium is too closely related, and to avoid contradictions it must be merged together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnonimous (talk • contribs) 01:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on merging, I was just not going to let Wikipedia give people the idea that the studies you referenced supported any health benefits from taking coral calcium. There's already a section on purported health benefits in the main calcium article, and you could also put the information in the articles on whatever specific type of calcium was used in the research (calcium carbonate or whatnot). The original research policy expressly prohibits us from making the judgement call as to whether findings about calcium carbonate apply to coral calcium. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I got caught up in the idea, and forgot that this is an encyclopedia. I am concerned, however that either view, be it that Coral Calcium is the fountain of youth, or that it's just overblown hype, is too radical a view to allow it in wikipedia, unless it's in an article that specifically relates to these views about it. This article should be condensed to just the basic facts about Coral Calcium, and put into the calcium supplements section, with a link to a claims page, where the different points of view can be put into an opinion related context. Magnonimous (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Synthesis

This information is covered under the WP:NOTOR exception for simple logical deductions. It is a simple Syllogism.

   Major premise: Calcium Is Beneficial to Health
   Minor premise: Coral Calcium Provides Calcium
   Conclusion: Coral Calcium Is Beneficial to Health

Note that this means that it can be deduced logically, therefore the above does not have to be expressly written. Magnonimous (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"yet more sources into an original argument" Again, these sources are not part of the original argument, they are part of the discussion, to which WP:OR does not apply. --Magnonimous (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep this whole thing in one place; I hate fragmented discussions, and that's why I'm not responding substantively to this thread. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

SWHS edit

the 2nd edit about Erin Simcik was an actual event and you should not have taken it off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.114.184 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's an unverifialbe violation of the biographies of living persons policy, and its placement on Wikipedia constitutes vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Quicken Loans

Hi SomeGuy1221:

The reason I’m writing you is that you appear to be the main Wikipedia monitor who keeps an eye on our page, so I’m hoping I could work with you (or at least get an understanding of why we can’t make changes) to get the page more to the way we feel is neutral and unbiased, in the spirit of Wikipedia’s mission of open access, accuracy and neutrality (“the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”)

With that in mind, I am writing on behalf of Quicken Loans Inc. to inquire about a section in the Wikipedia page regarding our company, which states:

“Class Action Lawsuit - Quicken Loans Inc. is currently the defendant in a major class action lawsuit. This was filed against the company on behalf of employees who worked as loan consultants for any Quicken office within the past three years. The suit alleges that Quicken is in violation of the Fair Labor Act for failing to pay the plaintiffs overtime for working beyond a 40-hour work week.” <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicken_Loans>

First of all, it is unclear how this section adds value to the mission of Wikipedia and to the greater good of its audience.

Applying the convention outlined in Wikipedia’s Manual of Style (“Be careful with weasel words”), which states:

The term "weasel words" refers to expressions such as "is claimed", "is thought to be", and "is alleged." While these may be legitimate rhetorical devices, they should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they are not used to insert hidden bias…,”

It is our belief that, as defined by the Manual of Style, the words “major” and “alleges” in the above section meet the criteria of a “weasel word” and do indeed “insert hidden bias” into the article, e.g., by whose definition is it a “major” class action lawsuit?”

Further, it is Wikipedia’s own convention to:

“have a strict neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, which states that their missions are best served not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts — among which are the facts that various interpretations and points of view exist.”

It is also Wikipedia’s central premise that:

“Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. For example, if you add information to an article, be sure to include your references, as unreferenced facts are subject to removal.” Also, “However those who edit in good faith, show civility, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment.”

In conclusion, because the referenced lawsuit is an active legal proceeding, with diametrically opposed points of view and an indeterminable resolution, and keeping in mind Wikipedia’s NPOV policy and Manual of Style, as outlined above, it would seem that, for the sake of fairness, neutrality and accuracy:

1.) Either delete this section entirely which, as defined in the NPOV policy and the Manual of Style outlined above, clearly offers the most neutral and balanced solution to this matter, or,

2.) If it is determined that the referenced section is to be kept “as is,” to add this counterpoint: “Quicken Loans has denied the claim and is vigorously defending its position in court.”

Your time and consideration in this matter are greatly appreciated. The favor of a reply is respectfully requested.

Regards,

Glenn Ray Director, Public Relations Quicken Loans --Quickenloans (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In your argument on weasel words, you are half correct. The term "major" does constitute a weasel word, and I shall remove it shortly. Weasel words are normally discouraged, as you quoted, to prevent the insertion of hidden bias. However, when the source of information uses weasel words itself, there is no other unbiased way to present the information. According to the Detroit News article, the former employees "claim" the Fair Labor Act has been violated, and thus we can write that the suit "alleges" as much, without inserting any point of view unsupported by the source. I have also added a new sentence, The officers of Quicken loans have denied these claims, and say they are not aware of any such violations of the Fair Labor Act, as this is the response that is verifiable by the Detroit News article, and providing a neutral point of view is well served by including verifiable responses to verifiable allegations. As to whether this particular piece of information belongs on Wikipedia is a battle between two relevant polices: the "threshold" for inclusion on wikipedia is that information be verifiable by a reliable source, but at the same time no piece of information should be granted undue weight in an article (the most relevent portion is the third paragraph). Since the lawsuit is equally verifiable with respect to all other information in the article, and since it is granted neither a disproportionate quantity of text nor prominent placement in the article, it does not violate the undue weight sub-policy. Further, to selectively remove negative information that is verifiable and does not violate undue weight would create the appearance of an unjustified pro-Quicken Loans point of view on the article. I hope my changes to the paragraph alleviate your concerns, but feel free to discuss further with me if you wish. I thank you for your candor and politeness in this matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for adding the sentence. I really appreciate your consideration when editing the Quicken Loans page. I's also really appreciate it if you could keep an eye on it and remove any completely unfair or biased info. For example, two days ago someone wrote that we "commit mortgage fraud and sell cocaine" - this is obviously completely unfounded and a violation of Wikipedia community guidelines. We edited it out this morning (even though we don't want to edit our page and we know the community frowns on it, we obviously can't leave information like this on our page). So, I'm hoping you can watch our page and keep it neutral. Please let me know if you have any questions. I really appreciate the time you take to keep Wikipedia a useful and unbiased source of information.

Glen Quickenloans (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for keeping the Quicken Loans page neutral. Your edits are much appreciated by us.

Glen Quickenloans (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

One more question about these current edits. Is there anyway to have the affected versions of the article history hidden from public view, so that the vandals don't just keep reverting back to them? This would save all of us some time and effort. Thanks again! Glen Quickenloans (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oversight is capable of hiding the affected versions, but this request would almost certainly be declined; the transparency of Wikipedia processes is considered very important, so oversight is normally only exercised to hide the addition of information that could be used to identify or contact living persons. If these vandals continue to revert, I can always have them blocked from editing for a time, or have the page protected if they evade any blocks. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Again, I appreciate your time on this. Quickenloans (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert from 68.32.88.157 edit

Sorry, buncha idiots I work with here. I'll go yell at them for vandalising. Thanks for reverting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.88.157 (talk • contribs)

THANK YOU!

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my userpage!!! claudevsq (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Schools on dab pages

The selections I removed were:

• indiscriminate, in that schools are ten-a-penny
• frequently set indices
• mostly included because the initials happen to match up

Last time I checked, we included things on initialism dab pages not because the initials match up, but because they are referred to independently by the initials. There should be plenty of references to "DHS" which are intended to mean the Department of Homeland Security, and similarly Iain Duncan Smith was frequently referred to as simply "IDS" (and a host of amusing backronyms thereof). However, there is no need and no call to include every single school whose name begins with the letter (e.g.) A on AHS. Doing so only confuses matters, and clutters dab pages with entries that nobody is actually going to need to look up, particularly since anyone looking for a school typically either knows the name or doesn't - very rarely would someone know the initials of a school's name but not the name itself, and I challenge you to provide a practical (not hypothetical) example of a real school where this might be the case. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after I reverted your edits I spend some time pouring over the relevent guidelines searching in vain for a consensus on the matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I dare say that any attempt to do so would be disrupted by the usual rabble, claiming that this is a first step towards the exclusion and removal of schools from the 'pedia. AFAIR, after years of debating, the only thing that anyone could agree on was that the we-must-have-an-article-on-every-school-ever crowd are very vocal. I had been working on the principle that while including something in a list because it may be useful isn't always a good idea, removing things which make articles and lists less useful generally is. That in addition to the points I put forward above. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

HPV vaccine

I am an expert on the HPV vaccine , I am correcting information that a feminist has put in which is harmful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedocjd (talk • contribs)

Book of Mormon

Hi Someguy1221:

As you were asking your question in Book of Mormon talk page, I was creating my note there.

Thanks for your note on my talk page elaborating on the matter.

I think the question of the actual origin of the Book of Mormon goes very deep. If the changes adding all the "critics claim" material do not need prior discussion, it is difficult to know what would.

I think the importance of civil and orderly discussion of changes justifies reverting major changes. I realize from your message that we disagree on this point.

Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

HPV prevalence in HPV Vaccine article

It seems rather illogical to me that the prevalence of HPV "has nothing to do with" the HPV vaccine. Please explain on the article's talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference desk

We could use your help on WT:MED, where we get questions posed as "my husband has X symptoms, what could be wrong?" They usually get told to go to the reference desk but what's really needed is someone to restate the question as a reference question "what are the causes of X symptoms?" and then direct the visitor to the appropriate pages. I hope you'll stop by. --Una Smith (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what is being requested here. Has there been an ongoing discussion on medical advice at WT:MED or some related page? I was unable to find such a discussion. Or is there merely a perennial matter that you're alerting me to? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WT:MED often directs readers to the reference desk, rather than dealing with them directly. See for example this. Often, a question that is posed as a request for medical advice can and probably should be rephrased as a reference question or as a question about how to go about "researching" a medical condition using Wikipedia. This is particularly difficult when the reader has only symptoms, has consulted doctors, and still lacks a diagnosis, so their real question is how to solve a problem of diagnosis. You are familiar with reference questions, and may be able to identify these others. --Una Smith (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well in case you're still listening, I've been thinking on and off about this for since you mentioned it, and I've decided that the approach you described is a bit dicey. While the ref desk guidelines certainly only apply to the ref desk, it's very well accepted amongst the regulars that the appropriate response to a request for diagnosis or prognosis of a symptom or medical condition is to blank the question and politely refuse to answer. Teaching questioners to mask their questions as something other than requests for advice is basically an encouragement to violate the guideline. And though I realize that's all a big stretch of an argument, it's something I'd rather be ignorant of. You may do well to ask TenOfAllTrades, as he's the ref-desk-regular admin who has always seemed most interested in discussing this guideline. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments and monitoring of Naveen Jain's page desired

Hi,

I noticed that you made a change to Naveen Jain's page recently, and I followed the link to your user page. I'm a first-time editor (so you can adopt me, if you'd like!) and have updated his page in an attempt to add balance (and remove the obvious press-release nature) to the page. Since it is a page of a living person (and one who likes to edit his own page to remove anything negative; see the discussion page), I'd appreciate any feedback and monitoring you can provide.

While assuming good faith, I think that Naveen will attempt to revert or rewrite the page. I have added sources to the new, admittedly negative but accurate, information I provided, and have left the rest of what reads like his self propaganda until I get a chance to to find verifiable citations.

Any feedback and help is appreciated.

Thanks!

Str8tshooter (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd be happy to adopt you, and I'd also be happy to look over the page (which I shall do the next time I'm both available and fully awake). Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Test edit

Okay I'll be sure to avoid doing that in the future. Thanks.--Urban Rose (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

baxter of california

hello, i made some updates (the sources that you requested). can the post be viewed for submission again?

thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.176.134 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I did look over it when you added your sources, and they were reviewed by Graeme Bartlett. You'll notice that he still wasn't convinced. Now, I'm a bit of a stickler for the rules when it comes to new articles, and I couldn't satisfy myself that your sources met the reliable sources critieria. I believe Graeme is much more of an inclusionist than I am, so you may have better luck discussing this with him. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Gravity

Many thanks for the masterpiece of enlightenment that must be apreciated by many like myself.82.15.53.173 (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

atoms and stuff

If I shrunk down to the size of an atom and some how thrust in my hand, whatwould I find the atom to be made of.Likewise for the electron.I know it will have mass and charge but Cant imagine substance.Then if these smallest particals have no substance does that mean nothing in the universe has substance.My old brain is struggling with this,please help.82.15.53.173 (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My answer will be on your talk page in a few minutes. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

atoms and stuff

Thanks again for your efforts in this area.I have had a good look at the articales in the blue words.I find it a bit too much for my limited interlectual capacity.My grasp of calculus has not improved after years of neglect.Science, philosophy and theology start to mix too much for me.I can see that matter exists and that it cannot come into being from nothing,but it has done so, which makes it beyond nature.I avoid supernatural.Then I look at the situation of the atom ,and its substance cannot exist in our conception of matter, as matter needs lots of atomic particals to be what it is,to have an identity like iron or rock.There is no name I can find, for the actual stuff of atoms, or electrons.Its as if matter and energy are not interchangeable but just one thing, energy.If the smallest building block of the universe has no substance,then none of it can have.I think I will have a lie down.82.15.53.173 (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Environment California article and Primary sources

You are very quick! I was still typing my explanation on the discussion board when you reverted. Here is what Wiki says about primary sources:  : " * Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

       * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
       * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

   Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.[2] "

As I stated on the discussion board the legal documents are verifiable as they are filed in the public domain with full disclosure. I even Added a link to an officially stamped and dated document. ````richprentice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richprentice (talk • contribs) 05:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You happened to make the edit just a moment before I looked at my watchlist. Anywho, I'd prefer to keep this on the article talk page, but I'll sum a few things up here. The problem with the source boilds down to a point of view issue. A legal document only contains that information (and exactly that information) the person who filed it wanted it to say. It is not subject to any form of fact-checking or review, and contains no response from interested parties. Thus, it can only ever be used to present what is effectively a personal opinion, in violation of the policy mentioned. Further, since a legal document can be generated by anyone who cares to file the paperwork, its existence does not prove that is is worthy of mention. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

editing pages

...you said i made edits to some pages that i have never been on in my life. although one of them mwas slightly humerous, it was not me so please do not blame me in the future —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.9.71 (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding OPV-AIDS analysis

I read your recent opinion regarding "original research" -- but I think you made your judgement without knowing the relevant facts, as they have largely been edited from this entry over time through the no doubt well-intentioned but perhaps misguided activities of MastCell. I have left in an entry immediately below yours detailing many secondary references that previously draw the same connections that you are claiming to constitute "original research". I will appreciate your reexamination of this matter, because I cannot imagine you will draw the same conclusion once seeing these. Theophilus Reed (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pluto Image

I really don't care which image is used, as long as there is one on the Pluto userbox. Sf46 (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your denial of a request for creation on 2008-01-25

You denied a request for creation of an article on a software title called MagicDisc on the basis of verifiability guidelines.

You have argued that the websites on a piece of software are not reliable sources. Would you please name a few reliable sources?

And would you please compare the net effect of accepting the aforementioned request (the creation of the article, that is), to these already existing articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Palacio (only online references)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_120%25 (only the product's page cited, actually a download page)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_Tools (only online references)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCSI_Pass_Through_Direct (stub, online references)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bash ("huge" article, indispensable, yet only with online references)

For transient phenomena like software titles, small ones in particular, the only meaningful "reference" would be the product's website and credible review websites (like ZDNet, CNET, Slashdot, OSWatch).

For your information, Wikipedia's article on MediaWiki itself contains "only" online references.

The only way to "verify" a claim on some piece of software is to either read the code or run it.

Do you expect a book, a SciAm column or a Physical Reviews Letters's paper on a little program like MagicDisc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.204.208 (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

With regards to your first question, you seem to have listed a couple yourself (CNET and ZDNet; Slashdot is problematic and I haven't looked into OSWatch). Simply put, any source that submits its content to some manner of review (peer or editorial), and is itself notable, will be considered a reliable source in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Being offline is by no means a requirement of a reliable source. Indeed, online (or both) is actually preferable, as these are the easiest for editors to confirm. As for the questions on the issue of "similar articles," this is really a non-argument. By a fairly large margin of editors, "this article does X" is not considered evidence that X is OK. I further feel it's important to explain to you the purpose of applying the verifiability policy to this submission. You say that the only way of verifying the program is to run it or read the code, but this is really missing the point of the policy. To quote from the policy itself, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." We go by what reliable sources say, because those are the sources we can trust. We don't conduct our own, literal investigations into the topic of an article as doing so would constitute original research (we only repeat what other people say). Further, the truly article-killing issue here is one of notability. By a longstanding consensus of editors and administrators, only information that is "worth noting" should appear in Wikipedia. And the noteworthiness of information is judged by whether it's been published in a reliable, secondary source; if no such source has published on it, then it's simply not worth noting. And so even if no one doubts the existence of the software, an absence of sources means no article. We're simply not here to publish everything that has ever existed. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, I suppose if there are articles (like the ones I noted) that are in some way "not OK," id est they violate Wikipedia's OKness guidelines (whatever they may be), they must have been either improved or totally deleted by now. However, that is not the case. In fact, had I been a registered user of Wikipedia with one or two "OK" articles to go, I could have added as many articles like the requested one as I wished. And it seems like, either Wikipedia's guidelines differ for the registered users versus non-registered requesters or they are relaxed for "non-OK" articles that have somehow slipped in.

Like I wrote before, there are a great number of Wikipedia articles on various software titles which contain unverified claims that either lack any references or are only verified by a "self-published" (I am using the term from Wikipedia:RS) sources.

I find it a rather dishonest behavior to allow articles on certain software (because of the title itself, or the creator of the article) but disallow "similar" articles, with regards to credibility, on "similar" software.

Were this asymmetry limited to a positive bias for "open" and "free" software (like bash, or Linux, or OpenBSD) I would have undrestood, even sympathized with, it. Again, that is not the case. "Commercial" and even "non-free" (free as in free beer) software, like the aforementioned Alcohol 120% or Nero Burning ROM or Microsoft Windows, is enjoying exposure through Wikipedia while similarly "notable" software (you see, the software I requested an article for does "exactly" the same function as Alcohol 52%) is being deprived of that. I can neither understand nor sympathize with that behavior. And I will think better of using Wikipedia from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.204.56 (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, ZDNet does have a short description and download page for MagicDisc, http://downloads.zdnet.com/download.aspx?docid=233985. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.204.56 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The bias you claim to observe is merely a consequence of the fact that while "problem articles" are not dealt with in a timely manner, we don't create them at AFC. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That could be an explanation. However, I still think otherwise. That is, I believe the AFC team is raising the bar too high, compared to already existing articles. I think anonymous users are being treated asymmetrically and that is a very storng deterrent for anonymous contributions. The passer-by gets a bad impression, and the gain from that negative effect (ie, higher quality articles) is actually too low, as opposed to a strategy of creating articles easily but making sure that the "unencyclopedic" ones get pruned and the less OK ones improve. Quickly. But who am I to say.

Anyway, I will be grateful if you point me to an existing Wikipedia article on software titles that truly satisfies Wikipedia's notability, verifability, and other standards. Let me see if I can adapt my article of desire to that "example." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.204.62 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Crimson Editor comes to mind, a good example of an article that started off problematic and got saved while its deletion was being debated. It could still use tweaking, but it has the important ones down: verifiable, notable, sourced, and more or less neutral. Now, to turn satisfying four criteria into satisfying two criteria, providing reliable sources generally proves notability and verifiability. And neutral writing is usually as easy as not inserting unsourced opinions. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Indeed. User:Smith Jones tried to mark a section as {{resolved}}, when it wasn't, and archive it, but only put the {{discussion bottom}} in, breaking the page. I was trying to fix it with minimum damage. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for creation

Hi there, what's going on? It seems that the bot hasn't renamed today's page to yesterday, if you see what I mean. Did you notice this as well? Maybe the bot is on holiday! MSGJ (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That confused me as well; I wasn't quite sure what was going on (I worried at first than an archive got deleted!) Someguy1221 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem was that there was a missing noinclude tag or two somewhere and I think it stopped the bot doing its job somehow. Anyway it seemed to perform it correctly last night! MSGJ (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For you diligence and good work as a Wiki editor. JNW (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, why thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Real Critique?

I agree with you that there should be an easy way to find the sources for the facts claimed by the Zeitgeist movie, and I believe that organizing information in that way is within the scope of Wikipedia.

I have begun creating a List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie, and my plan was that once I had watched through the movie once and filled out the list, that I could ask other editors for their assistance in citing the sources for each claim (or something like that...nothing was set in stone...my main plan was to get the list complete and get a group of people together to look at it).

I just started the list last Friday, but before I could get it 1/3 of the way done it was already nominated for deletion.

Would you please visit the AfD entry for the list I just created and explain your position on whether this is Original Research as defined by WP:OR or not? Feel free to change the article I created or it's associated talk page, if you think this will help the case for not deleting the article.

Thank-you,

VegKilla (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Alison Lawton wiki page

Hi,

Thanks for replying my messages. I work for Alison, and she's very upset that her page is flagged. I have been asked to help her fix the page. I need your help. Can you please give me some advice. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindsetmedia (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Frank Howson autobiography

I would like to thank Someguy1221 (& others involved) for the time-consuming task of tracking down User:MichaelBergman's contributions to other articles and re-editing where appropriate: I happy with the ones I've read. IMO, Guy Pearce still needs to have the Howson component toned down: Pearce was already a notable TV actor (in Australia) and, although Howson assisted in Pearce's transition to film acting / international recognition, the article's sentences by Howson/Bergman read like it was a one person effort.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie

• I just created this page a week ago Friday (Jan 25) and so far I have been the only editor of this page, but I would like to avoid having it deleted in the hope that other editors will collaborate on it with me.

• I want to let you know that many things have changed regarding this article since you voted to have it deleted.

• I have fully read and responded to every Wikipedia guideline that I have been referred to,
• I have modified my plans for the article and changed the way I view the subject in order to fit within those guidelines,
• I have explained my position and my goals in detail on the AfD for the page,
• and I have completely blanked the talk page of the article since most of the concerns about guidelines involved the talk page and not the actual article.

• I am sure you will find that I have made a great effort to contribute to the usefulness and quality of Wikipedia, and that my actions are motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia and to keep Wikipedia neutral.

• I believe that the only guidelines my article can still be accused of violating are those concerning "notability" and "lists of random facts" and being that this is such a young article, I urge you to revisit the article, the AfD for the article, as well as the article's talk page, and make sure that you still feel that the article needs to be deleted right now.

• Thank-you for your time, and I appreciate your efforts in keeping Wikipedia clutter-free!

Sincerely,

VegKilla (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR issue on Naveen Jain

Hello Someguy121,

Here is some data on 216.27.105.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the Naveen Jain article. This is enough data to submit a 3RR report at WP:AN/3RR. I thought I would leave it up to you if you want to do so. It might be declined because the IP was not formally warned before his last revert. Other ideas would be (A) reopen the WP:COIN case (bring it back from the archive), or (B) file it at WP:BLP. I'll leave the next step up to you. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

---

21 Jan is a balanced version of the article, has the Seattle Times critical article (Paul A was the editor who saved this version).

17:09 9 Feb IP editor removes Seattle Times reference[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naveen_Jain&diff=next&oldid=186048069] <FIRST REMOVAL>

17:35 9 Feb Someguy1221 restores ST reference [7] [FIRST RESTORE]

20:03 9 Feb IP removes Seattle Times reference again [8] <SECOND REMOVAL>

20:05 9 Feb Someguy1221 [9] [SECOND RESTORE]

20:19 9 Feb Someguy1221 adds a further reference about accounting irregularities from USA Today[10]

21:54 9 Feb IP editor removes original Seattle Times reference plus the new one [11] <THIRD REMOVAL>

22:55 9 Feb Someguy1221 restores both references [12] [THIRD RESTORE]

10:03 10 Feb IP editor removes both references [13] <FOURTH REMOVAL, less than 24 hours after the first>

10:04 10 February Lerdthenerd restores both references [14]

18:28 10 February IP editor removes both references [15] and adds puffy promotional commentary on Naveen Jain

18:33 10 February Someguy1221 restores both references and removes the promotional material [16] [FOURTH RESTORE, more than 24 hours after the first]

EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try an ANI thread first (actually, started it before I saw this message). I don't see a need to bend over backwards for disruptive IPs who clearly know how to use Wikipedia but refuse to use talk pages. Hopefully I won't need to file a 3RR report ;-) Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Someguy1221. A static IP, whose ownership was previously disclosed in the COIN discussion, has started up again over at Naveen Jain. If you are still following this issue, your help in monitoring the situation would be appreciated. My guess is that the next step is to go directly to ANI if the IP editor won't respond to the messages and continues his work. Your previous 3RR report is at [17]. As the result of your 3RR report, a different IP making the same edits was blocked here. It is still worthwhile to issue escalating warnings on the static IP's Talk page, and ANI may expect us to ensure that the warnings were issued, even though this guy has been around the block a few times. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Keeping Up Appearances

Although I would like to solve the dispute by the means of your suggestions, the editor in question is too convinced that he’s right and I’m wrong, and prefers to get his own way by getting users he disagrees with banned. I’ve got two non-bias opinions from other editors, both of which agree with me, but he just won’t accept it. We've got a tricky one. Edito*Magica (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The other two say you are violating policies and guidelines. I have no idea what policies they could honestly be referring to, as all I see is a rearrangement of text, which would only fall under guidelines. As such, it would also be subject to editorial discretion. However, it is generally up to the person seeking to apply this discretion to establish reason/consensus for it, and incivility or assumption of bad faith by your opposers is not much of an excuse to do the same. Also note that you can choose to follow dispute resolution with or without their cooperation. The wonderful thing about filing a request for comment is that it will attract other editors to the dispute without attracting accusations of canvassing. If you decide to do this, just keep in mind that it might be a while before the matters actually resolve, as there is there is no time limit on Wikipedia. And also just remember that it's not the end of the world if Collectonian has his way. Maybe he's right, or maybe he's not. But that doesn't affect your ability to contribute to other articles, and you should have fun doing it. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Science RD

Re: kg is the base unit of mass in KMS unit system

Thanks. It's been a while since high school physics, and I didn't think a joule had that much energy! (EhJJ)^TALK 00:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I spent several minutes trying to prove the OP wrong while thinking the same thing! Someguy1221 (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Procedure for changes

I would like to know some thing regarding the change procedure that you have.

If I now write an article and get approval from you (or from someone else like you), and then I decide to add some elements, do I need to get a fresh approval for these extra elements or the first approval will suffice for these also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenan.hodzic (talk • contribs) 10:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You're free to edit any article that already exists in mainspace. Those articles we don't want people to edit are made impossible to edit, so you needn't worry about that. Someguy1221 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Louis XIV

So, do you think WP:RS/N is the right place to resolve this dispute, or is there a more appropriate forum? Coemgenus 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe RFC is the correct way to resolve this dispute. Now, I personally withdrew from the conversation after the initial statements were made as I can't personally verify most of the sources being used, nor can I read a word of French. The only problem with an RFC, generally, is that it can take a while to get participation. I see it's currently just you and two others in the discussion? You may do well to leave notification of the dispute at any relevant WikiProject talk pages to attract knowledgable editors to it. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll spread the word to the relevant projects. Coemgenus 15:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AWB

Your AutoWikiBrowser application has been approved. Good luck with the extra tool. Tiptoety ^talk 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"I doubt Will would pick on some random newb who hasn't really edited yet."

You must be new. :P Will ^(talk) 14:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

re-submitting Timberlake v. State

I'm re-submitting Timberlake v. State, but this time with 2 accompanying stub-articles as placeholders to which the proposed disambiguation page will redirect. One of the decisions is important simply because it is a death penalty case, and the other is important because it is relied on by the Supreme Court of Georgia as precedent in support of its most recent decision in the controversial Troy Anthony Davis case. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources not third-party sources

you said: "The wording is very deliberate"...deliberate for what stupidity or ignorance?...and I'm not trying to insult you personally...so chill. If you want anyone with any academic credentials to take Wikipedia seriously you have to use the terminology of scholarly "best practices." See this article: http://www.lib.umd.edu/guides/primary-sources.html. And you wonder why the academic community warns students NOT to use Wikipedia? I posted to the discussion page on the same subject matter. I'm trying to make Wikipedia into what it wants to be an excellent "tertiary" source, i.e. Wikipedia IS a third-party source. Regards Hkp-avniel (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. Wikipedia likes secondary sources, yes. But some secondary sources are written or published by individuals intimately associated with the subject of the source. We need a way to clearly brand these as unreliable. Self-published sources does a good job, but it doesn't cover quite everything. We needed a word that indicated the source must be independent of the article subject, and we have used the term "third-party." If you have a better word to use, go ahead and suggest it, but knocking us backwards in terms of reliability isn't going to solve anything. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Graphics standards

Thanks about the graphic standard. You say there is no standard, but it seems to me the idea of declaring someone unfamiliar with the topic as the audience is a pretty strong standard, which I think is wise enough. (Though by that standard I'd say that the articles with permutation diagrams like Stirling_numbers_of_the_first_kind are missing the boat.) My style was taken from the dtv Atlas zur Mathematik as far as integrating text, and while I'm no expert, clearly that style was meant for those already familiar with the topic. I'll make another attempt, but I may still need to submit as .jpg. JonShops (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That article could probably use a clearer lead, but it is not terribly likely that someone unfamiliar with combinatorics would just wander across "Stirling numbers of the first kind," and indeed, barely any articles link there. Logarithmics, on the other hand, is a basic algebraic topic, and one that is important to understand in many fields, even if one is doing little math beyond basic arithmetic. It is especially important, then, that readers who've never seen one before be able to understand the article and its images. And submitting as a jpg shouldn't be difficult; if you can save the image at all you should have the option of saving as a jpg, and one more problem solved. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Help using IRC

I've installed ChatZilla but I'm unsure of how to use this channel: #vandalism-en-wp. Sorry that I'm not more familiar with IRC.--Urban Rose 22:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know either, sorry. I don't use any Wikipedia-related IRC channels. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Freezing computer which finally shut down

Thanks for your response on the help desk.

I'm afraid I don't have the option of doing anything to the software. It's not my computer. I'm not sure whether anyone would see any continued comment I might make where I asked the question.

The other person suggested the flash on the other site might have been the problem. That's what I was thinking too. There's all this annoying stuff happening which has nothing to do with what I want. Advertisers should be held accountable for this type problem. They should not force their exciting graphics capabilities on us when we didn't ask.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my screwed-up accept over on AFC, I'm still new to it and the AFD Helper script I use messed up. Thanks again, paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 23:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Your page

what are those boxes on the side under me and how do you get them leave the answer on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingstonerules (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Province of Tajikistan: fix ref

Thank you for responding so promptly to my plea for help. I understand for the future that the trick is to add "reflist" (in double braces) after "References and notes". Best regards. Zlerman (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

--help!!--

hey im deathbylove and i have no idea how to do this!! please help me if possible..

             thx!

Photo help

Thank you for your help! Newbie here (as if you couldn't tell). So I gather entries in Wiki are very case sensitive?

Larry the Planmeister —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planmeister (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

All links are case sensitive except for the first letter/character. The search function is not case sensitive, however, which might be what causes some of that confusion. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

CFTR gene

How many nucleotides make up all of the introns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.80.238 (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

182440. This number can be deduced from the same website I gave on the reference desk. I'll repost this on your talk page as well. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Naturally Advanced

Thanks for responding to my inquiry on the help page. I edited the page as per your recommendation in an attempt to neutralize it. You mentioned that you would look for "RS's" ... what do you mean by that? If "RS's" will help get the notices off the page, I'd be glad to find some, too. Anyway, thanks again and please let me know what else I can do to improve the page. Ajcslr22 (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. By RS's, I meant reliable sources (common shortcut, WP:RS). I don't have much time to edit right now, so I'll meet you at the article talk page later, I think. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much. I'm a pathetic neophyte and your assistance is much appreciated. Oaklandishgirl (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

Hey I was just wondering how you categorize an article, if you know I would appreciate it if you would let me know.

Thanks Cgman919 (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

inconsistent with natural radioactive decay ?

1. What's the meaning of "inconsistent with natural radioactive decay"

2. From which source comes this statement?:

The isotopic signatures of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen at the layer of the bogs corresponding to 1908 were found to be inconsistent with natural radioactive decay

Please post or email me the article(s) or any other reliable source(s).

Jclerman (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Someguy1221!

Thank you for your help on the Girija Prasad Koirala page. I am still new to wikipedia so I didnt have a proper argument to give the other user, glad that you helped. 24.109.90.148 (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editor:

I sincerely believe that Wikipedia is not following the applicable law here. I do not have enough time to do Lexis/Westlaw research right now, but as an experienced legal professional, I can tell, the news warrants to be in the main page. However, I will contact you once I get time to research.

I appreciate your concern.

Sincerely,

HailBihar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailbihar (talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics

Thank you for your reply to my help desk question. I actually have a research agenda composed of 3 seperate questions. I am posting this here because I have literally exhausted all other avenues. Google has failed me. Newsgroups are overrun by trolls. There do not exist any active forums on science on the internet anymore. Everything is personal blogs now. I may have to cave in and post a video on youtube begging people for links to more material. Anyways, here are my three questions. I hope that you can help point me towards more material related to them. (1) Is the full-blown complexity of the real world a NECCESARY condition to go from open thermodynamics to self-replication? (2) Is there a small set of sufficient conditions for the emergence of self-replication? (3) What criteria, at the very least, determines if a computer simulation constitutes an "open thermodynamic system"? In other words, what are the minimal conditions for open thermodynamics in the mathematical sense? paros (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

1) I doubt the complexity of the real world is quite necessary.

2) You have to define what you mean by "self replication." In the example I gave, it shouldn't really take a lot. You have a (saline? Not sure, actually) solution of proteins or other molecules that have lower energy binding in two dimensions to eachother but also a lower energy binding to the solution in another dimension (thus, they form sheets and not clumps). This could be I imagine to far less complicated than a whole protein. Then there's what you mean by self replication...As you well know, order arises spontaneously in some systems. Oftentimes, this order is very similar wherever it appears, so how do we define replication? A crystal seed spawning a macroscopic precipitation from a solution could be considered spontaneous replication of the crystal lattice, or it is merely the crystal itself growing? It's certainly not simply "order" as the crystal (order) is responsible for the increase in local order. In the coacervate situation, individual coacervates catalyze the formation of new coacervates. Any coacervate will accrete material onto itself, and the larger it grows the lower the activation energy for cleaving in two, which will return two coacervates, thus allowing me to call this catalysis. I'm sure you can describe this as a system of two types of particles and rules for the energy based on proximal particles, but it's been simply too long since I took thermodynamics to formulate an answer.

3) In the mathematical sense, it should be quite simple. Any simulation in which there is a definable number of particles and a definable number of possible states for each particle with a definable energy for each state (if a particle's energy in a state depends on the positions/velocities/etc of other particles, than the state of a particle includes the positions/velocities/etc of everything else, which gives you quite a few states) should obey the laws of thermodynamics. An open system is merely one in which the number of particles and the total energy is not constant, but in this case you need to define a temperature of the surrounds and a chemical potential for each type of particle in the system with respect to the surrounds so that you may actually model the entering and leaving of particles/energy.

Finally, you may consider asking individual, simple, answerable questions on the ref desk or elsewhere so that if you can't quite get your whole answer in one big gulp, you can get enough bits to piece it together. Good luck. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change CSD G7

Notifying you directly because you took part in the preceding discussion. Please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal to change CSD G7. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping with the title and template for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Learner's Online Collaborative Dictionary. I am not new, but hadn't done that before, and after several attempts couldn't get it to work, so left it messy in that hope that some kind person would fix it. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)