Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:25, 2 September 2012

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Speedy deletion nomination of James Nolan, Jr.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on James Nolan, Jr. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. --IShadowed 23:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Technical tag on Icarus complex

I agree with you. I wrote the article quickly and thought I'd get it taken a care of soon after. I plan to expand and explain terms/interpretation. Your recent placement of a technical tag on it reminded me. Thanks.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I'm sure it's a difficult subject to cover without using technical terminology. Good luck with it. MrX 21:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Great work!!

		The Citation Barnstar
		I would like to thank you for your excellent editing. Keeping articles adequately referenced can be quite tiresome, so I admire your patience and dedication. Great work, MrX. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly, George Custer's Sabre. It's my pleasure to contribute wherever I can. My Best, MrX 21:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Aces High @ 23 Wall Street

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Aces High @ 23 Wall Street, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: subject is clear - a non-notable book. Let the PROD take care of it. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Thanks for the notification. MrX 22:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

G of J Template

Thank you. Your opinion is a useful adjunct to the discussion. I am hoping we may achieve consensus that a bot might be proposed to add to the template and add the template to pages. Thank you for taking the time to think about it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, Fiddle Faddle. I'm glad my little bit of opinion was helpful. Be well, MrX 17:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Fighuhldz/sandbox review of Elemental Technologies article

Hello, would you mind reviewing the Elemental Technologies page again? I have a draft here in my sandbox: Fighuhldz/sandbox I'm sorry, but I can't seem to link you to it. I've tried to move it to a more neutral tone and would appreciate your feedback. Thank you for your help! Fighuhldz (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I would be happy to take a look at the article in your sandbox Fighuhldz. Overall, the article seems to be well written with good use of inline citations. If the blog articles from The Oregonian appeared in print, I would change those citation sources to newspaper, which would appear to be more authoritative.

The product section might be a little lengthy. I recommend removing the WP:ELs to avoid any appearance of spamming. Perhaps you could add a section about any awards, such as "Elemental Technologies Wins OnMedia 100 Award" - Business Wire - January 22, 2009.

There should probably be a section on competitors. You're fortunate to have a lot of press coverage for Elemental Technologies, so you need to make sure that you include a balanced sampling of per WP:DUE.

Finally, You should also check the links in your references to avoid WP:LINKROT. Other than that it looks good and I think it's fit for moving into the article. You may also want to get feedback from other, more experienced editors. My best, MrX 01:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review. I've removed dead links, changed a blog link, and added sections for Competitors and Awards. Would you mind looking again? Do you have an editor that you would recommend for a second opinion? Thanks for a welcoming first writing experience on Misplaced Pages!Fighuhldz (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Also, I've posted the updated article at Elemental Technologies.Fighuhldz (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The article looks fine to me. Perhaps it would be better if the Awards and Competitors sections were narrative, rater than lists, but that's a fairly fine point. I don't know of any specific editors who could review your article and provide you feedback. In the past there was board that you could post to, to receive feedback, but apparently it is no longer available. You may want to find an active editor in a similar category (such as Category:Software companies based in Oregon, and post such a request to one of their talk page. Best wishes, MrX 21:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Speedy Deletion of my Article

Why do want call this article an attack page and delete it when there are plenty of other similar "attack pages" on Misplaced Pages?

For the sake of fairness, the Jewish control of Hollywood article should be deleted first and only then should my article be deleted.

See the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Jewish_control_of_Finance

Elsvan (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Elsvan, I may have erred in nominating this article for speedy deletion. In my haste, I did not see the word canard in the lede. I would have thought that such an article would be titled in a way that made it clear that the topic is a canard (e.g. Jewish control of Finance (canard), as opposed to an encyclopedia article about Jewish control of Finance. I was actually writing this on the article's talk page, when the article was deleted.

I apologize if this was mistake, but in light of the article being deleted by an admin, I am even less clear on Misplaced Pages consensus regarding such articles. MrX 18:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you should appeal to the Administrator who deleted the article to undelete/reinstate it. In any case, there should be deletion review. Elsvan (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Another editor already has done so here User talk:Alexf#Deletion question. I want to educate myself on Misplaced Pages policy/consensus about these types of articles, before I weight in any further on this issue. MrX 18:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Elsvan is a sockpuppet. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Prachursharma/Archive for some backstory. LadyofShalott 02:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Point #1

Please see the article for the album Point No. 1. It states that the name of the album is actually Point #1 "The correct title of this article is Point #1. The substitution or omission of the # sign is because of technical restrictions". I reverted your changes to the Chevelle article for that reason. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Sorry for the sloppy editing. MrX 00:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

But thanks for all your other "# → No" efforts. Much appreciated. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. — MrX 00:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What's you view on "Number → No." or " "No. → Number"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Overall, I'm for consistency throughout an article, and as much as possible, throughout WP. I'm not a fan of 'No.' since the english word 'number' does not have an 'o' in it. That said, I defer to WP:MOS for guidance, albeit incomplete. Bottom line: I would prefer that 'number' be spelled out in the main text of articles, and abbreviated in lists, but since I'm using AWB for the changes, I'm just aiming for incremental and consistent improvement at this point. MrX 15:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. That all sounds perfectly fair to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hello

I have been given a final warning for removing incorrect and biased data on the page 'Homeopathy'.. Please can you tell me why you keep reverting my deletion when the original text is biased and does not abide by wikipedias five pillars:

"We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view"."

The whole article does not present one positive trial on homeopathy-I can provide many.

It is highly biased against the profession saying that the medical profession widely views it as Quackery. Why then is it a service provided by the NHS? Do you think it is right to call a service provided by the NHS Quackery? As a worker for the NHS I really think it's disgusting to allow this on a site that I thought was reputable. There is no evidence that this is the case. The author cites one journal article, this is not enough to back up the sentence I deleted. Please explain.

Thanks Jane JB667 22:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) (moved from sub page by MrX 22:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC))

Gladly, but first a couple of housekeeping items. If you want to leave message on a users talk page, all you have to do is go to that page and select the New Section tab at the top and follow the instructions. I'm not sure how, but you created a sub page under my talk page, so I moved your comments here. Also, please sign your talk page posts by typing four tilde (~) characters in a row.

I understand your frustration and you are correct about each article needing to have a neutral point of view. Certainly, you are welcome to make bold, but sensible edits to the article. That said, any content you add should be attributable to reliable, third-party sources. Also, it should not be original research. Thus, if you were to post a clinical study, that would be a first- or possibly a second-party source. If you post "proof", it could also be considered original research.

I'm not saying that the information that you removed should not be removed, especially if does not represent a broader view. However, the presumption is that it does if it has one or more reliable sources and is the result of consensus building withing the Misplaced Pages community.

Please take time to read these help articles for a much more comprehensive explanation than I am capable of providing:

• Original research
• Reliable sources
• Reliable sources -Medicine
• Concensus
• Conflict of interest

Please keep in mind that a new editor, boldly jumping into a very controversial article, is likely to be heavily scrutinized. I earnestly recommend (as I did on your talk page), that you join the discussion on the article's talk page here Talk:Homeopathy. This is how you can gain support for your edits by building consensus with other editors. MrX 23:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your polite advice. Unfortunately I have looked at the discussion page, it is not a discussion page at all, it is a group of anti homeopathy people who know nothing about homeopathy. Same with other complimentary medicine pages on Wiki. These volunteers have the final say. There is not one link to the many positive trials of homeopathy. I'm afraid your well intentioned efforts on the site are not serving the wider community at all. I simply can't be bothered with 'pack of dogs' mentality-I have a life which doesn't allow me the time to argue with people who are clearly biased and clearly aren't going to take a balanced view on board. Look at the discussion page if you think I'm exaggerating. I'm not.

http://www.naturalnews.com/029939_Wikipedia_bias.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JB667 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hello! What's wrong with BTDigg article?

Renovator qq (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Renovator qq. As I stated in the deletion nomination, the "Article lacks independent (emphasis added), reliable sources and does not establish notability. It is also written in a promotional/advertising tone." You may want to explore WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:ADVERT and WP:COI to get an idea of why I think the article merits deletion. If this is a notable subject, you should be able to find newspaper, magazine or journal articles which cover it. As it is, it seems to be written from an original research perspective, perhaps by someone closely allied with the website. MrX 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Renovator qq (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC) I'm a fan of this project and I inserted lots of valid links. What fact are you calling into question?

I'm not calling any fact into question. "More valid links" does not help establish notability. Did you read the help articles that I referred you to, above? I really think they would answer your questions. You need to cite reliable, independent, third party sources (like new articles, not other web sites associated with the subject). I hope that helps. MrX 18:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Renovator qq (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, I did. I cited torrentfreak.com. It's the independent, third-party, reliable source. But the information about releases and history of the project name I found on the BTDigg's site. And it's logical to refer on the original source in the such cases.

In my opinion, torrentfreak.com, a blog from someone named Ernesto, does not establish that that BTDigg is notable enough to have it's own encyclopedia article. Perhaps it should be merged with the BitTorrent article.

Keep in mind that other editors may weigh in as to whether or not this article should be deleted, including you. You can post your comment(s) here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/BTDigg, but read this first: WP:GD.

I will continue to watch the page, and if you add reliable sources, I will modify my deletion nomination. Beyond that, I don't think there is much more I can do. ] 21:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

SimoJoen (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I saw your contribution, and sorry guy, you're not qualified to remove/delete such kind of articles and even edit them. You're not adequate saying that there are not reliable resources there. You should be objective, the article is not complete but well-writen.

Having problems learning how to edit

Hi there, I know you're an expert so I'd love your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriabeeching (talk • contribs) 18:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Victoriabeeching. I hardly qualify as an expert, but I would be happy to try to help you. What questions do you have, or what are you having difficulties with. MrX 18:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

disruptive editing

why you say that my editing is disruptive? I explained my changes on talk pages. Nemambrata (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You are on the right path, but the talk pages are for building consensus with other editors. Explaining your edits is a first step, but how about giving others a chance to give their views? Also, completely removing citations, especially without providing an edit summary, is considered disruptive. Also, please be aware of WP:3RR. — MrX 21:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht SPI

Your comments are invited here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbreht. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Peer review for my first page

Thanks for providing me with the useful links for the beginners. Those proved to be quite helpful during learning how-to-edit. As you know, I am a new editor at Misplaced Pages. To start with my wiki-editing, I have created an article on Kinomap. If possible, could you please review it under "peer review" scheme. Hoping to find your feedback soon so that I may start its french version. Sorry to trouble you and thanks in advance for your time.

PV 18:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranaw.vatsal (talk • contribs)

In my opinion, the article is comprehensive, but very promotion in extent and tone. I recommend really studying WP:RS and WP:PROMOTION to gain a better understanding. As the article stands now, the references are largely from the Kinomap web site, partner's web sites, personal blogs, Youtube videos and download repositories. As such, there are not objective. They also do not establish the notability of the subject, because they are not independent of the subject, nor are they notable themselves.

The question that needs to be answered is: What have other, independent, reliable third parties said about this software that makes it notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article? I hope that helps. MrX 19:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I will try to correct the tone and objectiveness of the article. Also, I will remove all the parts which haven't got any notable 3rd party citation. Actually, the concept of Geolocation Videos and Kinomap are relatively new and I couldn't find suitable page to add them due to which I had to start a new page and hence the articles have got lesser valid references based on Wiki Standards. It will be time-taking to correct the citations and the article itself but once done, I will inform you. Thanks again for your time and efforts. PV 07:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranaw.vatsal (talk • contribs)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan, Churn and change

Yes, he's edit-warring, but I'm trying to get him to come to the talk page instead of fighting. Could please you give him a chance to do this before you report him? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I wasn't planning on reporting him; I just wanted to raise his awareness to a potential issue, since he is a relatively new editor. - MrX 04:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for assuming you'd report him. In my defense, I've been dealing with some editors who are very quick to report, but you're not them so it wasn't right for me to hold you to those expectations.

In any case, it looks like he's actually on the talk page, which is the progress we were hoping for. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Jacques Goulet Timeline.png

A tag has been placed on File:Jacques Goulet Timeline.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MrX 19:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht's question about homeopathy

Dear MrX, do you have information about the research on the topic homeopathy. First in his study with spectral analysis there is not effect after Avogadro's number. And second is very interesting Studies of the properties of homeopathic solutions have one peculiarity. In the homeopathic solution the effect is influenced not only by the diluted substance and the potentiation, but also by a third feature that researchers do not report. The solution itself is potentiated in an electromagnetic device and electromagnetic fields indicate to the device an influence on the hydrogen bonds between water molecules. This means that this method of preparation of homeopathic solutions can not serve for the making of fundamental conclusions about informational properties of water. The source and the publications: http://www.medicalbiophysics.dir.bg/en/homeopathy.html Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht , you put your above comment into the middle of another conversation on my talk page. In the future, please create a new section at the bottom of the talk page.

I am not currently editing articles on homeopathy and really have no interest in doing so. As far as I know, the claims made by devotees of homeopathy have been largely repudiated by the scientific community. The Homeopathy article covers the subject quite well. - MrX 19:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

If you ever want an article, let me know and I can e-mail to you. ColaXtra (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ColaXtra, I really appreciate it! - MrX 16:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		Civility Award
		Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your civility and willingness to listen to reason. Today you showed us all how it's supposed to work. Belchfire-TALK 22:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much BelchFire. I'm really honored to receive this recognition; it means a lot to me.

Cheers — MrX 23:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

RfD protocol

Directions for closing redirect discussions are at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Administrator instructions, if you are so inclined. Despite the name of that page, you do not need to be an administrator in this instance: anyone can close it since it's been withdrawn and no other arguments for deletion have been made (per WP:SK #1), and there's no rush (it's not as if the redirect gets any traffic to speak of). I won't be doing so myself, because I am already involved, and also because I don't want to come off as a bully—just because I make big paragraphs doesn't mean I should get my way when I'm the only one asserting a particular position. Whatever the outcome, I appreciate your willingness to consider the merits of my argument. Thank you. BigNate37_(T) 01:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice BigNate37. I've closed the RfD (hopefully correctly). I appreciate that you helped me see the potential usefulness of the redirect that I had not considered. Best, — MrX 01:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. A couple things to point out: usually whoever closes the discussion will put the result in bold (see this discussion, e.g.). Also, when a redirect is kept normally the {{oldrfd}} tag goes on the talk page with appropriate parameters. In this case the nomination was withdrawn, so there was no real consensus formation and I am not sure if using {{oldrfd}} is still necessary. I guess it depends on whether the short discussion we had is relevant in a hypothetical future nomination of the same redirect. I erred on the side of caution and placed it there, hopefully by classifying it as withdrawn rather than keep it will not incorrectly imply that a consensus to keep was formed. RfD is fairly casual and low-stress compared to AfD, and I've seen quite a bit of variation in closures even in the last few weeks. BigNate37_(T) 02:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

CfA

Since you seem to know where in the sources this information explicitly stating "anti-gay" is mentioned, could you put one inline citation immediately AFTER "anti-gay"? I have no doubt it exists as you say it does. But I'm getting a bit peeved with the edit warring on this sentance and maybe a direct citation or even a quote will put this to bed. On 2nd thought it probably won't, but it's worth a try. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. — MrX 15:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect this will be a case of no good deed goes unpunished, but you have my thanks if that's any consolation.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, little green rosetta. I'm glad to help. — MrX 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! — MrX 17:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo

Hi! Your information was submitted properly. Then surveymonkey just gave you an offer to take one of their surveys. You didn't need to do that, and it has nothing to do with your Credo account. Your account information will be emailed to you by Credo in the next two weeks. Cheers! Ocaasi 18:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! — MrX 18:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm on it...

Be ready in a few mins for ya! ColaXtra (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Awesome,thanks. — MrX 19:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OK! You got an anonymous, spam e-mail address that you use to which I can send it? Send me a quick e-mail via here if you prefer not to post anything here. ColaXtra (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's here: http://www.adrive.com/public/fEYQtq/1742214.pdf. ColaXtra (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks again ColaXtra, I really appreciate it. — MrX 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! As many as often as you please! Only takes about thirty seconds out of my life. Laters... ColaXtra (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for hanging in there at Kirlian photography. GaramondLethe 19:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks GaramondLethe. I'm hoping that this article can become a featured article some day. — MrX 20:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for your assistance at Talk:Homophobia, you deserve this and have saved us all a lot of time spent in pointless arguments! ツ Jenova20 14:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jenova! I will enjoy it with a frosty glass of milk. Hopefully others who want to dredge up that tired argument will take a hint and move on to the undersides of other bridges. — MrX 14:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not likely to happen. There's 7 billion people out there and every few seconds someone will be called a homophobe. A lot of them won't care but some will look it up here. There's no way around that unless everyone decides to get along overnight...Enjoy the brownie and enjoy the rest of today! ツ Jenova20 15:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Misplaced Pages username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC & FBI

I thought this might be of interest to you. I don't have access to the sources in question, but you might.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks little green rosetta. I do have access through HighBeam. I'll see if I can anything to the discussion. – MrX 12:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanx for Assistance

I am dilazak1 managing 'Dilazak' page. Thanx for your contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.34.232 (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome Dilazak1. I'm glad I could help. – MrX 12:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edit on 'Dilazak' Page

Hi, I am Dilazak1 managing 'Dilazak' page. Just wanted to say 'Thanx' for improving the page. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilazak1 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome Dilazak1. Enjoy your day! – MrX 18:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

NOTCANVASS

Your logic and prose are impeccable. Would you please take a look at the RfCs at articles that have similar themes to articles you have commented upon? They are California Proposition 8 and Illinois Family Institute? I think the partisans on both sides could use a dose of your analysis. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You're very kind with your praise. Sure, I'll take a look at those articles and see if I can offer any help. Cheers, – MrX 00:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a blatant example of canvassing. Mr. X, if you go to these RFC's, I will point to this entry to invalidate your vote. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)