Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:15, 23 January 2009

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z

Barnstar

It was a while ago, but I haven't forgotten. <Moved to trophy cabinet> :)

ref:deletion Satish Babu

Hi, The page Satish Babu was deleted on 13th of February.It was about the contributions of a journalist to the Regional Media. Can you let me know how it could find relevance and where i can find the deleted page? User:Madhuritalluri(talk)

Admiration

I admire your image works !

Thanks!

thank you very much!!! You´ve been very useful, keep in touch! blitox

RfA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, was unsuccessful with 61 support, 25 oppose, and 4 neutral. I've been taking the advice of the Opposes into practice and hopefully I can improve myself. Once again, thank you. ^_^

Thank you

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Barnstar

Moved to trophy cabinet.

Thanks!

Moved to trophy cabinet

Well done

Moved to trophy cabinet.

For your help on Pulmonary contusion

Moved to trophy cabinet

New Photosynthesis Project

I started this two pages:

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Photosynthesis Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Photosynthesis/proposals

Here people can discuss what should be done at all the photosynthesis articles. Kasper90 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Michaelis–Menten_kinetics

Hi Tim, I worked on Michaelis–Menten_kinetics, especially on the mathematical part which was not as well presented as I had wished for. I hope that it is more accessible and better discussed now. I still have some trouble with the presentation and the structure but at least I feel that the most important points are discussed, what do you say? While working on it I noticed the picture that you created; I think it is a very good illustration of the matter but the axis seem to be arbitrary labeled, I am not too happy about that - was there a specific reason to do it that way? Is there actual data that is behind the graph? Greetings --hroest 13:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Medical Weight Loss

Hi Tim, I really appreciate your comments regarding the request for deletion of the medical weight loss article. I am new to this whole wikipedia thing and I have to admit I am not thrilled with the debate currently raging on my recent contribution. I was hoping you could advise me on what to do here. The most recent comments have now turned to outright slander against Dr. Sasse. This is really ridiculous as he is absolutely on the front end of medical weight loss. He is well published and a leader in the field of bariatrics and medical weight loss. The latest comment from Plutonium27 has him selling snake oil and this is flat out offensive. I am very frustrated by the attacks on him and the article in general. I strongly feel the article should stand on it's own, as medical weight loss will continue to grow and define itself from bariatrics. I do not wish to resort to arguing with people who are supposed to be having an intelligent debate, but instead are now resorting to name calling. This is nonsense. Please advise!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofreq (talk • contribs) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Medical Weight Loss Merger

Hi, Tim I have two questions for you. First and foremost, I really do not want a lasting record of the libelous statement against Dr. Sasse in the archive of the article discussion. How can I have such content deleted? It is inappropriate and damaging. Second, I would like to re-state my case to have Dr. Sasse stand as a legitimate authoritative source for medical weight loss and bariatrics for that matter. There is no reason for his references to be questioned. Yes, there are commercial aspects to the website we referenced in the original article, but there is also a huge free resource of additional information available to the public. That is the section we had linked to. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.--Infofreq (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tim. Re your courtesy blanking for this AfD: please see the correspondence I had with User talk:Wronkiew. I suggest it would have been better to have clarified this situation with me (and any other "libelous statements" suggested) before acting upon the SPA's request. This was not a legal threat but it is citing subjective opinion as a civil law tort and I would have expected you to have ascertained intentions before acting. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tim thank you for your time and efforts regarding the medical weight loss article. I am kind of surprised to see this much of an aggressive response from Plutonium27. Is this the typical response to posting new articles? The continued use of SPA account in reference to me is pretty annoying but I really don't wish to waste any more time in Misplaced Pages drama. I can't wait to see the reactions to any future edits I submit to this article.--Infofreq (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Overview photosynthesis

I have rewritten the overview section, but I don't know if it is written in good enough english to post it on the Photosynthesis article page. If you have some time to check it... should be great! Kasper90 (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

PANDAS

Hey, Tim. I just came across leishmaniasis... <ugh> ... I thought I'd seen it all in my time in South America (including my bouts with hemorraghic dengue fever and other unpleasantries best left unstated), but I have never encountered that jewel and am appropriately horrified. Anyway, now that the holidays are past, I am thinking of trying to repair PANDAS in a sandbox version. I don't want to lose the information added by the new editor a while back, but it still needs to be balanced. The neurobiology and autoimmunology are a challenge for me, and my bias is an issue (I think the hypothesis provided a vehicle to emotionally and physically harm children through parental denial of genetics and the proliferation of dangerous and unproven treatments, and I don't believe it would have gained so much traction if Swedo hadn't been behind it). The question is: shall I try to sandbox it and plug away at it myself, or do you think we can put our heads together and just fix what's there now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of life

Hi, Tim, thanks for your contributions in the GA review - it's very magnanimous of you considering the history. BTW re your addition about alt biochems on other planets, are you an astrobiology or science fiction enthusiast? --Philcha (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tim, at present I can access enough articles for my purposes, but I'll keep your kind offer in mind.

My biggest concern (apart from the reviewer's comments) is that the current text provides no opportunity to link to the Three domain theory. At one stage I wrote a chunk about that, but realised it was far too long - see User:Philcha/Sandbox/LUCA. Can you suggest a good but brief way to work the 3 domains in? -Philcha (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Mensch's Barnstar
		You deserve this for the help you've given at Evolutionary history of life and other places, as well as for your patience with my opinionated approach. --Philcha (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tim, I'm not sure that linking Evolutionary history of life to Oxygen Catastrophe is a great idea:

• I don't link the sensational, POV title Oxygen Catastrophe.
• The graph there shows a slow initial build-up, a long, low plateau and then a surge after 800 MYA.
• The whole subject is uncertain - see for example Talk:Oxygen_Catastrophe#What_exactly_was_the_.22catastrophe.22_.3F - after which Martin sent me User_talk:Philcha/Archive_4#Proterozoic_ocean_chemistry... "... is a huge can of worms ...". --Philcha (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

On looking at the other link (previous version) it's as bad. What would you think about de-linking? --Philcha (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I hope you don't mind a little semi... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just don't go any further. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Origin of the universe according to John C. Lilly

You've been around long enough. I'm assuming you know deletes and merges don't mix well. Your nomination here seems to indicate something might have been salvagable. Why did you nom for deletion rather than trying a merge first? - Mgm| 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• The average Wikipedian who comments on an AFD doesn't know much more than you do. I would've tried to merge and see if it sticked. Or, alternatively, make the suggestion to the people who wrote the article on Lilly. - Mgm| 01:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Paroxetine

Do you mind if I unprotect this article? I, and another admin at RFPP, believe that the situation can be handled without full protection at this time. The editors involved have been warned, one blocked, and it seems the situation can be handled with blocks. seresin ( ¡? )  00:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind if I ask you a question about this situation which is now resovled? I am not sure why I was the only one to get the block in this situation and not TVC 15?

1) I initially did not edit the article, but began in the discussion. 2) user TVC 15 attacked me and my suggestions. 3) I appealed to more experienced users. 5) I appealed to the category wikipedia pharmacology project 4) These more experienced users sympathized with my comments and made the edits. 5) user TVC 15 reverted. 6) I undid TVC 15's reverts. 7) He undid my reverts 8) the war, for which I am guilty ensued. Shouldn't we both have reveiced the block? After all the attention, the page received a more NPOV. I can understand if you feel that I was the antagonist, but I lost patience trying to deal with TVC 15 in a rational manner. I realize that all pages are important, but when it comes to drugs used to treat clinical depression, I found TVC 15, alarmist editing to be counterproductive. Cheers Mwalla (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Thanks. And thanks for sharing those journal articles on the paroxetine page. Mwalla (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)mwalla

River Otter

Hello Tim!

Thank you for the congratulatory note. This has been a very intriguing project and I have had a great time with it. Your assistance with edits and refinement along the way helped me achieve this goal.

Cheers, --Wikitrevor (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism policy

Hi, Tim. There's a consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#Policy_change for a tougher policy on vandals. Since admins have to implement anti-vandalism policy, we need some input. Please respond there, and feel free to bring in other admins. --Philcha (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Favor

Tim,I am trying to RfC on an article, and I keep screwing up the template. Can you help?

This is the article: Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA). This is what I tried to add:

== Request for Comment: molecular lineages and family trees ==

{{RFC | section=Request for Comment: molecular lineages and family trees !! reason=Please read the two sections, "Trivia Section" and "Removal of Section." The question is whether this deleted section relied on unreliable sources, and was original research !! time=16:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)}}

Maybe the instructions at WP:RfC could be clearer? Not sure why I kept screwing up. Anyway, I appreciate any help. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Sedona method"

Thanks for the offer, Tim.

This kind of subject depresses me. I'd like to have encyclopedia articles that expose silly "therapies" for what they are, but am fairly sure that they'd be defended by the practitioners or suckers who'd claim "NPOV". So all in all I'm glad that the article was killed off. Morenoodles (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Doctor of Chiropractic

I apologize for reverting your bold merger. I feel that this discussion is too young to decide on a consensus just yet. I would prefer if we took the matter to AfD with a formal "merge" request. That said, I would be in favor of merge is we went the other way and merged "Chiropractic education" into "Doctor of Chiropractic". In terms of WP:N, I believe that the degree is much more notable than the education. Anyhow, I hope you understand my rationale for reverting. Thanks! :-) -- Levine2112 17:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)