This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 02:14, 27 February 2012 (Archiving 2 discussions to User talk:RA0808/Archives2012/February. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:14, 27 February 2012 by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussions to User talk:RA0808/Archives2012/February. (BOT))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Status: Offline 
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
- Be civil.
- I am not an administrator and I cannot undelete a deleted page, please contact the deleting administrator for that.
- I may rename or consolidate sections for the sake of organization, but will never change the text of your message.
- Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
- Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. Use the {{ping}} on your talk page or a {{talkback}} template here to remind me.
- To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
- Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
- Remember to sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Re: toxicant
I believe you inappropriately reverted my edit, which you state that I did not justify in the talk page. Please read the talk page, and you will find my comments. The prior information in the first paragraph as close to nonsensical, referring to "toxic" as an noun, and concentrating on the distinction between toxic and toxin, neither of which is "toxicant", the subject of this page. If you wish to add back in the energy theory section or the vague portion on the effects of different levels of compounds, fine, though I think it added little or nothing. However, my new first paragraph actually defines the term correctly, which was not the case before. I am only a casual wikipedia contributor and generally only change articles when I see things that are way off. I do have relevant qualifications, and feel I can add something in those cases. However, it is discouraging to try to make contributions when I first get autoreverted by a bot and then reverted by someone else as well. Nanomed Dreams (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out my mistake, I've withdrawn the warning from your talk page. Sorry about that, RA0808 contribs 04:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but I still can't change the page. I tried to undo your reversion but got re-reverted by the bot again, which is more convinced than ever that I'm a vandal. Sucks to see such a poor quality entry still up there, but I give up. Nanomed Dreams (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Re: sumo games
Sorry for the accidental blanking of this page. I meant to add some basic information (not delete it) but I had multiple windows open and clicked the wrong one. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.41.68 (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining. RA0808 contribs 15:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
about my blanking of the page Faraya Mzaar Kfardebian
Hello, I see you have restored the page Faraya mzaar kfardebian because I made it blank. Actually I copied all of its content but I want you to speedy-delete it (the blank page) because there is a huge misunderstang in the information, and I am going to make another one with the same content, but only with a different name, which is Mzaar Kfardebian, and not faraya mzaar kfardebian, and I will do a page (article) called Faraya, about the village of faraya. Please delete the Faraya Mzaar Kfardebian page, and leave the rest on me. Sincerely, samer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatoes8895 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi again
I got your message and i am grateful that you understood why i blanked the page. Now do not worry i named it for speedy deletion. I only did not want you to this that i was some kind of spam or anything like that. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatoes8895 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
And..
And sorry if it is personal, but you shouldnt call yourself "lovable nerd" because what you do is very efficient and shows that you really care about the wikipedia society as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatoes8895 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean, but thank you anyways. RA0808 contribs 22:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
...for this. Macedonian (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
RE: Epigram (newspaper)
Hi, could you please stop reverting the deletions made on this page concerning the 'Plagiarism scandal'? This fallacy should not appear on the page as it has no citation. The culprits who are persistently putting it up are doing it to spite a particular individual. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.32.250 (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- The section is clearly cited and the citation matches with the contents of the deleted section. Please do not remove information just because you don't like it, Misplaced Pages is not censored. Regards, RA0808 contribs 21:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- It looks as though the editors of Epigram have taken down the web-page with the apology on. To me this smacks of editing the history to make it more palatable. Whilst this is a very minor storm in a very small tea-cup, I cannot believe that this is in accord with the no censorship stance of Misplaced Pages. The source was there, the event happened, it is significant and yet we are apparently left with no verifiability. any thoughts or suggestions ? Regards Velella 14:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think this page needs to be semi-protected ASAP, "editing the history to make it more palatable" as you so aptly stated. It's obvious that Epigram is trying to cover up their mistake to avoid looking bad, and they're trying to do so through a variety of IP edits and new accounts. All IPs who have removed the Plagiarism section have either been registered to the University of Bristol's network or can be traced to the Bristol area, so it is obvious that everyone removing this section at least has ties to the University. At best they're concerned students, at worst they are Epigram or University staff trying to cover their rear-ends and gloss over the incident. I made a report to Requests for Page Protection yesterday stating this, but nothing has come of it. Does this need to go to WP:ANI?
- In terms of the verifiability, we could cite this cached copy held by Google in the section. It is preserved from shortly after the page was posted. RA0808 contribs 15:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- It looks as though the editors of Epigram have taken down the web-page with the apology on. To me this smacks of editing the history to make it more palatable. Whilst this is a very minor storm in a very small tea-cup, I cannot believe that this is in accord with the no censorship stance of Misplaced Pages. The source was there, the event happened, it is significant and yet we are apparently left with no verifiability. any thoughts or suggestions ? Regards Velella 14:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation
I withdrew my AfD on this article, I'm gonna re-work the article as List of campaigns against female genital mutilation which may be notable as there are several high profile organizations which have campaigns in and of themselves. Vietminh (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good outcome. RA0808 contribs 01:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, if you could state your new position on the AfD page that would be great :). Then the admin's can do a speedy keep so the article doesn't get deleted. Vietminh (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)